Language norm.
1. External causes of language changes.
Not a single language in the world develops in isolation, as if under a glass bell. The external environment continuously influences it and leaves quite noticeable traces in its most diverse areas.

It has long been noted that when two languages ​​come into contact, one of the languages ​​can learn some features of the other language that influences it. These are the so-called substrate, superstrate and adstrate phenomena.

Substrate - this is the influence of a language conquered or ethnically and culturally enslaved by the indigenous population on the language of the conquerors, in which the local linguistic tradition breaks off, the people switch to the tradition of another language, but in the new language the features of the language of the disappeared appear.

Superstrat - this is the influence of the language of the alien population on the language of the indigenous population as a result of conquest or cultural domination, in which the local linguistic tradition is not broken, but foreign language influences are felt in it.

Adstrat- these are the mutual influences of one language on another in conditions of long-term coexistence and contacts of peoples speaking these languages, in which there is no ethnic assimilation and dissolution of one language into another.

Influence external environment can cause changes in all areas of the language: phonetics, grammar, vocabulary, syntax, etc.

Nowhere is the conditioning of the use of words by external factors more clearly revealed than in various linguistic styles. The evolution of styles is closely connected with the change in cultural and everyday forms of communication, with the history of society. Each style always involves an appeal to a specific social environment, reflects the normativity and aesthetics of speech accepted in this environment, and is widely used in literary works as a means social characteristics characters. The history of literary styles is in the closest connection with the history of the corresponding literary language and with its various, historically changing stylistic variations.

The expansion of the social functions of language and the pace of its development are entirely determined by various external reasons. Dialects located in adjacent territories are especially susceptible to various external linguistic influences. At the boundaries between individual dialect zones, areas of mixed dialects arise. So, for example, between the northern and southern dialects of the Russian language there is an area of ​​Central Russian dialects. These dialects contain individual features that bring them closer to the northern and southern dialects. Similar phenomena can be observed in every language.

The formation of dialects in a language depends largely on external reasons, such as: migration of the population, isolation of its individual groups, fragmentation or consolidation of the state, assimilation of a given language by a foreign-speaking population, etc.

But it would be completely wrong to conclude that these factors play a primary role in language change. The most powerful external factor causing linguistic changes is the progress of human society, expressed in the development of its spiritual and material culture, in the development of productive forces, science, technology, etc., entailing the complication of the forms of human life and, accordingly, language.
^ 2. Spontaneous and conscious causes of language changes.
The influence of society on language can be spontaneous and consciously regulated, socially conditioned. To one degree or another, all changes in language are caused by the needs of society and serve to satisfy it. Only the influence of society on language is not carried out directly, directly, automatically, but is manifested in its internal structure. Soviet linguists involved in social linguistics (V.A. Avrorin, F.P. Filin, I.F. Protchenko, etc.) emphasize that the social nature of language determines all its functions and manifests itself at all levels of the linguistic structure. At one time, K. Marx and F. Engels pointed out the spontaneously unfolding processes of language development when they noted that “in any modern developed language naturally emerging speech rose to the level of a national language, partly due to the historical development of the language from finished material, as in the Romance and Germanic languages, partly due to the crossing and mixing of nations, as in the English language, partly due to the concentration of dialects into a single national language, due to economic and political concentration."

As an example of the spontaneous influence of social factors on the development of language, one can cite the territorial (dialect) differentiation of language, caused by the social (territorial) differentiation of society. Its peculiarity is changes within the language system (phonetic, grammatical, lexical). But there are more than just dialectal differences in language. The social differentiation of society is also manifested in language in a wide variety of ways - in the existence of so-called professional languages, which arise under the influence of practical needs and are characterized by precision of meaning and low expression, the jargon of athletes, students, musicians, a specific feature of which is the desire for expression and play on words, and conditional languages ​​of declassed elements.

The consciously regulated influence of society on language, which indirectly manifests itself in the structure of language, is carried out in the form of the language policy of a particular society or class. Language policy is integral part national policy of the state, party, class, or is a set of measures for a targeted impact on the development of the language.
^ 3. Rate of language change.
The founders of comparative historical linguistics F. Bonn, Rask, A. Schleicher, as well as their followers who studied language changes, never considered the question of the pace of language development to be a special problem. They simply believed that languages ​​change very slowly. In our domestic linguistics during the period of dominance of the so-called “new doctrine of language” in the mid-20th century. The theory of leaps was widely propagated.

The founder of the thesis about the spasmodic development of languages ​​should be considered Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr, who assumed that the development of human language as an ideological superstructure is mainly a history of revolutions that broke the chain of consistent development of sound speech.

Considering the reasons for various changes in the languages ​​of the world, N. Ya. Marr stated that the source of these changes is “not external mass migrations, but deep-rooted revolutionary shifts that flowed from qualitatively new sources of material life, qualitatively new technology and a qualitatively new social system. The result was new thinking, and with it a new ideology in the construction of speech and, naturally, new technology.”

This theory was soon criticized, since the sudden leap and explosion of the existing language system fundamentally contradicts the essence of language as a means of communication. A sudden radical change would inevitably render any language completely unusable for communication.

Sudden leaps in language development are also impossible for another reason. The language changes unevenly. Some of its constituent elements may change, while other elements may persist for a long time, sometimes for centuries. The fundamental denial of the theory of leaps and explosions in the development of language, however, should not lead to the conclusion that the development of language always takes place in terms of a very slow and gradual evolution. In the history of languages, there are periods of relatively more intense changes, when in a certain period of time many more different changes occur in the language than in previous periods. For example, if we consider the history of the French language, it is easy to see that the most significant qualitative changes in the language system occurred in the period from the 2nd to the 8th centuries. Among these radical changes, the following can be noted: 1) in the field of vocalism during the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries. most vowels become diphthongs; 2) final unstressed vowels are lost (VII-VIII centuries AD), which led to the coincidence of inflections of nouns and adjectives of different types of declension, etc.

Thus, everything depends on the extent to which changes affect the key links of the language system and the extent to which these changes can entail a number of significant consequences.
^ 4. Norm as a stabilizing factor in language changes.
Classical ideas about the norm, formulated in the works of S.I. Ozhegov, B.N. Golovin, L.I. Skvortsov, V.A. Itskovich, highlight several fundamentally important aspects of the linguistic phenomenon. First of all, the social nature of the language norm and its dependence on the needs of society are considered. Thus, we can conclude that language norms are formed in response to the needs of society, and the main such need is the desire of people to understand each other as quickly and correctly as possible. With a certain stability of society, language norms will also be quite stable. As soon as more or less significant changes occur in society, language norms also become more flexible and dynamic. Current state The Russian literary language is precisely characterized by mobility, flexibility, and erosion of norms. Undoubtedly, language norms must change, but the pace and volume of these changes are directly related to the dynamics of change in society.

Examples of various kinds of normative and political activity can be found in the history of not only the Russian language and Russian society. In the history of many European languages, one can trace periods of active codification policy, periods of massive impact on the lexical system of the language. Such periods are associated either with a change in the socio-political system, or with the growth of national self-awareness and the desire to “cleanse” the native language of borrowings, develop it, and create a rich vocabulary.

