The language is bidirectional. Thus, with the help of language we comprehend perceived reality. And at the same time it is aimed at the internal, spiritual world person. Consequently, two spheres closely interact in language: material and spiritual. Language recreates material world in its secondary - ideal manifestation.

One of the main tasks of linguistics is to identify patterns internal structure language. Deep and consistent study of the internal organization of language began in the 19th century and took shape as independent theory by the middle of the 20th century thanks to the establishment of a systems approach in science.

The systematic approach in linguistics has received diametrically opposed assessments: complete support and complete denial. The first gave rise to linguistic structuralism, the second - the desire of supporters of the so-called traditional linguistics to defend the priorities of the historical method, which, in their opinion, is incompatible with the systemic one. This intransigence stems mainly from different understandings of what a “system” is.

In philosophy, “system” is “order”, “organization”, “whole”, “aggregate”, “totality”. Further we observe the semantic complication of the concept. It is conceptualized as a “self-developing idea,” an integrity containing many steps. As scientists note, since the second half of the 20th century we can talk about a developed systemic style of thinking.

Currently, systems are classified into: 1) material (consisting of material objects) and ideal (from concepts, ideas, images); 2) simple (consisting of homogeneous elements) - complex (uniting heterogeneous groups or classes of objects); primary (consisting of elements that are significant for the system due to their natural properties) - secondary (the elements of which are used specifically to transmit information, for this reason such systems are called semiotic, that is, symbolic; holistic (in which the connections between the elements are stronger than the connections of the elements with the environment) - summative (in which the connections between the elements are the same as as well as the connections of elements with the environment); natural - artificial; dynamic - static; open (that is, interacting with the environment) - closed; self-organizing - unorganized; controlled - uncontrollable, etc.

What place does language occupy in this classification of systems? It is impossible to unambiguously classify a language into one of the types due to the multi-qualitative nature of language. He belongs to the category complex systems, since it unites heterogeneous elements (phonemes, morphemes, words, etc.) The question of the scope of localization (or existence) of language remains debatable. The opinion that it exists in the form of linguistic memory is not unfounded, but, nevertheless, this is not the only condition for its existence. The second condition for its existence is the material embodiment of its ideal side in linguistic complexes.

Since the ideal and material sides are inextricably linked in language, and it is intended to transmit information not by nature, but as a result of the purposeful activities of people to consolidate and express semantic information (that is, ideal systems - concepts, ideas), it should be considered as a secondary semiotic system .

Representatives of structuralism view the language system as closed, rigid and uniquely determined. Comparativists, if they consider language a system, then only a holistic, dynamic, open and self-organizing system. This understanding satisfies both traditional and new directions in the science of language. What is the relationship between the concept of “language system” and such related concepts as “totality”, “whole”, “organization”, “element” and “structure”? Before answering this question, it is necessary to find out how the concepts of “elements” and “units” of a language relate, since the “system” of a language presupposes the presence of minimal, further indivisible components of which it consists.

With the development of the systematic study of language and the desire to understand the internal properties of linguistic phenomena, there is a tendency towards a meaningful distinction between the concepts of “elements” and “units” of language as a part and a whole. As components of language units (their expression plan or content plan), language elements are not independent, since they express only some properties of the language system. Units of language have all the properties of a language system and, as integral formations, are characterized by relative independence (ontological and functional). Units of language form the first system-forming factor.

The concept of “system” in linguistics is closely related to the concept of “structure”. A system is understood as a language as a whole, since it is characterized by an ordered collection of its units, while a structure is the structure of a system. In other words, systematicity is a property of a language, and structure is a property of a language system.

Linguistic units differ both quantitatively, qualitatively, and functionally. Collections of homogeneous language units form subsystems called tiers or levels.

The structure of a language is a set of regular connections and relationships between linguistic units, depending on their nature and determining the qualitative uniqueness of the language system as a whole and the nature of its functioning. The uniqueness of a language structure is determined by the nature of connections and relationships between linguistic units.

A relation is the result of comparing two or more units of language according to some common ground or sign. This is an indirect dependence of linguistic units, in which a change in one of them does not lead to a change in the others. The following relationships are fundamental to the linguistic structure: hierarchical, established between heterogeneous units (phonemes and morphemes; morphemes and lexemes, etc.); oppositional, according to which either linguistic units or their characteristics are opposed to each other.

Connections of linguistic units are defined as a special case of their relations, suggesting a direct dependence of linguistic units. In this case, a change in one unit leads to a change in others. The structure of language acts as the law of connection between these elements and units within a certain system or a subsystem of language, which presupposes the presence, along with dynamism and variability, of such an important property of the structure as stability. Thus, stability and variability are two dialectically related and “opposing tendencies of the linguistic structure. In the process of functioning and development of a language system, its structure manifests itself as a form of expression of stability, and function as a form of expression of variability. The structure of language, due to its stability and variability, acts as the second most important system-forming factor.

