Concept and term slavic philology emerged from the term philology(from the Greek philologia - inclination, love of the word). Currently, the term philology has several meanings. In a broad sense, philology refers to the disciplines that study language, literature and culture through literary and other cultural and historical works and monuments. Sometimes philology is called only a complex of sciences about language and phenomena associated with language.

The ambiguity of the term philology is explained historically. In ancient Greece, philology is, first of all, a section of philosophy as a science about the nature of words and speech, about the nature of language and its connection with thinking; the most important part of ancient Greek philosophy was also "grammatical art" and the critical study of ancient authors.

A new stage in the development of philology begins in the Renaissance and is associated with the activities of encyclopedic scholars who strove for a deep knowledge of the languages, literature and culture of the ancient world. Much later (at the end of the 18th century) the concept of classical philology appeared, which studies everything that relates to antiquity, in contrast to the "new philologies" - the sciences of the Germanic, Romanesque, Slavic peoples and languages. The concept of Slavic philology is ambiguous. It is used as the name of a set of basic and auxiliary sciences - linguistic and cultural-historical disciplines related to the study of languages, literature, spiritual and material culture of the Slavic peoples. The main ones include Slavic linguistics, and the auxiliary ones are the science of ancient Slavic writing, Slavic folklore and Slavic mythology, ethnography, literary criticism.

Slavic philology is a part of Slavic studies (Slavic studies) - a complex of sciences about the Slavs - which unites all disciplines involved in the study of Slavs: Slavic history, ethnography, folklore, mythology, etc.

As a scientific discipline, Slavic studies developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries amid the struggle of the Slavic peoples (southern and western Slavs) for national self-determination, accompanied by the growth of national self-awareness, which led to the great interest of Slavic scientists in Slavic antiquities - in the history, literature and language of the ancient Slavs ...

Slavic studies and Slavic philology have long become not just a science, but the most important part of the national culture of every Slavic country and every Slavic people.

Major Slavic philologists

Over the centuries, Slavic philologists have repeatedly appeared in the Slavic countries, the scientific significance of whose activities makes their very heritage outstanding facts of history. Slavic culture... Among these scientists were scientific geniuses (for example, M.V. Lomonosov, A.A. Potebnya, etc.).

Vladimir Ivanovich Dal (1801-1872) - a brilliant self-taught philologist, compiler of the collection of proverbs "Proverbs of the Russian people" and the famous explanatory "Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language." Both of the above books to this day are priceless works of Russian spiritual culture.

Academician Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky (1812-1880) left an extensive scientific heritage(about 400 works). His work on historical grammar "Thoughts on the history of the Russian language" is especially important. Among the creative ideas of Sreznevsky, of course, the central place belongs to the multivolume dictionary of the Old Russian language. Sreznevsky did not manage to complete this work, and it was published posthumously under the title "Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language Based on Written Monuments." Repeatedly republished in the XX century. Sreznevsky's dictionary still retains great importance for philology and, in fact, has no analogues.

Academician Yakov Karlovich Groth (1812-1893) was the largest researcher of G.R. Derzhavin, and at the same time the author of outstanding works on Russian grammar, spelling and punctuation. The norms of Russian spelling proposed by him were in effect for many decades until the post-revolutionary spelling reform of 1918.

Academician Fyodor Ivanovich Buslaev (1818-1897) was one of the most cultured people of his time, a polyglot. As a philologist, researcher of language, folklore and literature, he was also a prominent historian and theorist of painting. In 1838 he graduated from the verbal department of the philosophical faculty of Moscow University. After that, becoming a simple gymnasium teacher, he wrote the first articles about the Russian language and its teaching. Having moved to the position of a home teacher in an aristocratic family and left with her for two years abroad, F.I. Buslaev used his stay in Germany for the penetrating study of the works of German philologists, and while living in Italy, he improved as an art critic. He was one of the best educators of his time; it was Buslaev who was elected in the late 1850s. for teaching the history of Russian literature to the heir to the throne Nikolai Alexandrovich (this lecture course has been published).

