Search

The purpose of the study is to establish the texts substance properties, to identify the features of its relationship with text structure and function and also to prove that the exclusion of substance as the most important, but not obvious for the current state of science, aspect of the system leading to semiotic distortion which cannot be improved. The study was carried out on the material of texts of different etiologies - religious and artistic, united by a functionally determined ultra-high degree of their levels consistency. The relevance of the work is determined by its significance in the development of a systematic method, the formation of the methodological foundations of systemic philology and the semiotics of culture. The systemic linguistics ideas developed in the works of W. von Humboldt, A.A. Potebnya, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.I. Sreznevsky, G.P. Melnikov, and the systemology developed by philosophers (K.F. Samokhvalov, G.P. Shchedrovitsky) and representatives of the natural and exact sciences (P.K. Anokhin, V.A. Engelgardt, L.V. Krushinsky, R.O. Bartini) did not have a direct impact on the systematic research of texts. Awareness of the significance of substance in the understanding of highly systemic texts begins to take shape in the exegesis and philosophy of art. Philology, focusing its interest mainly on fiction texts, contributes to the development of a systematic method with the emergence and development of ideas about the text dominant (yu.N. Tynyanov, R.O. yakobson), the diversity of its units (y. Mukarzhovsky), the discovery of the author’s image supercategory (V.V. Vinogradov), the identification of the method of estrangement (V.B. Shklovsky) and the universalization of it as a principle of assimilation of reality (V.B. Shklovsky, L.A. Novikov, M.L. Novikova). The comparison of different nature texts substance properties - against the background of the properties of the substance of language - allows us significantly refines the text substance understanding as the extreemly important system aspect.

The relevance of the research is caused by the need to find a method that provides a complete and systematic presentation of Russian grammar. The aim of the study is to discuss the prospects for creating a grammar that will clarify the reasons for the features of each level of the language and the principle of mutual functional coordination of all levels. Structural and systemic models for constructing grammatical theory became the object of the study, and a comparative systemic analysis of these models was used as a method. The authors show that there are objective prerequisites for the successful creation of a new model of academic grammar - determinant theory of language developed by the founder of modern systemic linguistics G.P. Melnikov. The most stable property of the language system (internal determinant), acquired as a result of its adaptation to the conditions of communication, makes it possible to explain the interdependence of the composition of vowels and consonants, the structure of the syllable, morpheme and word form, the means of syntactic connection of words in a sentence, the features of the internal form of the language, the non-randomness of the composition of grammatical categories and grammatical ways of expressing them. The internal determinant of the inflectional Russian language, formed in the conditions of poor awareness of the interlocutors about each other, formulated as the need to save the length of the speech stream due to the appearance of a large number of joint-meaning morphemes, makes it possible to explain and link such features of the Russian language as the widespread use of internal inflection and fusion, the preparedness of word forms, methods and functions of affixation, the non-randomness of the grammatical categories of tense, person and case, and ways of expressing them. Research prospects are associated with the uniqueness of the determinant approach, which synthesizes the possibilities of typological and historical approaches and makes it possible to establish the meaning and mutually agreed function of each element of the form. Therefore, it allows to create an academic grammar not of a descriptive, but of an explanatory nature.

The study is devoted to the actualization of the ideas of the great comparative scholar of the XIXth century Max Müller (1823-1900), a contemporary of A. Schleicher, who, as is traditionally believed, worked mainly in the naturalistic trend. The authors of the study show that the achievements of M. Müller were unreasonably underestimated, calling the scientist a popularizer of science. The victory of positivism in German linguistics weakened interest in the works by M. Müller: linguistics was no longer perceived as a natural science. It is noted that the positivist approach denied the “metaphysical” typology, close in spirit to M. Müller. The authors come to the conclusion that M. Müller’s ideas and methodological attitudes survived his time into the future and sound relevant in the humanities of the XXIst century, based on the anthropological understanding of linguistic phenomena. M. Müller was one of the first scholars to distinguish between philology and linguistics, he boldly extrapolated the attitudes of comparative studies to other areas of humanitarian knowledge - mythology, religion, innovatively applied a socio-cultural approach to the analysis of language features and the study of archaic texts. The study compares M. Müller’s ideas with traditional historical observations of national comparativist- and-historical observations of Russian comparativists - F.I. Buslaev and I.I. Sreznevsky. It is emphasized that his works reveal the connection of philosophy with private sciences: linguistics, theology, cultural history. In this sense, “The Science of Language” can be regarded as an original experience of creating philological hermeneutics. It is stated that M. Müller studied the historical space of language from the point of view relevant to the modern science of comparative semasiology. The refraction of his ideas is observed in the works of modern scientists - typologists, comparativists, conceptologists: V.A. Dybo, V.V. Ivanov, V.N. Toporov, Yu.S. Stepanov. Once again, the naturalistic approach is reaching a new level of development in the XXIst century, and the comparative method - the main research tool of M. Müller and other scientists of the Schleicher era - is being actualized not only in linguistics, but also in philology, history of religion and ethnology. The dialectical approach to typological linguistics applied by M. Müller, remains in demand by the science of modern times.