The third factor in the formation of a language system (subsystem) is the properties of a language unit, namely: the manifestation of its nature, internal content through its relationship to other units. The properties of linguistic units are sometimes considered as functions of the subsystem (level) formed by them. The internal and external properties of linguistic units are highlighted. Internal ones depend on the connections and relationships established between homogeneous units of one subsystem or between units of different subsystems, while external ones depend on the connections and relationships of linguistic units to reality, to the surrounding world, to the thoughts and feelings of a person. These are such properties of linguistic units as the ability to name, designate, indicate, etc. Internal and external properties are called subsystem (or level) functions. What is the structure of a language system? To answer this question, it is necessary to reveal the essence of those connections and relationships thanks to which linguistic units form a system. These connections and relationships are located along two system-forming axes of the language structure: horizontal (reflecting the property of linguistic units to be combined with each other, thereby performing the communicative function of language); vertical (reflecting the connection of linguistic units with the neurophysiological mechanism of the brain as the source of its existence). Vertical axis The linguistic structure represents paradigmatic relations, and the horizontal structure represents syntagmatic relations, designed to activate two fundamental mechanisms of speech activity: nomination and predication. All types of relationships between linguistic units in a speech chain are called syntagmatic. They implement the communicative function of language. Paradigmatic are the associative-semantic relations of homogeneous units, as a result of which linguistic units are united into classes, groups, categories, that is, into paradigms. This includes variants of the same language unit, synonymous series, antonymic pairs, lexical-semantic groups and semantic fields, etc. Syntagmatics and paradigmatics characterize the internal structure of language as the most important system-forming factors that presuppose and mutually condition each other. By the nature of syntagmatics and paradigmatics, linguistic units are combined into super-paradigms, including homogeneous units of the same degree of complexity. They form levels (tiers) in the language: the level of phonemes, the level of morphemes, the level of lexemes, etc. This multi-level structure of language corresponds to the structure of the brain that “controls” mental mechanisms speech communication.

Language - special kind human activity, which is bidirectional in nature. On the one hand, it is aimed at the external, objective world: with the help of language, the perceived reality is understood, and on the other hand, at the inner, spiritual world of a person. The emergence and functioning of language would have been impossible without the close interaction of these two spheres - material and ideal. After all, the main purpose of language is to be a means of communication, and communication, according to G.V. Kolshansky, is, first of all, a message of some thought, reflecting in its original flesh real objects, their relationships and processes, as if recreating the material world in its secondary manifestation, in an ideal embodiment. To achieve this purpose, the language must have necessary device, means and mechanisms of functioning. Revealing the patterns of the internal structure of language is one of the main tasks of linguistics.

The idea that language is not a simple set of means of communication was expressed by ancient Indian researchers (Yaski, Panini), and was affirmed in the doctrine of analogy by the ancient Greek thinkers of the Alexandrian school (Aristarchus, Dionysius the Thracian). Even then, assumptions were made about the complex interdependence of linguistic phenomena. However, a deep and consistent study of the internal organization of language began only in the 19th century and took shape in a separate theory by the middle of the 20th century in connection with the establishment of a systems approach in science. All this happened under the influence of rapidly developing systems research in various fields of science. In natural science systems approach asserted by A.M. Butlerov and D.I. Mendeleev. The most vivid idea of it is given by the Periodic Table, known to everyone from school. chemical elements D. I. Mendeleev. Knowledge of the regular connections between the latter allowed the scientist to even describe the structure and properties of chemical elements that had not yet been discovered at that time. Systemic relations in capitalist society are discussed in “Capital” by K. Marx. In the field of linguistics, the systemic method was most consistently applied by Ferdinand de Saussure in his “Course of General Linguistics” (1916), although ideas about language as a system originate and develop in the works of such eminent predecessors and contemporaries as Wilhelm von Humboldt and I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929).

The systematic approach in linguistics has received diametrically opposed assessments: from enthusiastic worship to denial. The first gave rise to linguistic structuralism; the second reflected the desire of supporters of traditional linguistics to defend the priorities of the historical method, due to the alleged incompatibility of the systemic and historical approaches. The irreconcilability of the two approaches stemmed mainly from different understandings of the concept of “system”. In philosophy, the concept of “system” was often identified with such related concepts as “order”, “organization”, “whole”, “aggregate”, “totality”. For example, in Holbach nature appears both as a system, and as a whole, and as a totality. The famous French educator Condillac wrote: “Every system is nothing more than the arrangement of various parts<...>in a certain order in which they mutually support each other and in which the last parts are united first."

There is a further semantic enrichment of the concept: “system” is understood as a self-developing idea, as an integrity containing many steps. In turn, each “step” is a system. In other words, for Hegel everything is systemic, the world as a whole is a system of systems. Since the second half of the 20th century, we can talk about an already formed systemic style of thinking. Currently, systems are classified into material(consisting of material elements) and perfect(their elements are ideal objects: concepts, ideas, images), simple(consisting of homogeneous elements) and complex(they unite heterogeneous groupings or classes of elements), primary(their elements are significant for the system due to their natural properties) and secondary(their elements are used by people intentionally to transmit information; therefore, such systems are called semiotic, i.e., symbolic). There are also systems holistic(the connections between their constituent elements are stronger than the connections between the elements and the environment) and summative(connections between elements are the same as connections between elements and the environment); natural And artificial; dynamic(developing) and static(unchangeable); "open"(interacting with the environment) and "closed"; self-organizing And unorganized; managed And uncontrollable and etc.