Considering the significance of a speech norm, we can point to its cultural value. The very existence of certain norms is seen as a guarantee of stability, continuity of cultural values, preservation of knowledge and priorities, ensuring adequate dialogue between generations, as well as a condition for the stability of language as a system. If the norm did not show its conservatism and did not resist emerging innovations, the literary language would not be able to ensure the speech continuity of generations. In this regard, the rate of change in the norm takes on special significance. “Changing the old norm should not happen too quickly, because only in this case does the norm make the language stable, helps it remain sufficiently itself for a long time and thus allows us to preserve the cultural heritage of the nation, pass it on from generation to generation and ultimately give people the opportunity to understand each other, to ensure their common linguistic space.”
^ 5. The main reasons for changes in language norms.
Language norms- a historical phenomenon. Their change is due to the constant development of language.

The main reasons for changes in norms are the actions of language laws: 1) the law of economy (language chooses shorter forms of expressing meaning: m O Knock - Mok), 2) the law of analogy (one form of expression is likened to another). For example: to be amazed at what → what (by analogy with to be amazed at what); sugar - sugar (the form with the ending –a has become more common), 3) social factors (extra-linguistic). For example: professor "professor's wife" → "female professor", but limited by style.

So, the historical change in the norms of a literary language is a natural, objective phenomenon. It does not depend on the will and desire of individual native speakers. The development of society, changes in the social way of life, the emergence of new traditions, improvement of relationships between people, the functioning of literature and art lead to the constant updating of the literary language and its norms.
Sources:

http://www.classes.ru

http://englishschool12.ru

http://womlib.ru

http://www.ceninauku.ru

http://www.openclass.ru

http://www.dofa.ru

obeys sound laws, and those that are explained by analogy and borrowing. However, most studies of the historical development of languages ​​follow the principles of the Young Grammarians in this regard.

6.5. Reasons for language change

Why does language change over time? There is no generally accepted answer to this question. There are several hypotheses regarding language change, but none of them explains the entire body of evidence. The most we can do is to list and explain the most important factors that linguists look at when trying to explain language change.

In discussing this problem, two types of distinctions are usually used: (a) the distinction between sound changes, on the one hand, and grammatical and lexical changes, on the other; (b) distinction between internal and external factors. However, each of these differences taken separately should not be exaggerated. As we have already seen, the thesis of the neogrammarians that sound changes are essentially different from all other changes is only part of the truth. Even such more or less physiologically explainable processes as assimilation (complete or partial similarity of two neighboring sounds in place and method of formation - cf. Italian otto, notte, etc. in Table 5 of section 6.3) or haplology (loss of one of two similar syllables standing next to each other, cf. Old English *Engla-land "country of the English" >England "England"), also require explanation in terms of more general factors, if they are supposed to be the cause of constant changes in sound building language. As for the distinction between external and internal factors, based on the abstraction of the language system itself from the cultural and social conditions in which this system is used, this distinction also ultimately turns out to be insufficient, since the communicative function of language, which consists in correlating form and meanings within a given linguistic system, also correlates this linguistic system with culture

And the community it serves.

IN In the previous section, the two most important factors in language change were already mentioned - analogy and borrowing. At this stage, we can definitely say that much of what the melogram tics explained through sound laws is the result of the combined action of these two factors. Sound laws themselves do not explain anything; they are just a statement of what happened in a specific place (more precisely, in a specific linguistic community) in a certain period of time. However, if we look at this sound change in retrospect and in general terms, it may seem quite regular (in the sense that the neogrammarians and their followers imagined regularity). Nevertheless,

190 6. Changing the language

observations of sound changes currently occurring show that they can arise in borrowed words and, over time, spread by analogy to other words.

One indicator that language is changing is a process commonly called hypercorrection. An example of this is the spread of southern English vowel pronunciation<и>in words like butter "butter" (i.e. [i]. -Trans. Note) to words like butcher in northern English dialects (where it was previously pronounced [l]. -Trans. Note), which adopted (i.e. i.e. borrowed) such a pronunciation of this class of words (i.e.

with [and]. - Approx. transl.) from the literary language. Sound hypercorrection of this kind is no different, at least in the nature of its influence, from hypercorrection of another kind, which influenced the middle class speakers of southern English dialects and received

our education, they say between you and I (instead of the literary between you and me. - Transl. note). It may be considered that overcorrection of the first kind (but not of the second) might ultimately lead to what can be described, generally and in retrospect, as a regular sound change.

We do not mean that all sound changes can be explained in this way. We must also allow for the possibility of a gradual and imperceptible phonetic transition over a certain time in all words where a given sound occurs. The essence of our argument is that a whole set of factors can lead to the same thing. the final result, namely, to what is usually, at least in the tradition of neogrammarians, considered a regular sound change and is contrasted with such seemingly irregular phenomena as change by analogy and borrowing.

Linguists who insist on the distinction between internal and external factors - especially those who follow the principles of structuralism and functionalism (see 7.2, 7.3) - tend to explain as many linguistic changes as possible in terms of internal factors, especially constant rearrangements, carried out by language on its way from one stable (or almost stable) state to another. One of the most influential proponents of this view was the French linguist André Martinet, who tried to explain language change, and especially sound changes, based on his concept of self-regulating semiotic systems governed by two additional principles - the principle of economy of effort and the principle of communicative clarity . The first principle (which includes such physiologically explainable phenomena as the previously mentioned assimilation and haplogy, as well as the tendency to reduce forms with a high degree of predictability) entails a decrease in the number of phonological oppositions and a simultaneous increase in the importance of both principles. The principle of economy of effort, however, is constrained by the need to maintain required quantity phonological contrasts for distinguishing high-

names that might otherwise become indistinguishable in those acoustic conditions, which are inherent in the oral form of language. This principle is intuitively quite justified, and with its help it is possible to explain a fairly large number of sound changes. However, it has not yet convincingly demonstrated the explanatory power that its proponents attribute to it.

The main contribution that the structuralists and functionalists made to the development of historical linguistics stems from their insistence that every change postulated in the structure of a language must be assessed in terms of its consequences for the system.

V in general. For example, they showed that the different transitions of Grimm's Law (or the Great Vowel Movement, which took place during the transition from Middle English to Early Modern English) should be analyzed together. Representatives of these areas also raised a number of interesting questions regarding chain reactions that appear to have taken place during certain periods of history

language development. Let's take Grimm's law as an example. Is it true that the loss of aspiration by Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops [*bh, *dh, *gh] caused the loss of voicing by Proto-Indo-European voiced unaspirated stops [*b, *d, *g], which in turn caused the spirantization of Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops [ *p, *t, *k]? Or did the Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops undergo the change first and thereby initiate this whole process, causing the adjacent row of consonants to move into the vacant place? Perhaps these questions cannot be answered. But structuralists and functionalists at least recognize the fact that the various transitions combined

V Grimm's law may be interrelated.

The merit of structuralism can also be considered a method called by internal reconstruction method(as opposed to the comparative historical method). This method is based on the idea that individual patterns and asymmetries observed at the synchronous level can be a legacy of what at an earlier stage was a completely regular productive process. For example, even if we did not have written monuments of the English language and material for comparing it with other Germanic languages, we could assume that the relative regularity observed

V strong English verbs(cf. drive :drove :driven "to drive", ride :rode :ridden "to ride";sing :sang :sung "to sing", ring: rang :rung

"call", etc.), is a legacy of an ancient, more regular system of verbal inflection. The internal reconstruction method is

V Currently, it is a recognized tool of historical linguistics methodology, which has repeatedly confirmed its validity.