Systemic Linguistics by Gennadii P. Melnikov, representing the interaction of linguistics and philosophy, is a system of established scholarly knowledge. An evidence-based system of knowledge that rationally certifies Melnikov's results is reflected, in particular, in the systemic typology of languages as a subfield of systemic linguistics. Like systemic linguistics in general, systemic typology of languages has not yet been sufficiently subjected to scholarly reflection. The goal of the article is to expand the scholarly discourse on the systemic approach to language. The authors focus their attention on the explanatory potential of systemic linguistics in the study of the features of thought expression in the agglutinative Kazakh language and the problem of its conveyance by means of the inflectional Russian language. The data were obtained from everyday communication, the Kazakh-Russian dictionary (2008), samples from the Kazakh-language works by Auezov, Shakhanov, Korgasbek, Suleimenov among others, and their translations into Russian. The article aims to reveal the features of dividing sense into meanings in typologically different languages. The findings substantiated and verified the provision that in typologically different languages the division of sense into meanings differs and, depending on a meaning, may be expressed by a one-word nomination or cognomination. The study has revealed the ability of an inflectional language to convey the static character of an agglutinative language and to transform this staticity into eventfulness, depending on the purpose of communication. Thus, the research has proved that the same mental content is conveyed by different means developed in languages of different morphological types.

A clear understanding of the systemic differences between interacting languages is necessary to study the interaction of languages in the mind of a bilingual (multilingual) personality and improve the practice of teaching languages in a transcultural environment. If such languages belong to different morphological types, the method of determinant analysis can be proposed as an effective tool for methodological forecasting of negative interference. The goal set by the authors of the article is to establish cause-and-effect relationships between the systemic determinant of the language type and its particular specific features at the levels of phonetics, morphology and syntax. The object of the research is the agglutinative and inflectional types of languages that lie between the extreme manifestations of proximity and remoteness of individual minds. In their work, the authors rely on the systemic methodology of determinant typological analysis, developed in the 1960s-70s by the founder of modern systemic linguistics, Professor Gennady Prokopyevich Melnikov.

The article describes disputes about current issues of the modern scientific paradigm from the standpoint of systemic linguistics, whose powerful explanatory potential remains beyond the scope of the mass trends of linguistic science, and the formulation of new scientific issues as a result of a fruitful extrapolation of the systemic approach to the fields of philology that are not considered by the founders of systemic linguistics. In the first part of the article we considered differences in understanding the object, subject and method in Russian and foreign cognitive linguistics, leading to the loss of the international nature of linguistics, discussion of extremely painful issues for the Russian cognitive science about the cognitive futility of the term concept and the application of the cognitive approach in the study of discourse and text, violation of the continuity between the highest achievements of Russian and foreign scientific thought and the popular modern areas of linguistic research. Further in the article, the standpoint of a systemic typology is applied to the active processes of modern Russian speech. In the light of the approach taken, the facts that seem disparate from the standpoint of the culture of speech, from the standpoint of the systemic typology of languages, appear interconnected and determined by a general tendency - the deformation of the morphological type of the Russian language in the direction of the destruction of inflectivity. The result of the observed typological changes is the reduction in the possibility transfer highly intellectual meanings. An explanation of the principles of the organization of poetic speech in relation to the systemic typology of languages is an example how successfully S.Yu. Preobrazhensky applied the theory of the founder of modern systemic linguistics in the field which is far from interests of G.P. Melnikov. If the coincidence of the boundaries of the verse with the boundaries of the phrase within the sentence means the prevalence of the natural, that is, characteristic of the type of natural language in which the poem is written, principle of division, then the mismatch of boundaries speaks of a poetic technique that seeks to emphasize that the poetic statement is called upon to perform special communicative tasks leading to reconfiguring poetic syntax to other types of languages. The prospects of updating the systemic approach in modern semantic studies of grammar and vocabulary are discussed in the fourth and final part. The obtained results, which are set out in the article become the evidence base of the high potential for using the achievements of systemic linguistics in modern research practices.