What place does language occupy in the presented typology of systems? It is impossible to unambiguously classify language as one of the types of systems due to its multi-qualitative nature. First of all, the question of the localization (sphere of existence) of language continues to cause heated debate. Scientists who call language an ideal system base their judgments on the fact that language as a system is encoded in the human brain in the form of ideal formations - acoustic images and the meanings associated with them. However, this kind of code is not a means of communication, but a linguistic memory (and one cannot but agree with E.N. Miller on this). Linguistic memory is the most important, but not the only condition for the existence of language as a means of communication. The second condition is the material embodiment of the ideal side of language in material language complexes. The idea of the unity of the material and the ideal in language was most consistently developed in the works of A.I. Smirnitsky. From point of view component composition, the language system combines heterogeneous components (phonemes, morphemes, words, etc.) and therefore belongs to the category of complex systems. Since language is intended to transmit information not by “nature”, but as a result of the deliberate activity of people to consolidate and express semantic information (ideal systems-concepts, ideas), it should be considered as a secondary semiotic (sign) system.

So, language is a secondary complex material-ideal system.

Other properties of the language system should be recognized as no less debatable. The attitude towards them divides linguistics into structural and historical (traditional). Representatives of the structural movement view the language system as closed, rigid and uniquely conditioned, which causes strong objections from adherents of comparative historical linguistics. If comparativists recognize language as a system, then only as a holistic, dynamic, open and self-organizing system. This understanding of the language system is dominant in Russian linguistics. It satisfies both traditional and new directions in the science of language.

For a complete and comprehensive understanding of language as a system, it is necessary to find out in what relationship the concept of “system” (language) is with related concepts, such as “totality”, “whole”, “organization”, “element” and “structure”.

First of all, a language system is a collection of linguistic units, but not any collection, but only ordered in a certain way. The concept of “system” (of language) is also not identical to the concept of “whole”. The concept of “whole” reflects only one of the qualities of the language system - its completeness, being in a state of relative stability, the finitude of the ascending stage of its development. Sometimes the concept of “system” (of language) is identified with the concept of “organization”. And yet there are sufficient grounds for distinguishing them. The concept of “organization” is broader than the concept of “system”; moreover, any system in a language has an organization, but not every organization is a system. The concept of “organization” additionally reflects a certain process of ordering the elements of the language system. Therefore, the concept of “organization” is a property of the system, since it expresses the nature of the ordering of the relationship between the state of the elements of the language system and the language system as a whole in accordance with the laws of its existence.

Finally, all the concepts under consideration presuppose the presence of minimal, further indivisible components that make up the language system. Wed: totality what? integrity what? organization (streamlining) what? It is quite natural to replace the question with the word “components” of the system. The components of a language system are usually called its elements or units of language (language units); their use often leads to confusion of the concepts denoted by these terms.

First of all, it is important to understand the relationship between the elements and units of language. According to V.M. Solntsev, “elements are necessary components of any system,” due to which the term “element” itself is not strictly linguistic. As such, he uses the term “units of language,” denoting the elements of language (Solntsev V.M., 1976: 145. In other words, these terms are considered equivalent in content, but differ in use (as a general scientific term and a strictly linguistic term). At the same time, with the development of systemic cognition of language and the desire to penetrate into the internal properties of linguistic phenomena, there is a tendency towards a meaningful distinction between the concepts of “elements” and “units” of language as a part and a whole. As components of language units (their plane of expression or plane of content), the elements of language are not independent; they express only some properties of the language system. Units of language, on the contrary, have all essential features Language systems and as integral formations are characterized by relative independence (substantial and functional). They constitute the first system-forming factor.

For example, a word is the basic unit of language, which has a two-sided essence: material (sound), it is called lexeme, and ideal (content), it is called semanteme. Each side consists of elements: a lexeme - from morphemes, a semanteme - from semes. An element is a relatively indivisible component of a language system. Various combinations of linguistic elements form unit language system.

There are well-known disagreements among scientists in the definition of a unit of language, which makes it very difficult to establish them high-quality composition. The most controversial question remains about the minimum and maximum units of language. According to a fairly common definition of A.I. Smirnitsky, a unit of language must a) preserve the essential general features of the language system, b) express meaning and c) be reproducible in finished form.

In this case, the sounds of the language, or phonemes, are excluded from the list of linguistic units, since they are devoid of independent meanings. The minimum unit of language, in the concept of A.I. Smirnitsky, the morpheme is the morpheme, and the word is the basis. In the works of American structuralists (L. Bloomfield, G. Gleason), the basic unit of language was called morpheme(root, prefix, suffix), which “dissolved” even the word. However, this American linguistic terminology has not taken root in Russian linguistics. In traditional Russian linguistics, the question of language units remained open due to the uncertainty of the phoneme status in it. V.M. Solntsev considers the phoneme to be a unit of language on the grounds that it participates in the expression of meaning and retains essential general features of the language. D.G. Bogushevich proposes to consider any phenomenon related to the transmission of meanings and somehow reflected in speech as a unit of language. This generalized definition of language units easily removes the question of the phoneme as the minimum unit of the language system, related to the distinction of meaning and corresponding to the minimum segment (segment) of the speech chain - sound. The phoneme, as its structure and functions become more complex, is followed by morphemes, words, phraseological units, phrases and sentences - the basic, in the generally accepted understanding, units of language.