As we will see later, generativism is a legacy and partly a unique variety of structuralism. It is typical for generativism to represent sound laws as the result of the addition, abolition and rearrangement of rules that determine linguistic competence

native speaker. Since the generativist dichotomy of language competence/language use in Saussurian structuralism corresponds to the language/speech dichotomy (see 7.2), the contributions made by generativists to the theory and methodology of historical linguistics can be seen as a refinement and development of the structuralist concept of language change . In both cases, preference is given to what are considered internal factors. The structuralist concept of self-regulation was replaced by generativists with the concept of rule restructuring and a tendency towards simplification of the language system. It is quite difficult to find a significant difference between these two concepts.

However, one difference does exist between Chomsky's “linguistic competence/use of language” opposition and Saussure's “language/speech” opposition. It lies in the fact that the first opposition is more convenient for psychological interpretation than the second. As we will see later, for various reasons, generativists have focused great attention the problem of language acquisition by children. They emphasized the fact that when a child begins to acquire his native language, he does not learn deep-level rules, but derives them from the patterns of correspondence between form and meaning that he hears in the utterances of other people. What is usually considered a false analogy (for example, a child's desire to use irregular shape goed instead of went "gone"), is considered by generativists as part of a more comprehensive process of language acquisition.

Generativists were not the first to look for an explanation of language change in the transmission of language from one generation to the next. But generativistists have looked more closely than others at the process of language acquisition, taking into account the nature of the rules that are required at certain stages of the process. Moreover, they began to study in detail primarily syntactic, rather than phonetic and morphological changes. Before this time, syntactic changes had hardly been studied at all, except occasionally and not systematically. Most importantly, however, generativism provided historical linguistics with a more precise understanding of formal and substantive universals. Compared with universals, the changes postulated for prehistoric and unrecorded stages of language can be assessed as more or less probable.

The disadvantage of structuralism and generativism is that they have paid insufficient attention to synchronic variation in language as an important factor in language change. Among other things, inattention to synchronic variability has given rise to pseudo-questions of the following type: Is the change in sounds sudden or gradual? Does language change originate in the area of ​​linguistic competence or in the area of ​​language use? Regarding the first question, the following can be noted. More than a hundred years have passed since Johannes Schmidt criticized the theory of explaining the kinship of languages

With by means of the family tree, which was so promoted by the neogrammatics, and pointed out that innovations of any kind, and especially sound changes, can spread from the center of origin

To periphery and, like waves on a lake, lose their strength as they move. In the following decades, linguists discovered a lot of linguistic material, especially in the field of Romance languages, in favor of the so-calledwave kinship theory languages, which, at least in a number of cases, explained many facts better than did the more orthodox family tree theory,

With its inherent presumption that the divergence of related dialects occurs unexpectedly and then develops into a long process. As dialectologists have shown, contrary to the idea that sound changes occur simultaneously in all words where the appropriate conditions are present, a change in sound can first occur in one or two words and then spread to other words and, in the process of communication, to other regions . If that's the case

And occurs, it becomes clear that the question of whether the change in sounds is gradual or sudden becomes meaningless. And since individuals can also use variable forms, oscillating between an older and a newer form, the same thing happens

And with the question of where language change originates: in the area of ​​linguistic competence or in the area of ​​language use.

As recent sociolinguistic research has shown, what is true about the geographical mutual influence of phonetic, grammatical and lexical variants is equally true regarding their mutual influence in different social groups of the same

And the same linguistic community. Thus, it becomes clear that social factors (like those discussed in Chapter 9) play a more important role in language change than previously realized. After all, the degree of linguistic interaction between people living in the same region is limited not only by geographical or even political boundaries. The distinction of dialects by social group can be as clear as the distinction by geographical area. On the other hand, under given social conditions (violations of the traditional social structure of society, imitation of forms and expressions used ruling classes etc.) the dialect of one social group may change under the influence of the dialect of another social group. Indeed, it is now generally accepted that such phenomena as bilingualism, idiglossia in one territory, or even pidginization and creolization could have played a more decisive role

V formation of language families than was previously thought (see 9.3, 9.4).

We began this section with the question: Why does language change over time? The conclusion we arrive at is a repetition of what was said above (see 2.5): the thesis about the universal nature and continuity of the process of language change does not seem so absurd if we recognize that much of what is generally described as

Serving society as a means of communication, language is constantly undergoing changes, increasingly accumulating its resources to adequately express the meaning of the changes taking place in society. For a living language this process is natural and natural. However, the intensity of this process may vary. And there is an objective reason for this: society itself - the bearer and creator of the language - experiences different periods of its existence differently. During periods of sharp disruption of established stereotypes, the processes of linguistic transformations also intensify. This was the case at the beginning of the 20th century, when the economic, political and social structure Russian society. Under the influence of these changes, the psychological type of the representative of the new society changes, albeit more slowly, which also takes on the character objective factor, influencing processes in language.

The modern era has updated many processes in language, which in other conditions might have been less noticeable and more smoothed out. A social explosion does not make a revolution in language as such, but actively influences the speech practice of a contemporary, revealing linguistic possibilities, bringing them to the surface. Under the influence of an external social factor, the internal resources of the language, developed by intrasystem relations, which were not previously in demand, come into motion. various reasons, including, again, for socio-political reasons. For example, semantic and semantic-stylistic transformations were discovered in many lexical layers of the Russian language, in grammatical forms, etc.

In general, language changes occur through the interaction of external and internal order. Moreover, the basis for changes is laid in the language itself, where internal patterns operate, the cause of which, their driving force, lies in the systematic nature of the language. But a kind of stimulator (or, conversely, “extinguisher”) of these changes is an external factor - processes in the life of society. Language and society, as a language user, are inextricably linked, but at the same time they have their own, separate laws of life support.

Thus, the life of a language, its history, is organically connected with the history of society, but is not completely subordinate to it due to its own systemic organization. Thus, in the language movement, processes of self-development collide with processes stimulated from the outside.

Usually internal laws include law of consistency(global law, which is at the same time a property, quality of language); the law of tradition, which usually restrains innovative processes; the law of analogy (a stimulator for undermining traditionality); the law of economy (or the law of “least effort”), especially actively focused on accelerating the pace of social life; laws of contradictions(antinomies), which are essentially the “initiators” of the struggle of opposites inherent in the language system itself. Being inherent in the object (language) itself, antinomies seem to be preparing an explosion from within.

The external factors involved in the accumulation of elements of a new quality by a language can include the following: a change in the circle of native speakers, the spread of education, territorial movements of the masses, the creation of a new statehood, the development of science, technology, international contacts, etc. This also includes the factor of the active action of the media (print, radio, television), as well as the factor of socio-psychological restructuring of the individual in the conditions of the new statehood and, accordingly, the degree of adaptation to new conditions.

When considering the processes of self-regulation in language that occur as a result of internal laws, and taking into account the impact of external factors on these processes, it is necessary to observe a certain measure of the interaction of these factors: exaggerating the action and significance of one (self-development) can lead to a separation of the language from the society that gave birth to it; exaggeration of the role of the social factor (sometimes while completely forgetting the first) leads to vulgar sociologism.