In 1844 Buslaev published an excellent book "On the Teaching of the Russian Language". This work (the real content of which is incomparably wider than the title) is being republished to this day and to this day serves as valuable for philologists. scientific source... Three years later, the author began teaching at his native Moscow University. As a professor and then an academician, Buslaev wrote The Experience of the Historical Grammar of the Russian Language (1858), also reprinted to this day, and two volumes of Historical Sketches of Russian Folk Literature and Art (1861).

Traveling abroad, he continued to study the history of art. Buslaev was one of the largest specialists in Russian icon painting. The collection of works on contemporary literature “My Leisure” and the book of memoirs “My Memories” stand somewhat apart in his vast and multifaceted creative heritage. In the last years of his life, the blind academician F.I. Buslaev created new and new works, dictating their texts to stenographers.

Pyotr Alekseevich Lavrovsky (1827-1886) was born into the family of a village priest, graduated from the Tver Theological Seminary and St. pedagogical institute... Was recommended by his teacher I.I. Sreznevsky in 1851 to Kharkov University as head of the department of Slavic dialects. In 1869 he became the head of the newly opened Warsaw University, but, having a direct and open character, not inclined to diplomacy, he was rector only for three years. Among the works of P.A. Lavrovsky should point to the book "The root meaning in the names of kinship among the Slavs" (1867), Serbian-Russian and Russian-Serbian dictionaries. His brother Nikolai Alekseevich Lavrovsky was also a prominent philologist. philology Slavic studies scientific discipline

Academician Alexander Nikolaevich Pypin (1833-1904), was a native of Saratov, cousin writer N.G. Chernyshevsky. Both of them were distinguished by radical democratic views. In 1861, as a young professor at St. Petersburg University, Pypin was determined to resign in protest against the introduction of rules restricting student liberties. After the arrest of Chernyshevsky (end of 1862), instead of him, he entered the editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine and subsequently, together with N.A. Nekrasov was its co-editor. As a result, Pypin, despite his fame in academic circles, had a chance to become an academician only at the end of the 19th century.

A.N. Pypin was distinguished by the breadth of scientific interests, studying the history of Slavic literature, the history of Freemasonry, contemporary Russian literature, etc. A characteristic feature of his approach to literature can be considered a kind of "sociologism": he tried to describe its facts against the background of the political history of society.

Academician Vladimir Ivanovich Lamansky (1833-1914) - the son of a senator, a graduate of St. Petersburg University. As part of a scientific trip from the Ministry of Public Education, he was engaged in research work in the South Slavic and West Slavic countries. Lamansky's master's thesis was entitled "On the Slavs in Asia Minor, Africa and Spain" (1859). Becoming an associate professor, then a professor at St. Petersburg University, he taught Slavic studies also in

Petersburg Theological Academy and even at the Academy of the General Staff. Lamansky's doctoral dissertation "On the Historical Study of the Greco-Slavic World in Europe" (1871) dealt not only with philological issues, but also with acute problems of political history. The extensive work "The Slavic Life of Cyril as a religious-epic work and a historical source" (1903-1904) contained, as always, Lamansky's sharply peculiar interpretation of the position of the Slavic world in the 9th century. In the XX century. the works of V.I. Lamansky was practically not reprinted, his concepts were ignored, but it was not possible to oust his bright name from the history of Slavic studies.

Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya (1835-1891), descended from the nobility of the Poltava province, during his lifetime was a professor at the provincial Kharkov University. The enormous creative potential of the young author is already felt in his master's thesis “On some symbols in the Slavic folk poetry"(1860). The work "Thought and Language", published in the form of a series of articles in 1862, immediately attracted the attention of readers to the young philologist, who very interestingly "turned" some of the ideas of V. Humboldt.

In 1865, the thirty-year-old Potebnya made an attempt to defend his doctoral dissertation "On the mythical meaning of certain rituals and beliefs" in Kharkov. However, the defense failed, and his university teacher, the Slavist P.A. Lavrovsky, who subjected his dissertation to detailed criticism. As a doctoral student A.A. Potebnya much later defended his work From Notes on Russian Grammar (1874).