Finally, the concept of “system” in linguistics is closely related to the concept of “structure”. Numerous and often contradictory interpretations of these concepts are traced in the work of A.S. Melnichuk “The concept of the system and structure of language in the light of dialectological materialism” (VYa. 1970. No. 1). This saves us from the need to analyze existing points of view on the problem of the relationship between these concepts. However, we point out that in the most general terms, all the diversity of views on the relationship between the concepts of “system” and “structure” of language can be grouped into the following triad:

1. These concepts are not differentiated, therefore, to denote them a) either use one of the terms, b) or use both terms as synonyms.
2. Concepts are differentiated, and both terms are used in two identical meanings to denote them.
3. The terms themselves are consistently different, but what one author calls a structure is called a system by another.

Such terminological diversity creates confusion in understanding the essence of language. Therefore, there is a need to place the right emphasis, without which modern linguistic theories are unthinkable.

From what was stated earlier, it is clear that the system refers to the language as a whole, since it is characterized by an ordered set of linguistic units. Structure in the literal sense of the word is the structure of the system. Structures do not exist outside of systems. Consequently, systematicity is a property of a language, and structure is a property of a language system.

When we talk about the structure of something, we first highlight the number of elements that make up the object, their spatial arrangement and the method and nature of their connection. As for language, its structure, or structure, is determined by the number of units distinguished in it, their location in the language system and the nature of the connections between them. Previously, we defined a list of linguistic units. It was noted that linguistic units are heterogeneous. They differ quantitatively, qualitatively, and functionally. Sets of homogeneous language units form certain subsystems, also called tiers or levels. Moreover, the nature of the connections between units within a subsystem differs from the connections between the subsystems themselves. The nature of the connections between units of one subsystem depends on the nature and properties of these linguistic units.

So, in order to understand the specifics of the structure of a language, it is necessary to identify the units of a given language system and then reveal those natural connections through which these linguistic units of the language system, ??? those. its interaction with the outside world, the connections between linguistic units are dynamic, which provides the language system with flexibility in performing its communicative function and the ability for self-improvement.

Thus, the structure of the language is this is a set of regular connections and relationships between linguistic units, depending on their nature and determining the qualitative originality of the language system as a whole and the nature of its functioning. For most scientists, this definition is the only one. Others, following G.P. Shchedrovitsky, distinguish two models of language structure: “internal” and “external”. Schematically they can be represented as follows:

“Inserting” the first model into the second, we can discuss the issue of connections and relationships between the “external” and “internal” structures of the language system. Essentially, the nature of the connections and relationships between language units determines the uniqueness of the language structure. To do this, first of all, it is necessary to clarify the content of the concepts “relationship” and “connection”, which are often used as equivalent. However, there are sufficient grounds for distinguishing them. IN AND. Svidersky, for example, comes to the conclusion that the concept of “relationship” is broader than the concept of “connection”.

Attitude - the result of comparing two or more units of language according to some common basis or feature. A relationship is an indirect dependence of linguistic units, in which a change in one of them does not lead to a change in the others.

In the structure of a language system, the fundamental ones are a) hierarchical relationships that are established between heterogeneous language units (phonemes and morphemes, morphemes and lexemes), when a unit of a more complex subsystem includes lower units, although it is not equal to their sum, and b) oppositional relationships , when units or their properties, features are opposed to each other (for example, the opposition of consonants in terms of hardness-softness, the opposition “vowels-consonants”, etc.).

Connections of linguistic units are defined as a special case of their relationships. Connection- this is a direct dependence of linguistic units, in which a change in one unit causes changes (or production) in others. A striking example of the connection between linguistic units can be the coordination, control and adjacency highlighted in grammar.

Regular connections and relationships between units (the first system-forming factor) constitute the essence of the structure of the language system. Taking into account the constructive, system-forming role of connections and relationships in the structure of the language system, it can be argued that its structure is the result of movement, changes in the elements and units of the language system, the result of their organization and ordering. And in this sense, structure acts as a law of connection between these elements and units within a certain system or subsystem of language, which presupposes the presence, along with dynamism and variability, of such an important property of structure as stability.

Consequently, stability and variability are two dialectically related and “conflicting” tendencies of the language system. In the process of functioning and development of the language system, its structure manifests itself as a form of expression sustainability, A function- as a form of expression variability. Indeed, in order for a language to remain a means of communication for several generations of people, its system must have a stable structure. Otherwise, native speakers living in the 21st century would not be able to perceive the original works of writers of the 16th-17th centuries. The linguistic structure is therefore, within certain limits, characterized by constancy, thereby preserving the system as a whole. Without stable connections, without interaction of parts, i.e. without structure, the language system as an integral formation would disintegrate into its components and cease to exist. The structure of the language system “resists” constant and unreasonably rapid (from the point of view of communication) changes in parts (phonemes, morphemes, words, etc.), and keeps these changes within certain limits. However, this does not mean that the language system does not change at all: the presence of structure is a condition for accumulation quantitative changes within the system, which are a necessary prerequisite for its qualitative transformations, development and improvement. As a result of this, various transformational and evolutionary changes occur in the language system (for example, transitions in the system of parts of speech or the formation new system declensions in East Slavic languages based on Old Russian).