The answer to the question of why the action of internal laws is a decisive (decisive, but not the only) factor in language development lies in the fact that language is a systemic formation. Language is not just a set, a sum of linguistic signs (morphemes, words, phrases, etc.), but also the relationships between them, so a failure in one link of signs can set in motion not only nearby links, but also the entire chain in whole (or a certain part of it).

Law of consistency is found at different language levels (morphological, lexical, syntactic) and manifests itself both within each level and in their interaction with each other. For example, a reduction in the number of cases in the Russian language (six out of nine) led to an increase in analytical features in the syntactic structure of the language - the function of the case form began to be determined by the position of the word in a sentence and its relationship with other forms. A change in the semantics of a word can affect its syntactic connections and even its form. And, conversely, a new syntactic compatibility can lead to a change in the meaning of the word (its expansion or narrowing). Often these processes are interdependent processes. For example, in modern usage the term “ecology” due to the overgrown syntactic connections significantly expanded its semantics: ecology (from the Greek óikos - house, dwelling, residence and...logy) - the science of the relationships of plant and animal organisms and the communities they form among themselves and with the environment (BES. T. 2. M. , 1991). From the middle of the 20th century. In connection with the increased human impact on nature, ecology has acquired importance as the scientific basis for rational environmental management and the protection of living organisms. At the end of the 20th century. the ecology section is being formed - human ecology(social ecology); aspects appear accordingly city ​​ecology, environmental ethics etc. In general, we can already talk about the greening of modern science. Environmental problems have given rise to socio-political movements (for example, the Greens, etc.). From the point of view of language, there was an expansion of the semantic field, as a result of which another meaning (more abstract) appeared - “requiring protection.” The latter is visible in new syntactic contexts: ecological culture, industrial ecology, greening of production, ecology of life, words, ecology of spirit; ecological situation, environmental disaster and so on. In the last two cases, a new shade of meaning appears - “danger, trouble.” So, the word with special meaning becomes widely used, in which semantic transformations occur by expanding syntactic compatibility.

Systemic relationships are also revealed in a number of other cases, in particular, when choosing predicate forms for subject nouns denoting positions, titles, professions, etc. For modern consciousness, say, the combination Doctor came sounds quite normal, although there is an obvious formal and grammatical discrepancy here. The form changes, focusing on specific content (the doctor is a woman). By the way, in this case, along with semantic-syntactic transformations, one can also note the influence of the social factor: the profession of a doctor in modern conditions is as widespread among women as among men, and the doctor-doctor correlation is carried out at a different linguistic level - stylistic.

Systematicity as a property of language and an individual sign in it, discovered by F. de Saussure, also exhibits deeper relationships, in particular the relationship between the sign (signifier) ​​and the signified, which turned out to be not indifferent.

On the one hand, it appears as something lying on the surface, completely understandable and obvious. On the other hand, its action reveals a complex interweaving of external and internal stimuli that delay transformations in language. The understandability of the law is explained by the objective desire of language for stability, the “security” of what has already been achieved, acquired, but the potency of language just as objectively acts in the direction of shaking this stability, and a breakthrough in the weak link of the system turns out to be quite natural. But here forces come into play that are not directly related to the language itself, but can impose a kind of taboo on innovation. Such prohibitive measures come from linguists and special institutions that have the appropriate legal status; in dictionaries, manuals, reference books, official regulations, perceived as a social establishment, there are indications of the legitimacy or incompetence of the use of certain linguistic signs. There is, as it were, an artificial delay in the obvious process, the preservation of tradition contrary to the objective state of affairs. Take, for example, a textbook example with the widespread use of the verb to call in the forms з Oh no, they're calling instead of ringing and t, calling t. The rules preserve tradition, cf.: g and rit - fry, cook - cook, cook - cook, in the latter case (in and Rish) tradition has been overcome (formerly: Raven is not but they don’t cook.- I. Krylov; The stove pot is more valuable to you: you cook your food in it.- A. Pushkin), but in the verb to call the tradition is stubbornly preserved, not by language, but by codifiers, “establishers” of the literary norm. Such preservation of tradition is justified by other, similar cases, for example, the preservation of traditional stress in verb forms including and t - turn on t, turn t, hand t - hand t, hand t(cf.: incorrect, unconventional use of forms incl. yu cheat, lie cheat hosts of the television programs “Itogi” and “Time”, although such an error has a certain basis - this is a general tendency to shift the stress of verbs to the root part: var and t - cook, cook, cook, cook; beckon - beckon, beckon, beckon, beckon). So tradition can act selectively and not always motivated. Another example: they haven’t spoken for a long time two pairs of felt boots (felt boots), boots (boots), boots (bot), stockings (stockings). But the shape of the socks is stubbornly preserved (and the shape of the socks is traditionally classified as vernacular). The tradition is especially protected by the rules of writing words. Compare, for example, numerous exceptions in the spelling of adverbs, adjectives, etc. The main criterion here is tradition. Why, for example, is it written separately with pantalyku, although the rule states that adverbs formed from nouns that have disappeared from use are written together with prepositions (prefixes)? The answer is incomprehensible - according to tradition, but tradition is a safe conduct for something long gone. Of course, the global destruction of tradition can seriously harm a language, depriving it of such necessary qualities as continuity, stability, and solidity in the end. But partial periodic adjustments of assessments and recommendations are necessary.

The law of tradition is good when it acts as a restraining principle, counteracting random, unmotivated use or, finally, preventing the too extended action of other laws, in particular the law of speech analogy (such as the dialect path in creative work by analogy with life) . Among the traditional spellings there are spellings that are highly conventional (for example, the ending of adjectives -ого with the letter g in place of the phoneme<в>; writing adverbs with -ь ( jump up, backhand) and verb forms (write, read). This also includes traditional spellings of feminine nouns such as night, rye, mouse, although in this case the law of morphological analogy is also included in the action, when -ь acts as a graphic equalizer of noun declension paradigms, cf.: night - at night, like spruce - spruce, door - door.

The law of tradition often collides with the law of analogy, creating in a sense conflict situation, the resolution of which in particular cases may turn out to be unpredictable: either tradition or analogy will win.

Action law of linguistic analogy manifests itself in the internal overcoming of linguistic anomalies, which is carried out as a result of the assimilation of one form of linguistic expression to another. IN in general terms this is a powerful factor in linguistic evolution, since the result is some unification of forms, but, on the other hand, it can deprive the language of specific semantic and grammatical nuances. In such cases, the restraining principle of tradition can play a positive role.

The essence of likening forms (analogy) lies in the alignment of forms, which is observed in pronunciation, in the accentual design of words (in stress), and partly in grammar (for example, in verb control). Colloquial language is especially susceptible to the action of the law of analogy, while literary language is more based on tradition, which is understandable, since the latter is more conservative in nature.

At the phonetic level, the law of analogy manifests itself, for example, in the case when, instead of a historically expected sound, another appears in a word form, by analogy with other forms. For example, the development of the sound o after a soft consonant before a hard consonant is in place (yat): star - stars (from zvezda - zvezdy) by analogy with the forms spring - spring.

An analogy can cause the transition of verbs from one class to another, for example, by analogy with forms of verbs like read - read, throw - quit forms appeared: I gargle (instead of rinsing), waving (instead of waving), meowing (instead of meowing), etc. The analogy is especially active in irregular colloquial and dialect speech (for example, replacing alternations: shore - take care instead of taking care according to the example, you are carrying - you are carrying, etc.). This is how the forms are aligned, bringing them closer to more common patterns.