The article analyzes the features of the manifestation of the category of the authors image in the work of V.O. Klyuchevskys Russian History on the example of the characteristics of the reign of the outstanding Russian monarch - Peter I, whose reign, which dramatically changed the progressive development of Russian life, had an extremely contradictory influence on the fate of the Russian Empire until its collapse in 1917. The purpose of the work is to prove that the interpretation of the text from the standpoint of the category of the authors image, as a supercategory serving as the organizing principle and focus of the essence of the text, reveals the internal unity of the text, not only artistic but also scientific, especially as complex and non-trivial as V.O. Klyuchevsky, possessing the highest cognitive, ethical and aesthetic value. In the course of the study, as a result of correlation of the authors self with the content being introduced and the establishment of the principle of selecting facts exposed in the book by V.O. Klyuchevsky analysis, the scientific method that is not directly formulated in the historians work is explicated, which allows reconstructing the authors image as the image of a researcher. Observation of the features of the linear development of the text makes it possible to discover ways of reinforcing meanings, to assess the degree of their fixation, and therefore, to actualize, derive fixed meanings, establish their general meaningful orientation and, on this basis, reconstruct the value-ethical side of the authors image. Extrapolation of the concept of the image of the author, developed by V.V. Vinogradov for a systematic analysis of a literary text, designed to establish the features of each conditionally distinguished level of the text and the principle of matching all levels with each other, into scientific texts can significantly expand our understanding of the scope of application of systematic methods of analysis.

The authors of the article discuss the possible ways to analyze the facts of mass modern Russian speech, which are traditionally considered from a normative-didactic point of view, from the standpoint of systemic linguistics, that is, applying analysis of the relationship between the determinants of a language of a certain morphological type and particular phenomena at all levels of linguistic structure. Such facts include, for example, violation of case coordination, use of nominative case instead of indirect, occurrence of the plural in abstract nouns outside the formation of concrete figurative meanings, incorrect usage of verb voice forms, luck of correlation between subject and verbal participle, lack of correlation of wordorder structure of a sentence to the communicative (thematic-rhematic) structure of an utterance, the misuse of synonyms, etc. The method of determinant analysis of languages developed within the framework of a systemic typology allow researchers to identify the tendency to break down inflectional connections between words at a formal and substantive level, which is surely fixed in modern Russian, and increase the analytical methods of constructing a phrase. The deformation of the inflection of the Russian language, caused by the growth of the national, social and cultural heterogeneity of the linguistic group, while retaining such parameters of the external determinant that determine the inflectional grammatical type, like the scale of the linguistic collective and the mode of communication, not only makes it difficult to express complex meanings, but also makes them ultimately account unclaimed in society, reducing the continuity in the transfer of socially significant experience. The authors focus on such problems as comparing the typological standard of inflectional languages and characteristics of the grammatical system of the Russian language, the correspondence of the accepted literary norm to the typological ideal, the correspondence of mass speech practice with the literary norm, the factors changing the frequency of grammatical forms, the interaction of external and internal determinants of the modern Russian language. The theoretical basis of the article was developed in the second half of the 20th century, but still not widely known in linguistics the systemic linguistic concept of Professor Gennady Prokop'evich Mel’nikov, which revealed large prospective for the synthesis of special linguistic disciplines, as well as linguistics, semiotics and computer science.

SCIENTIFIC WORKSHOP “GENERAL AND SPECIFIC METHODOLOGY OF PHILOLOGY” Moscow, RUDN University, April, 3—8, 2017