So, structure, due to its stability (statics) and variability (dynamics), acts as the second most important system-forming factor in language.

The third factor in the formation of a system (subsystem) of a language is the properties of a language unit, by which we mean the manifestation of its nature, internal content through relations to other units. The relationships between language units and their properties are interconnected: a relationship can be expressed by a property and, conversely, a property by a relationship. It is advisable to distinguish between internal (intrinsic) and external properties of linguistic units. The former depend on internal connections and relationships established between homogeneous units of one subsystem (level) or between units of different subsystems (levels). The latter depend on external connections and relations of linguistic units (for example, their relations to reality, to the surrounding world, to human thoughts and feelings). These are the properties of naming something, denoting, indicating, expressing, distinguishing, representing, influencing, etc. The properties of linguistic units are sometimes considered as functions subsystem (level) formed by them.

So, the main attributes (the most essential features) of the language system are substance(elements and units of language are its fundamental basis), structure And properties. This necessary condition education of any systems, not just linguistic. So, when building periodic table chemical elements D.I. Mendeleev had to a) proceed from certain sets of chemical elements known in his time; b) establish regular relationships between them and c) their properties. The discovered structure (the law of connection of chemical elements and their properties) allowed the scientist to predict the existence of elements still unknown to science, indicating their properties.

What is the structure of a language system? To answer the question posed means to reveal the essence of those connections and relationships thanks to which language units form a system. First of all, it should be noted that the sought connections and relationships are located in two directions, forming two system-forming axes of the language structure: horizontal and vertical. This structure of the language system is not accidental. Horizontal The structure axis reflects the property of linguistic units to be combined with each other, thereby fulfilling the main purpose of language - to be a means of communication. Vertical The structure axis reflects the connection of linguistic units with the neurophysiological mechanism of the brain as the source of its existence.

The vertical axis of the linguistic structure represents paradigmatic 1 relations between units of the system (subsystem), and the horizontal axis represents syntagmatic relations. Their necessity for the language system is caused by the need to activate two fundamental mechanisms of speech activity: a) nomination (naming, naming) and b) predication (connecting with each other named independent objects of thought for the linguistic expression of any event or any situation) . The nominative aspect of speech activity presupposes the presence of paradigmatic relations in the language. Predication requires syntagmatic relations. Historically (from the point of view of the formation and development of the language system), syntagmatics precedes paradigmatics. In the most general formulation, syntagmatic refers to all types of relationships between linguistic units in a speech chain that serve to convey a message. Syntagmatic expression of information is carried out by arranging linguistic units in a linear sequence and therefore represents a detailed message. Syntagmatic relations thus realize the main - communicative - function of language. Moreover, not only words, but also phonemes, morphemes, and parts of a complex sentence enter into such relationships.

Paradigmatic are the associative-semantic relations of homogeneous units of language, as a result of which the latter are united into classes, groups, categories, i.e. into paradigms. These include various kinds of variants of the same language unit, synonymous series, antonymic pairs, lexical-semantic groups and semantic fields. Just as in syntagmatics, different units of language enter into paradigmatic relationships.

Both types of relationships are closely interrelated. First of all, this is expressed in the fact that paradigmatic relations are generated by syntagmatic ones. According to V.M. Solntsev, the formation of classes of all types occurs by placing different, albeit homogeneous, linguistic units in the same places in the speech chain. Linguistic units that replace each other in the same position are considered members of this paradigm (see diagram).

Often, paradigmatic relations that characterize language as an inventory, a means, are called linguistic, and syntagmatic relations that reflect the functional properties of linguistic units are called speech. There are, of course, grounds for such a distinction. However, it requires a more subtle approach. By fair statement V.M. Solntseva, syntagmatics is inherent in both language and speech.

Syntagmatic relations, which act as the ability of a unit to be combined in a linear sequence with another unit, are a property of language. The realization of this ability in the process of constructing a specific message occurs in speech. In this case, the actual syntagmatic relations turn out to be verbal.

Our (1) brave (2) sailors (3) conquer (4) Antarctica (5). Members of the 1st synonymous paradigm: brave, fearless, daring.

Members of the 2nd synonymous paradigm: conquer, master. See: Solntsev V.M. Language as a systemic-structural formation. M.: Nauka, 1977. P. 70.

The concept of systematicity in language

The language system is a set of linguistic elements of any natural language, which forms a certain unity and integrity. Each component of the language system does not exist in isolation, but only in interaction with other components.

The term “language system” itself can be used in two meanings.

In the particular (local) - the language system is a naturally organized set of linguistic units of the same level, connected by stable relationships.

In a generalized (global) way, a language system is a naturally organized collection of local systems.

Syntagmatic relations of language units

The assimilation of syntagmatic connections occurs spontaneously, involuntarily. Syntagmatic connections are formed from the first syllables.

Ferdinand de Saussure was the first to analyze the system of language, its systemic structure and showed the presence of syntagmatic and associative (paradigmatic) relationships.