In particular, some verb forms are subject to alignment of the stress system, where book tradition and living usage collide. For example, the feminine form of the past tense of the verb turns out to be quite stable; compare: call - called, called, called, but: called A; tear - tore, tore, tore, but: tore A; sleep - slept, slept, slept, but: slept A; come to life - oh lived, oh lived, oh lived, but: came to life A. Naturally, the violation of tradition affected specifically the feminine form (sound a la, tear la, spa la etc.), which is not yet allowed in the literary language, but is widespread in everyday use.

A lot of fluctuations in stress are observed in terminological vocabulary, where tradition (as a rule, these are Latin and Greek terms in origin) and practice of use in Russian contexts also often collide. Analogy in this class of words turned out to be extremely productive, and discrepancies were extremely rare. For example, most terms place the emphasis on the final part of the stem, such as: arrhythm and I, ischemia, hypertension, schizophrenia, idiot, bestiality, endoscopy, dystrophy, diplopy, allergies, therapy, electrotherapy, endoscopy, asymmetry and others. But they firmly maintain the emphasis within the stem of the word on -graphy and -tion: photogr aphy, fluorography, lithography, cinematography, monography; pagination, inlay, indexing. In the grammatical dictionary, among 1000 words in -tion, only one word with shifted stress was found - pharmac and me (pharmaceuticals). However, in other cases, there are different forms of words depending on their word-formation composition, for example: heteron oh mia(Greek nómos - law), heteroph he and I(Greek phōnē - sound), heterog and Mia(Greek gámos - marriage), but: heterostyle and I(Greek stýlos - pillar), heterophyll and I(Greek ph yllon- leaf), in the last two cases one can see a violation of tradition and, accordingly, a similarity in pronunciation. By the way, in some terms modern dictionaries record double stress, for example with the same component -phonia - diaphonia. The Latin term industria BES gives in two variants (industria u stri i), and the dictionary marks the form of industries and I as outdated and recognizes the form of ind. as corresponding to the modern norm in striae; double stress is also recorded in the words apopl e xi i and epil e psi i, as in the mentioned word diaph he and I, although a similar diachron model and I retains a single accent. Disagreements in the recommendations are also found regarding the word kulin and Riya. Most dictionaries consider the literary form kulin and Riya, but in the edition of the dictionary by S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova (1992) both options are already recognized as literary - kulin and ri I. Terms with the component -mania staunchly retain the emphasis -mania (English ania, melomania, gallomania, bibliomania, megalomania, etheromania, gigantomania and etc.). Dictionary A.A. Zaliznyaka gives 22 such words. However, in professional speech, sometimes, under the influence of linguistic analogy, the stress shifts to the end of the word, for example, medical workers more often pronounce drug and I than people's commissar and.

The transfer of stress to the final stem is noted even in terms that staunchly retain the original stress, for example mastopat and I(cf. most similar terms: homeop a tia, allopathy, myopathy, antipathy, metriopathy and etc.). Often the difference in stress is explained by the different origin of words - Latin or Greek: dislal and I(from dis... and Greek lalia - speech), dyspeps and I(from dis... and gr. pepsis - digestion), dysplazia and I(from dis... and gr. plasis - education); disp e Russia(from Latin dispersio - scattering), disk in Russia(from Latin discussio - consideration).

Thus, in the terminological models of words, contradictory trends are observed: on the one hand, the preservation of traditional forms of words based on the etymology of word formation, and on the other hand, the desire for unification and likening of forms.

The alignment of forms under the influence of the law of analogy can also be observed in grammar, for example, in the change in verbal and nominal control: for example, the control of the verb is affected by dates. p. (what, instead of what) arose by analogy with other verbs (to be amazed at what, to be surprised at what). Often such changes are assessed as erroneous and unacceptable in the literary language (for example, under the influence of the combination faith in victory, the erroneous combination arose confidence in victory instead of confidence in victory).

The action is especially active in modern Russian language law of speech economy(or saving speech effort). The desire for economy of linguistic expression is found at different levels of the language system - in vocabulary, word formation, morphology, syntax. The effect of this law explains, for example, the replacement of forms next type: Georgian from Georgian, Lezgin from Lezgin, Ossetian from Ossetian (however, Bashkir - ?); The same is evidenced by the zero ending in the genitive plural of a number of classes of words: five Georgians instead of Georgians; one hundred grams instead one hundred grams; half a kilo of orange, tomato, tangerine instead of oranges, tomatoes, tangerines and so on.

Syntax has a particularly large reserve in this regard: phrases can serve as the basis for the formation of words, and complex sentences can be collapsed to simple ones, etc. For example: electric train (electric train), record book (grade book), buckwheat (buckwheat) and so on. Wed. also parallel use of constructions like: My brother said that my father would come. - My brother told me about my father’s arrival. The economy of linguistic forms is evidenced by various abbreviations, especially if the abbreviation formations acquire the permanent form of names - nouns that can obey the rules of grammar ( university, study at university).

The development of language, like development in any other area of ​​life and activity, cannot but be stimulated by the inconsistency of ongoing processes. Contradictions (or antinomies) are inherent in language itself as a phenomenon; without them, any changes are unthinkable. It is in the struggle of opposites that the self-development of language is manifested.

There are usually five or six main antinomies: the antinomy of speaker and listener; antinomy of usage and capabilities of the language system; antinomy of code and text; antinomy due to the asymmetry of the linguistic sign; the antinomy of two functions of language - informational and expressive, the antinomy of two forms of language - written and oral.

Antinomy of speaker and listener is created as a result of differences in the interests of the interlocutors coming into contact (or the reader and the author): the speaker is interested in simplifying and shortening the utterance, and the listener is interested in simplifying and facilitating the perception and understanding of the utterance.

A clash of interests creates a conflict situation that must be resolved by searching for forms of expression that satisfy both sides.

In different eras of society, this conflict is resolved in different ways. For example, in a society where public forms of communication play a leading role (debates, rallies, oratorical appeals, persuasive speeches), the focus on the listener is more noticeable. Ancient rhetoric was largely constructed taking into account precisely this attitude. They provide clear rules for constructing a persuasive speech. It is not without reason that the techniques of rhetoric and the organization of public speech are actively being propagated in the modern socio-political situation in Russia, when the principle of openness and open expression of one’s opinion is being elevated to the leading criterion for the activities of parliamentarians, journalists, correspondents, etc. Currently, manuals and guides devoted to the problems of oratorical speech, problems of dialogue, problems of speech culture, the concept of which includes not only such quality as literary literacy, but especially expressiveness, persuasiveness, and logic.

In other eras, there may be a clear dominance of written language and its influence on the process of communication. The orientation towards the written text (the predominance of the interests of the writer, the speaker), the text of the order prevailed in Soviet society, and it was to this that the activities of the media were subordinated. Thus, despite the intralinguistic essence of this antinomy, it is thoroughly imbued with social content.