Analysis of paradigmatic relations in language

Paradigmatic relationships are not linear, not simultaneous in the flow of speech. Paradigmatic relationships are based on mutual exclusion, on the interchange of linguistic units. The main principle is the principle of opposition. At the core of this type relations lies in the formation of concepts, which arises due to the opposition of language units to each other.

Sound (phonetic) level

At this level, oppositions of consonant sounds are observed in terms of sonority - dullness, hardness - softness, sounds can also be contrasted as sonorant - noisy, plosive - fricative, whistling - hissing.

Vowel sounds are contrasted according to the method and place of formation. Vowels are contrasted with consonants.

Grammar level

Includes morphology, word formation, syntax.

Morphology: case system, numeral system, generic system. Nominal parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, pronouns) are contrasted

predicative parts of speech (verbs, adverbs, gerunds). Also, the main parts of speech are contrasted with the auxiliary parts of speech.

As for word formation, word formation includes the following methods, which are also opposed to each other: 1) suffixal, 2)

prefix, 3) prefix-suffix, 4) addition of stems.

Syntax: here phrases (by adjacency, control) are contrasted with sentences (simple - complex, etc.)

Lexical level

The contrasts are made like this: two words are given with different meanings: cat and dog. Behind these forms are two different creatures, but what they have in common is that they are domestic animals; then these domestic animals are contrasted with wild animals, all these animals are contrasted with insects, birds - that’s all animal world, which is opposed flora- this is all Live nature, which is opposed inanimate nature. General concept this is all nature.

In terms of contrast, it is important to remember that phonetics is not equal to grammar, and grammar is not equal to vocabulary.

Paradigmatic relations permeate all levels of language. When we talk about the opposition of sounds, we consider the phenomenon of phonetic paradigmatics, when we talk about the opposition of words to each other, we consider the phenomenon of morphological paradigmatics, when we talk about the opposition of phrases and sentences, then we consider the phenomenon of syntactic paradigmatics, when we talk about the opposition of words by meaning to each other friend, then we consider the phenomenon of lexical paradigmatics; the opposition of texts in relation to each other allows us to observe textual paradigmatics.

Paradigmatic relationships require learning for themselves, require a certain maturity of mind. And therefore they arise at a much later date than syntagmatic relations.

Methods for isolating syntagmatic and parasyntagmatic relations

Method association experiment helps to isolate syntagmatic and parasyntagmatic relationships in language. This method is based on a model of associative human behavior.

Stimulus -> response

The essence of Jung's classic experiment was that the subject had to respond to a certain set of stimulus words with any word that came to his mind. During the experiment, the type of associations, the size of latent periods (the time between the stimulus word and the subject's response), as well as behavioral and physiological reactions were recorded.

A syntagmatic response is one where the stimulus word and the response word are presented in different parts speech, only then do they connect and form a linear sequence.

A parasyntagmatic response is one where the stimulus word and the response word are represented by one part of speech. Only then can they be opposed.

Verbal (verbal) associations that are most typical for children aged 58:

1) the absolute leader in the process of children's association are syntagmatic reactions, that is, cases when the reaction word and the stimulus word make up a phrase or an unextended sentence.

2) paradigmatic associations, among which the following are most often observed:

Associations expressing synonymous relationships (courage, bravery);

Associations expressing antonymic relationships (day-night);

Associations expressing similarity relations (dog-cat);

Associations expressing genus-species relationships (dishes-saucepans);

Associations expressing whole-part and part-whole relationships (house-roof);

Associations expressing the relationship between an object and its location (dog-kennel, crow-tree);

Associations expressing cause-and-effect relationships (courage-victory, rain-puddle).

Derivational relations in language

Derivational relations (hierarchical) - from Latin abduction, formation

Word formation. For the first time the concept of derivation to characterize

word formation processes were introduced by the Polish linguist Jerze Kurilovich. Derivation is the process of creating some linguistic units - “derivatives” on the basis of others, taken as the original ones. During the process, there may be a change in the form and meaning of the units taken as the original ones. But there are such derivational processes where meanings change under conditions of immutability in form. We encounter a similar phenomenon in vocabulary using the material of polysemantic words. We may also encounter derivational relationships where the meaning does not change, but the structure of the grammatical construction changes. We observe this phenomenon in syntax.

In language we encounter such phenomena as word-formation derivation, lexical derivation and syntactic derivation.

° Test questions!

1. What is the concept of systematicity in language?

2. Talk about syntagmatic, paradigmatic and derivational relationships in language.

RUSSIAN PEOPLES' FRIENDSHIP UNIVERSITY (RUDN)

UNIVERSITY OF THE FOREIGN LANGUAGES

LINGUISTICS

DISCIPLINE

"GENERAL LINGUISTICS"

ABSTRACT

on the topic of:

“The concept of system and structure of linguistics. Level model of linguistic structure. Levels of language and units of language. Internal system of language. Difference between structure and system"

Completed by a 3rd year student:

Gutsu Mariana

Group 304LD

from 04/28/2014

Grade_______________

Teacher: I.E. Karpenko

MOSCOW – 2014

Introduction

1. The concept of system and structure of linguistics.

2. Level model linguistic structure.

3. Levels of language and units of language.

4. Internal system of language.

5. The difference between structure and system.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Language has an internal order, an organization of its parts into a single whole. Consequently, systematicity and structure characterize the language and its units as a single whole from different sides.

The system of a language is an inventory of its units, combined into categories and tiers according to standard relationships; the structure of the language is formed by the relationships between tiers and parts of units; Consequently, the structure of a language is only one of the signs of a language system. A unit of language, a category of language, a tier of language, linguistic relations - these concepts do not coincide, although they are all important for revealing the concept of a language system.

Units of language are its permanent elements, differing from each other in purpose, structure and place in the language system. According to their purpose, language units are divided into nominative, communicative and drill. The main nominative unit is the word (lexeme), the communicative unit is the sentence. The structural units of language serve as a means of constructing and formalizing nominative and communicative units; building units are phonemes and morphemes, as well as forms of words and forms of phrases.

The tier of a language is a collection of similar units and categories of language. The main tiers are phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical. Both units within a category and categories within a tier are related to each other based on standard relationships. Linguistic relations are those relationships that are found between tiers and categories, units and their parts. The main types of relationships are paradigmatic and syntagmatic, associative and hyponymic (hierarchical).

Paradigmatic relations are those relations that unite language units into groups, categories, categories. For example, the system of consonants, the system of declension, and the synonymic series rely on paradigmatic relations.

Associative relations arise on the basis of coincidence in time of representations, i.e. images of reality. There are three types of associations: by contiguity, by similarity and by contrast. These types of associations play a big role in the use of epithets and metaphors, in the formation of figurative meanings of words.

Hierarchical relationships are relationships between heterogeneous elements, their subordination to each other as general and particular, generic and specific, higher and lower. Hierarchical relationships are observed between units of different tiers of language, between words and forms when they are combined into parts of speech, between syntactic units when they are combined into syntactic types. Associative, hierarchical and paradigmatic relations are opposed to syntagmatic ones in that the latter is linear.

The concept of system and structure in linguistics.

Language units are divided into categories and tiers of language. Categories of language are groups of homogeneous units of language; Categories are combined on the basis of a common categorical feature, usually semantic. Thus, in the Russian language there are such categories as tense and aspect of the verb, case and gender of the name (noun and adjective), and the category of collectiveness.

Syntagmatic relations unite units of language in their simultaneous sequence. Words as a set of morphemes and syllables, phrases and analytical names, sentences (as a set of sentence members) and complex sentences are built on syntagmatic relationships.

The concept of “system” in linguistics is closely related to the concept of “structure”. Structure in the literal sense of the word there is the structure of the system. Structures do not exist outside of systems. Consequently, systematicity is a property of a language, and structure is a property of a language system.

The structure or structure of a language is determined by the number of units distinguished in it, their location in the language system and the nature of the connections between them. Linguistic units are heterogeneous. They differ quantitatively, qualitatively, and functionally. Sets of homogeneous language units form certain subsystems called tiers or levels.

Language structure- is a set of regular connections and relationships between linguistic units, depending on their nature.

Relationship- this is such a dependence of linguistic units in which a change in one unit does not lead to a change in others. The most important in the structure of the language are:

A) hierarchical relationships, which are established between heterogeneous
units of language (phonemes and morphemes, morphemes and lexemes), when
a unit of a more complex subsystem includes lower units;

b) oppositional relations when units or their properties, signs
are opposed to each other (for example, the opposition of consonants in
hardness-softness, opposition “vowels-consonants”).

Connections of linguistic units- a special case of their relationship. A connection is a dependence of linguistic units in which a change in one unit causes changes in others. A striking example of the connection between linguistic units can be the coordination, control and adjacency highlighted in grammar.

There are hierarchical, horizontal and vertical language structures.

Hierarchical structure is a system of levels (tiers): phoneme level, morpheme level, lexeme level, syntactic level. There are no syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships between the levels. The multi-level structure of language corresponds to the structure of the brain that controls the mental mechanisms of speech communication.

The brain is a complex hierarchical structure that implements control, starting from the lowest levels to the highest.

Horizontal structure reflects the property of linguistic units to be combined with each other. The horizontal axis of linguistic structure represents syntagmatic relationships. Syntagmatic refers to the relationships of units in speech in direct linear connections and combinations in different areas of the language system. Syntagmatic relations are especially common in syntax (cf. syntagma, phrase, sentence). The valence of a word plays an important role in syntagmatics.

Valence(Latin Valentia - “strength”) in in a broad sense the words are called

the ability of a linguistic unit to enter into connection with other units of a certain order. Just as an atom has the property of forming a certain number of bonds with other atoms, a word is capable of forming connections with a certain number of words in other parts of speech. This property of words, by analogy with the property of atoms, was called the valency of the word.

Initially, the valence properties of the verb were studied. Depending on how many necessary participants (actants) come into contact with the verb when it is used, monovalent verbs are distinguished ( Father is sleeping), divalent ( Teacher takes a book), trivalent ( A friend gives me a vase). There are verbs with zero valence, that is, verbs that do not require mandatory participants when used ( It's getting dark).