Thus, the conflict between the speaker and the listener is resolved either in favor of the speaker or in favor of the listener. This can manifest itself not only at the level of general attitudes, as noted above, but also at the level of the linguistic forms themselves - in the preference of some and the denial or limitation of others. For example, in the Russian language of the beginning and middle of the 20th century. Many abbreviations appeared (sound, alphabetic, and partly syllabic). This was extremely convenient for those who compiled the texts (saving speech effort), however, nowadays more and more divided names are appearing (cf.: Society for the Protection of Animals, Department for Combating Organized Crime, Society of Easel Artists), which do not deny the use of abbreviations, but, competing with them, have a clear advantage of influencing power, since they contain open content. The following example is very clear in this regard: the Literary Gazette dated June 5, 1991 published a letter from Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus', which sharply condemned the practice of using the abbreviation ROC (Russian Orthodox Church) in our press. “Neither the spirit of the Russian person, nor the rules of church piety allow such a substitution,” writes the patriarch. Indeed, such familiarity in relation to the Church turns into a serious spiritual loss. The name of the Russian Orthodox Church turns into an empty icon that does not touch the spiritual strings of a person. Alexy II ends his reasoning this way: “I hope that strained abbreviations like the Russian Orthodox Church or the once-existent “V. Great" and even "I. Christ" will not be found in church speech."

Antinomy of code and text- this is a contradiction between a set of linguistic units (code - the sum of phonemes, morphemes, words, syntactic units) and their use in coherent speech (text). There is such a connection here: if you increase the code (increase the number of linguistic signs), then the text that is built from these signs will be reduced; and vice versa, if you shorten the code, the text will certainly increase, since the missing code characters will have to be conveyed descriptively, using the remaining characters. A textbook example The names of our relatives serve as such a connection. In the Russian language, special kinship terms existed to name various kinship relationships within the family: brother-in-law - husband’s brother; brother-in-law - wife's brother; sister-in-law - husband's sister; sister-in-law - wife's sister, daughter-in-law - son's wife; father-in-law - husband's father; mother-in-law - father-in-law's wife, husband's mother; son-in-law - husband of a daughter, sister, sister-in-law; father-in-law - wife's father; mother-in-law - wife's mother; nephew - the son of a brother, sister; niece - daughter of a brother or sister. Some of these words ( brother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law) were gradually forced out of speech, the words fell out, but the concepts remained. Consequently, descriptive substitutions ( wife's brother, husband's brother, husband's sister etc.). The number of words in the active dictionary has decreased, and the text has increased as a result. Another example of the relationship between code and text is the relationship between a term and its definition (definition). The definition gives a detailed interpretation of the term. Consequently, the more often terms are used in the text without their description, the shorter the text will be. True, in this case, a reduction in the text when lengthening the code is observed under the condition that the number of naming objects does not change. If a new sign appears to designate a new object, then the structure of the text does not change. An increase in the code due to borrowing occurs in cases where a foreign word can only be translated by a phrase, for example: cruise - a sea voyage, surprise - an unexpected gift, broker (broker) - an intermediary in making a transaction (usually in stock exchange transactions), lounge - a device in a circus, insuring performers for performing dangerous stunts, camping - a camp for auto tourists.

Antinomy of usage and language capabilities(in another way - systems and norms) is that the capabilities of the language (system) are much wider than the use of linguistic signs accepted in a literary language; the traditional norm acts in the direction of restriction and prohibition, while the system is capable of satisfying large demands for communication. For example, the norm fixes the insufficiency of some grammatical forms (absence of the 1st person form singular for the verb win, lack of opposition by aspect for a number of verbs that qualify as two-aspect, etc.). Usage compensates for such absences by taking advantage of the capabilities of the language itself, often using analogies for this. For example, in the verb attack, the meanings of the perfective or imperfective form are not distinguished out of context, then, contrary to the norm, a pair is created attack - attack similar to verbs organize - organize(the form of organizing has already penetrated into the literary language). Forms are created using the same pattern. use, mobilize and others, which are only at the stage of vernacular. Thus the norm resists the possibilities of language. More examples: the system gives two types of endings for nouns in the nominative plural - houses/houses, engineers/engineers, toms/toms, workshops/workshops. The norm differentiates forms, taking into account style and stylistic criteria: literary-neutral ( professors, teachers, engineers, poplars, cakes) and professional ( cake, casing, power, anchor, editor, proofreader), vernacular (squares, mother), bookish ( teachers, professors).

Antinomy caused by the asymmetry of the linguistic sign, is manifested in the fact that the signified and the signifier are always in a state of conflict: the signified (meaning) strives to acquire new, more precise means expressions (new signs for designation), and the signifier (sign) - to expand the range of its meanings, to acquire new meanings. A striking example of the asymmetry of a linguistic sign and its overcoming is the history of the word ink with a fairly transparent meaning ( niello, black - ink). Initially, there was no conflict - one signified and one signifier (ink is a black substance). However, over time, substances of a different color appear to perform the same function as ink, so a conflict arose: there is one signifier (ink), and there are several signifieds - liquids different color. As a result, combinations that were absurd from the point of view of common sense arose red ink, blue ink, green ink. The absurdity is removed by the next step in mastering the word ink, the appearance of the phrase black ink; Thus, the word ink lost its black meaning and began to be used in the meaning of “liquid used for writing.” This is how a balance arose - the signified and the signifier “came to agreement.”

Examples of asymmetry of linguistic signs are words kitten, puppy, calf etc., if they are used in the meanings “baby cat”, “baby dog”, “baby cow”, in which there is no differentiation based on gender and therefore one signifier refers to two signifieds. If it is necessary to accurately indicate the sex, corresponding correlations arise - calf and heifer, cat and cat, etc. In this case, say, the name calf means only a male cub. Another example: the word deputy means a person in office, regardless of gender (one sign - two signified). The same is true in other cases, for example, when the designations of a person, a creature and an object collide: broiler (chicken room and chicken), classifier (device and the one who classifies), animator (device and animation specialist), conductor (machine part and transport worker), etc. The language seeks to overcome such inconvenience of forms, in particular, through secondary suffixation: baking powder (subject) - baking powder(person), puncher (object) - puncher (person). Simultaneously with this differentiation of designations (person and object), a specialization of suffixes also occurs: the person suffix -tel (cf. teacher) becomes a designation of the object, and the meaning of the person is conveyed by the suffix -schik.

The possible asymmetry of a linguistic sign in our time leads to an expansion of the meanings of many words and their generalization; these are, for example, designations of various positions, titles, professions that are equally suitable for men and women ( lawyer, pilot, doctor, professor, assistant, director, lecturer and etc.). Even if correlating forms of the feminine gender are possible with such words, they either have a reduced stylistic coloring ( lecturer, doctor, lawyer), or acquire a different meaning (professor - wife of a professor). Neutral correlated pairs are rarer: teacher - teacher, chairman - chairman).

The antinomy of the two functions of language comes down to the opposition of a purely informational function and an expressive one. Both operate in different directions: information function leads to uniformity and standardization of linguistic units, expressive - encourages novelty and originality of expression. The speech standard is fixed in official spheres of communication - in business correspondence, legal literature, government acts. Expression, novelty of expression is more characteristic of oratorical, journalistic, and artistic speech. A kind of compromise (or more often a conflict) is found in the media, especially in the newspaper, where expression and standard, according to V.G. Kostomarov, are a constructive feature.

We can name another area of ​​manifestation of contradictions - this is antinomy of oral and written language. Currently, due to the growing role of spontaneous communication and the weakening of the framework of official public communication (in the past - prepared in writing), due to the weakening of censorship and self-censorship, the very functioning of the Russian language has changed.