Valence can be obligatory or optional. Mandatory, obligatory is called valence when the use of a word requires the use of other participating words. Sometimes these participating words are present in the statement implicitly, but they can be restored. For example, I'm not feeling well.

Under optional, optional valency refers to the ability of a word to have connections with words that are not structurally necessary when using a given word. The use of this word even in the absence of such participating words will be grammatically correct: It's getting dark quickly.

Vertical structure reflects the connection of linguistic units with the neurophysiological mechanism of the brain as the source of its existence. The vertical axis of linguistic structure represents the paradigmatic relationships between units of the system. Paradigmatic are the associative-semantic relations of homogeneous units of language, as a result of which they are combined into classes, groups, categories, that is, into paradigms.

Paradigmatic relations reflect the internal, historically developed properties of a linguistic unit. Paradigmatic relations are reflected in verb conjugation systems, types of declension of nouns or adjectives; polysemy, synonymy, hyperonymy, hyponymy in vocabulary. In vocabulary and morphology, paradigmatic relations are most developed.

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are an essential feature of all units of language, which serves as proof of the isomorphism of its system. Isomorphism is evidence that language is based on certain general principles and conditions of its organization. That is why language units of different levels exhibit a certain similarity in material and ideal nature, in their relationships between units of the same level and units of different levels.

In linguistics, there are two models of language structure: level and field.

1. Level model of the language system.

Level of language structure- a class or super-paradigm of linguistic units that have similar characteristics and are equally related to other units. The doctrine of linguistic levels was developed in American descriptivism. Language levels are arranged in relation to each other according to the principle of ascending or descending complexity of units. The relations between the levels of the language system are not reducible to a simple hierarchy - subordination or inclusion. In the direction from lower levels of language to higher ones, the number of units increases (there are more morphemes than phonemes, and there are more words than morphemes), the complexity of the structure of units increases, the complexity of their paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships increases, and the degree of their variability increases.

Units lower level at a higher level do not remain the same. Units more high level have new properties that cannot be derived from the properties of lower-level units, since they are “included” in new connections and relationships.

2. Field model of the language system.

The main principle of field modeling of a language system is the unification of linguistic units according to the commonality of their semantic and functional content. Units of the same linguistic field reflect the subject, conceptual or functional similarity of the designated phenomena. Therefore, the field model represents a dialectical relationship between linguistic phenomena and the extralinguistic world. The theory of the linguistic field is developed in the works of Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky, English - Peter Roger, German scientists Franz Dornseif, Rudolf Hallig, Jost Trier, Gunther Ipsen, Walter Porzig, Swiss - Walter Wartburg, Yuri Nikolaevich Karaulov, Alexander Vladimirovich Bondarko.

The field model of the language highlights core and periphery. The core of the field is formed by the units most suitable for performing the functions of the field. They are frequency

unambiguous, characterized by certain and fairly clear features. The periphery is formed by polysemantic, stylistically fixed, rarely used units. They have less defined, more individual and therefore unclearly expressed field characteristics. Peripheral units, as a rule, are expressive formations.

The boundary between the core and the periphery is fuzzy and blurred. The transition from the core to the periphery is carried out gradually, therefore several peripheral zones of the field are distinguished: perinuclear, postnuclear; near, far and extreme periphery.

The field model of the language allows:

a) express universal property language, general principle his organization and
development;

b) imagine language as a formation where discreteness and non-discreteness are dialectically combined (from the Latin discretus - “discontinuous, consisting of individual parts"), general and specific;

c) combine into a single whole a normal, stylistically neutral core and an anomalous, stylistically marked periphery.

The field model of the language system correlates well with modern neurolinguistic theories that develop problems of the structure and functioning of the human cerebral cortex. It has been established that the “packaging” and “storage” of language in the human brain is also carried out according to the field principle. There are paradigmatic groupings of linguistic units, typical syntagmatic block diagrams, epidigmatic nests. A specialized speech center of the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex is “responsible” for each block: Broca’s area is for speech production, Wernicke’s area is for understanding and perceiving someone else’s speech, syntagmatic centers are located in front of Broca’s area; in the occipital part, behind Wernicke's area, there are centers of paradigmatics.

Depending on the principle of structuring, several types of language fields are distinguished:

1. The semantic principle is the basis of lexical-semantic, lexical-
phraseological and lexico-grammatical fields, where language units
are grouped based on the common meaning they express. For example, in
the lexical-semantic field combines words with the meaning of kinship; V
lexical-grammatical field - words with a grammatical meaning of feminine
kind.

2. The functional principle involves the unification of linguistic units according to
the commonality of the functions they perform. They are distinguished by functional
grammatical and functional-stylistic fields. For example, to
the functional-grammatical field refers to the voice field; to functional
stylistic - phonetic, lexical and grammatical means
creating a scientific style.

3. The combination of the first two principles is the functional-semantic principle, according to which functional-semantic fields (beingness, phaseness, aspectuality, taxiness) are modeled.

The main advantage of the field model of a language system is that it makes it possible to imagine language as a system of systems between which interaction occurs. As a result of this approach, language appears as a functioning system in which constant rearrangements of elements and relationships between them occur.

The concept of system and structure in linguistics.

Read also