In the past, rather isolated forms of language implementation - oral and written - begin in some cases to come closer, intensifying their natural interaction. Oral speech perceives elements of bookishness, written speech widely uses the principles of colloquialism. The very relationship between bookishness (the basis is written speech) and colloquialism (the basis is oral speech) begins to collapse. Not only lexical and grammatical features appear in spoken speech book speech, but also purely written symbols, for example: person with a capital letter, kindness in quotes, quality with a plus (minus) sign and etc.

Moreover, from oral speech, these “book borrowings” again pass into written speech in a colloquial form. Here are some examples: We leave behind-the-scenes agreements outside the brackets(MK, 1993, March 23); Only medical workers serving 20 clients of the sobering-up center, I counted 13 plus a psychologist, plus four consultants(Pravda, 1990, February 25); One of side effects This so-called fetal therapy is a general rejuvenation of the body, a change in the “minus” of biological age(Evening Moscow, 1994, March 23); These charming blond girls in jackets and skirts as blue as his suit, with snow-white blouses, in these beautiful bright orange thickly inflated vests and dash belts, suddenly became inaccessible to him, like the Kingdom of Heaven(F. Neznansky. Private investigation).

So the boundaries of speech forms become blurred, and, according to V.G. Kostomarov, a special type of speech appears - book-oral speech.

This situation predetermines the increased interpenetration of bookishness and colloquiality (oral and written), which sets in motion the adjacent planes, giving birth to a new linguistic quality on the basis of new clashes and contradictions. “The dependence of the functioning of linguistic means on the form of speech decreases, but their attachment to the topic, sphere, and situation of communication increases.”

All these antinomies that were discussed are internal stimuli for the development of language. But thanks to the influence of social factors, their action in different eras of the life of a language may turn out to be more or less intense and open. IN modern language many of the named antinomies became especially active. In particular, the most striking phenomena characteristic of the functioning of the Russian language of our time are M.V. Panov considers the strengthening of the personal principle, stylistic dynamism and stylistic contrast, and dialogical communication. Thus, socio- and psycholinguistic factors influence the characteristics of the language of the modern era.

Internal and external language changes. Why and how do changes occur in the social status of LANGUAGES?

In the history of languages, a distinction is made between internal (or intralingual) changes occurring in the language itself, and external changes associated with changes in the social functions of the language.

Here are examples of intralingual changes:

1) In phonetics: the appearance of new sounds (for example, in the early Proto-Slavic language there were no hissing ones: [zh], [h], [sh] - rather late sounds in all Slavic languages, which arose as a result of the softening of sounds, respectively [g], [ k], [x]); loss of some sounds (for example, two previously different sounds cease to differ: for example, the Old Russian sound, denoted by the ancient letter Ъ >, in the Russian and Belarusian languages ​​coincided with the sound [e], and in Ukrainian - with the sound [i], cf. other Russian snow, Russian, Belarusian, snow, Ukrainian snig).

2) In grammar: loss of some grammatical meanings and forms (for example, in the Proto-Slavic language, all names, pronouns and verbs had, in addition to singular and plural forms, also dual forms, used when talking about two objects; later category the dual number has been lost in all Slavic languages ​​except Slovenian); examples of the opposite process: the formation (already in the written history of Slavic languages) of a special verbal form - the gerund; division of a previously single name into two parts of speech - nouns and adjectives; the formation of a relatively new part of speech in Slavic languages ​​- the numeral. Sometimes the grammatical form changes without changing the meaning: they used to say cities, snow, and now cities, snow.

3) In vocabulary: numerous and extremely diverse changes in vocabulary, phraseology and lexical semantics. Suffice it to say that in the publication “New words and meanings: Dictionary-reference book on materials of the press and literature of the 70s / Edited by N. Z. Kotelova” (Moscow, 1984. - 806 pp.), which included only the most noticeable ten years of innovation, about 5,500 dictionary entries.

External language changes are changes in the fate of the language: in the nature of its use, in people’s attitude towards the language. For example, over time, the social functions of language and the scope of its use may expand or narrow; its legal status and its prestige at home and abroad will change. A language may become widespread as a means of interethnic or interstate communication or, conversely, lose its role as an intermediary language. Important events in the social history of a language are the creation of its writing and writing, the formation of its literary (standardized) form of existence, the emergence of a literary tradition and the creation of masterpieces of the art of words.

In the history of languages, internal changes and changes in the fate of the language are often intertwined. The most profound processes in the social history of a language usually either lead to changes in the structure or are somehow reflected in it. For example, the transformation of a dialect into Koine (a supra-dialectal means of communication) may be accompanied by the abandonment of narrow local features of speech or the borrowing of dialect phenomena from a wider area. The displacement of one language by another may involve the gradual destruction of its structure. This is exactly how the XVII century gradually faded away in Germany - early XVIII V. Slavic language Polabyan. Internal changes usually also occur in the assimilating language.

Almost all typologically possible events of “external” history were in the complex and bright fate of Latin. 1) The emergence of a language beyond the boundaries of its ethnic group: at first (III - II centuries BC) - the spread of the dialect of ancient Latsia throughout Italy, later (II century BC - V century AD) e.) - Latinization of future Romanesque peoples: the Celtic tribes of Gaul, the Iberian tribes on the Iberian Peninsula, the Thracian tribes of Dacia. 2) Formation of various social functions of the language, expansion of the spheres of its use: the transformation of Latin into a universal means of communication of ancient Roman society. 3) Formation of the literary language, its normative and stylistic processing and regulation (1st century BC - 3rd century AD); the flourishing of ancient Roman literature: its “golden age”, associated with the names of Cicero, Catullus, Horace, Ovid, and the later “silver Latin” (the works of Seneca, Tacitus, Apuleius). 4) Refusal of society to use the language: this was caused by the gap between the norms of classical Latin and the developing colloquial variants Latin language(III - VI centuries); as a result, the functioning of Latin as a living language ceases. 5) The use of language as an interethnic means of communication: in the 7th - 14th centuries. Latin becomes written language Western and Central Europe, the language of the Catholic Church, science, law, and partly literature. At the same time, medieval Latin behaves like a living language: the norms of syntax change, the vocabulary grows rapidly. 6) Archaizing secondary normalization of language: a short-lived revival (or restoration) of the norms of classical “Golden Latin” in the era of humanism (XIV - XV centuries) - in the works of Thomas More, Giordano Bruno, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Tommaso Campanella, Mikolay Copernicus and others. Individual works by Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio were written in Latin. However, the artificially purified Latin of the humanists turned out to be unviable and, most importantly, could not resist the expansion of the social functions of folk languages. 7) Narrowing of the scope of language use: starting from the 16th century. Latin is gradually being replaced by vernacular languages; first of all - from artistic verbal creativity (so, " The Divine Comedy"Dante was written in Italian, but his scientific treatise on the popular language is still in Latin). Latin lasted the longest in science: back in the 16th - 18th centuries, the works of Gassendi, Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Newton, and many works were written in Latin Lomonosov. Until the 18th century, Latin remained the language of diplomacy. In the 20th century, Latin continues to be the official language of the Catholic Church and acts of the Vatican, and also partly the language of science (in the nomenclature of medicine, biology, in the international inventory of terminology elements).

The founders of comparative historical linguistics F. Bonn, Rask, A. Schleicher, as well as their followers, who studied linguistic changes that took place over many centuries and millennia, never considered the question of the pace of language development to be a special problem. They simply believed that languages ​​change very slowly. In our domestic linguistics, during the period of dominance of the so-called new doctrine of language, the theory of leaps was widely promoted.

The founder of the thesis about the spasmodic development of languages ​​should be considered N. Ya. Marr, who assumed that the development of human language as an ideological superstructure is mainly a history of revolutions that broke the chain of consistent development of sound speech.

Considering the reasons for various changes in the languages ​​of the world, N. Ya. Marr stated that the source of these changes is “not external mass migrations, but deep-rooted revolutionary shifts that flowed from qualitatively new sources of material life, qualitatively new technology and a qualitatively new social system. The result was new thinking, and with it a new ideology in the construction of speech and, naturally, new technology.”

According to N. Ya. Marr, there are no isolated and racial cultures, just as there are no racial languages: “there is a system of cultures, like<298>there are various systems of languages ​​that succeeded each other with changes in economic forms and publics with such a break with the old forms that the new types do not resemble the old ones, just as a chicken does not resemble the egg from which it hatched.”

This theory was sharply criticized by I.V. Stalin during a linguistic discussion in 1950. Stalin noted that Marxism does not recognize sudden explosions in the development of a language, the sudden death of an existing language and the sudden construction of a new language. Marxism believes that the transition of a language from an old quality to a new one occurs not through an explosion, not through the destruction of an existing language and the creation of a new one, but through the gradual accumulation of elements of a new quality, therefore, through the gradual withering away of elements of the old quality.

The theory of sudden leaps and explosions, which constituted one of the most important theoretical postulates of the new doctrine of language, was rightly criticized during a linguistic discussion in 1950, which took place on the pages of the newspaper Pravda.

The sudden leap and explosion of the existing language system fundamentally contradicts the essence of language as a means of communication. A sudden radical change would inevitably render any language completely unusable for communication.

Sudden leaps in language development are also impossible for another reason. The language changes unevenly. Some of its constituent elements may change, while other elements may persist for a long time, sometimes for centuries. Unevenness of change is observed even within one language level, say, the phonological level. If we compare the phonological systems of the Baltic-Finnish and Permian languages, we can establish that the system of vowel phonemes in the Baltic-Finnish languages ​​is more archaic, while the system of consonant phonemes has undergone very strong changes. Just the opposite is the case in the Permian languages. In these languages, the system of consonant phonemes is more archaic and at the same time the system of vowel phonemes has changed very much. There may not be any interdependence at all between changes occurring in different areas of language. For example, consonantism and vocalism in the Scandinavian languages ​​are more archaic than consonantism German language, however, the ancient case and verbal systems collapsed in the Scandinavian languages ​​to a much greater extent.

The implementation of language changes through slow evolution is the most typical. The theory of leaps in the development of language arose as a result of a mechanical transfer of the theory of leaps, applicable to various chemical processes, etc., to the history of the development of society, divided into hostile classes.<299>

The fundamental denial of the theory of leaps and explosions in the development of language, however, should not lead to the conclusion that the development of language always takes place in terms of a very slow and gradual evolution. In the history of languages, there are periods of relatively more intense changes, when in a certain period of time many more different changes occur in the language than in previous periods.

The famous French researcher of the modern Greek language A. Mirambel notes the following about this: “The main changes that gave the Greek language of the post-classical period its specific form took place in the period of time, starting with the formation of the common Greek language, i.e. from the Hellenistic era to half of the Middle Ages, however , despite significant chronological periods separating various facts, in the period from the 1st century. Doctor of Science e. until the end of the 3rd century. the most numerous changes have occurred.” 4 5

If we consider the history of the French language, it is easy to see that the most significant qualitative changes in the language system occurred in the period from the 2nd to the 8th centuries. Among these radical changes are the following:

In the field of vocalism during the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries. most vowels become diphthongs. 4 6

The composition of consonants was replenished by the 8th century. two affricates ts and C. After the 6th century. on the territory of Galia d", arising from a consonant g, before vowels e, i, a becomes an affricate G. In the 7th century on the territory of the Frankish state intervocalic consonant d began to sound like interdental đ (d), final t after a vowel - like an interdental t(J).

Thus, by the 9th century. n. e. The composition of vowels and consonants in folk Latin has changed so much that we can already talk about a qualitatively new composition of vowels and consonants in the French language.

In folk Latin by the 7th century. Only two cases were preserved: nominative and accusative, which, with the help of prepositions, began to perform the functions of all other cases. These phenomena essentially meant a complete restructuring of the case system.

The loss of final unstressed vowels (VII-VIII centuries AD) led to the fact that the inflections of nouns and adjectives of different types of declension coincided. It also contributed to the unification of various types of verb conjugation.

Analytical constructions that expressed action in terms of the past and in terms of the future in folk Latin by the 8th century. convert<300>developed into tense forms, which gave in the Romance languages, and in particular in French, Passé composé and Futur simple. For example, j"ai еcrit une lettre (

It is easy to notice that in this period there is a period of time, determined by the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries, within which the largest number of most significant changes took place.

In the period from the 9th to the 15th centuries. Changes also occurred in the history of the French language. In particular, during this period the following phenomena occurred: 1) the transformation of diphthongs into monophthongs (XII-XVIII centuries), 2) the formation of nasal vowels, 3) the simplification of consonant groups, 4) the final loss of final consonants p, t, k, s, 5) loss of the category of case, 6) alignment of nominal forms, 7) emergence of the category of definiteness and uncertainty, 8) gradual withering away of inflection and unification of forms according to the principle of analogy, 9) clarification of the meanings of tense forms, 10) establishment of a firm word order.

From the 12th century the process of gradual destruction of the inflectional system begins. XIV and XV centuries - this is an era when the inflectional system is destroyed especially intensively, when the tendency towards analogy, towards unification and alignment of forms is bright and persistent.

The reasons for these periods of more intense change are not well understood. It is also impossible to say with sufficient confidence whether similar periods are observed in all languages. Apparently, the causes of these periods are a purely random accumulation of various circumstances. In the system of each language, obviously, there are some links on which all other elements of the linguistic structure are supported. If a supporting link undergoes destruction, then we can assume that this event entails a whole series of relatively quickly successive changes. So, for example, in the composition of the vowels of folk Latin during the 1st-2nd centuries. n. e. the transition of the quantitative difference between vowels into a qualitative one took place. Long vowels remained closed, short vowels became open. The destruction of this link entailed a number of consequences. At the end of the 5th century. open syllable vowels are lengthened. It was said above that concentrating longitude and stress creates an increase in pronunciation effort. This inconvenience was later eliminated: long stressed vowels of an open syllable became diphthongs, for example, pę?de "leg" became pied; f??de "faith" became feid. Since the 12th century, the transformation of diphthongs into monophthongs begins.

Another very important phenomenon should also be noted - this is a change in the nature of the stress. In folk Latin, the power oud<301>speech began to prevail over music, which caused a reduction and then loss of unstressed vowels. The loss of unstressed vowels caused some changes in the area of ​​consonants, for example, the appearance of groups of consonants with/and their further phonetic change.

Significant changes in the field of declination and conjugation caused such phonetic changes as the loss of the final m, which led to the loss of the singular case category and contributed to the development of the analytical system.

Thus, everything depends on the extent to which changes affect the key links of the language system and the extent to which these changes can entail a number of significant consequences.