The most important works of Potebnya the literary critic are the books From Lectures on the Theory of Literature (1894) and From Notes on the Theory of Literature (1905).

In the philological concept of A.A. An important place is occupied by the concept of internal form. Potebnya did not reduce the internal form to the internal form of the word, and did not reduce the latter to the etymological image in the word. He saw the presence of an internal form in any semantically holistic verbal formation (from word to work) and, in addition, recognized the legitimacy of the Humboldt concept of "the internal form of language."

Academician Alexander Nikolaevich Veselovsky (1838-1906) was one of the greatest literary scholars of his time, one of the founders of the comparative historical method. Doctoral dissertation - "From the history of literary communication between East and West: Slavic legends about Solomon and Kitovras and Western legends about Morolf and Merlin" (1872). Other major works - "Research in the field of Russian spiritual verse" (vol. 1-6, 1879-1891), "South Russian epics" (I-IX, 1881-1884), "From the history of the novel and story "(Issue 1-2, 1886-1888). A collection of articles by A.N. Veselovsky "Historical Poetics".

Academician Ignatius Vikentievich Yagich (1838-1923) - Croatian scientist, worked in Russia, Austria and Germany. For four decades he published the most valuable Slavic journal Archiv für slavische Philologie. Among his works are "On Slavic Folk Poetry" (1876), "Discourse of the South Slavic and Russian antiquity on the Church Slavonic language" (1895) and "History of Slavic Philology" (1910).

Jan Ignatius Netsislav Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) - linguist, Pole by nationality. Master's thesis - "On the Old Polish language up to the XIV century" (1870), doctoral dissertation - "Experience of the phonetics of the Rezian dialects" (1875).

He founded a linguistic school at Kazan University (where the Russians called him Ivan Alexandrovich), which later gave, for example, such a philologist as A.M. Selishchev. After Kazan he worked in Dorpat, Krakow, St. Petersburg, Warsaw and others. Baudouin de Courtenay is one of the founders of modern structural linguistics, the creator of the theory of phonemes. His main works are collected in the author's two-volume edition "Selected Works on General Linguistics" (1963).

Anton Semenovich Budilovich (1846-1908) graduated from theological seminary, and then from St. Petersburg University. In his youth, he attracted attention with the work "Lomonosov as a naturalist and philologist" (1869). Among other works, it is necessary to note the books "On the literary unity of the peoples of the Slavic tribe" (1877) and "Common Slavic language among others. common languages ancient and modern Europe "(1892). He worked at Warsaw University, then for ten years, in 1892-1901, was rector of Dorpat (Yuryevsk) University, where he actively fought against German dominance. After his death, Budilovich's works were almost never reprinted, and his name and philological heritage in the XX century. were usually hushed up.

Academician Aleksey Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov (1864-1920), a graduate of Moscow University, was one of the most famous Slavic philologists of his time, a historian of language and a historian of ancient Slavic literatures. Of his numerous works, one can point to the works "On the History of Stress in Slavic Languages" (1898), "Introduction to the Course of the History of the Russian Language" (1916), "Syntax of the Russian Language" (1925-1927), "Historical Morphology of the Russian Language" (1957). Chess did a lot to study the problem of the Slavic ancestral home.

Evgeny Vasilievich Anichkov (1866-1937) - graduated from St. Petersburg University, taught at various higher educational institutions of pre-revolutionary Russia. From 1918 he lived in Yugoslavia and worked as a professor at the University of Belgrade. He was distinguished by a wide variety of interests, but he devoted his main works to Slavic mythology and folklore. These include "Spring Ritual Song in the West and among the Slavs" (1903-1905), "Paganism and Ancient Rus" (1914), "Christianity and Ancient Rus" (1924), "Western Literatures and Slavs" (1926) ...

Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky (1878-1933) - an outstanding philologist of the Moscow School, who left work both in the field of linguistics and in the literary field. His main work is the repeatedly published Russian Syntax in Scientific Illumination (1914, revised edition 1928).

Academician Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba (1880-1944) was a versatile philologist who left his works in the field of Russian studies, romance studies, Slavic studies and methodology. He is the founder of the Leningrad Phonological School. Following his teacher Baudouin de Courtenay, Scherba developed the theory of phonemes. Deeply studied the semantic role of intonation in the language.

In the XVIII century. the methods of describing individual Slavic languages ​​are being improved, the quality of dictionaries is significantly improving, covering an increasing number of words and revealing their meanings more accurately. On the East Slavic soil, an example is the "Russian grammar" by M.V. Lomonosov (1711-1765). The naturalistic experience of the scientist prompted him to observe and experiment as a method of linguistic analysis, as evidenced by the materials currently published on grammar. Many materials have been preserved in Lomonosov's manuscripts, testifying to the breadth of his linguistic and literary interests. Remained, for example, a list of works conceived by him: 1) on the similarity and changes in languages; 2) about akin to the Russian language and about the current dialects; 3) about the Slavic church language; 4) about common languages; 5) about the advantages of the Russian language, about the purity and beauty of the Russian language; 6) about synonyms; 7) about new Russian sayings; 8) about reading old books and about the utterances of Nesterovs, Novgorods, etc., with the lexicon of the unknown; 9) about the vocabulary; 10) about transfers. Comparative grammars of Slavic and other related languages ​​are found.

From the philological works of M.V. Lomonosov, we also note "Preface on the Use of Church Books in the Russian Language" (publ. 1757).

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th century. such significant phenomena in the field of reflection of the vocabulary of individual Slavic languages ​​as the first Russian academic dictionary or the Polish dictionary by S. B. Linde. This time was also the century of the accumulation of knowledge about other Indo-European languages ​​and the development of theoretical views on the functions and evolution of the language.

The beginning of the 19th century brought a number of new essentially important ideas to the science of language. Prior to this, the science of language was predominantly a descriptive discipline, cataloged in lexicons and fixing morphological forms and syntactic types of word combinations in grammars. Thanks to the idea of ​​evolution, linguistics becomes a historical science. F. Bopp, R. Rusk, brothers J. and W. Grimm and others build the foundations of a comparative historical analysis of Indo-European languages. Instead of the biblical legend of the Babylonian pandemonium, according to which the god angry at the attempt of people to reach heaven, destroying the tower that was being built for this in Babylon, at the same time taught people to understand each other, a theory of gradual divergence of the proto-language appears, as a result of which related languages ​​arise. the divergence of languages ​​is a natural consequence of the resettlement of tribes and peoples, the result of the independent development of divorced dialects. The essence of the great discovery of comparative linguistics, that is, the comparative historical approach to the study of languages, lies in the fact that in place of the impressions based on intuition about the kinship of languages, the establishment of natural sound correspondences between languages ​​was put. Attempts to restore the proto-language began to be made.

Even the brothers Grimm expressed ideas about the transfer of the comparative historical method to verbal creativity. Reflection in oral folk art, and in particular in fairy tales, of the most ancient spiritual life of society, allows you to restore the most ancient types of products of the spiritual life of society, pramiths. A prominent Russian philologist of the 19th century tried to apply this comparative mythological theory to Slavic material. F.I. Buslaev (1818-1897), also known for his works on the history of the Russian language, the creator of the first historical grammar of the Russian language.

The genius Russian philologist of the 19th century. A.A. Potebnya considered the comparative material of the Slavic languages ​​and literatures to be absolutely necessary and obligatory when he studied the facts of one of the languages, in particular Russian. In 1874 A.A. Potebnya received his doctorate for the first two parts of his work under the modest title "From Notes on Russian Grammar". We went to the provincial Kharkov university to study at Potebna. The future academician B.M. Lyapunov, a prominent Finnish Slavist J. Mikkola, the future academician and professor of St. Petersburg University A.I. Sobolevsky, future professor at Warsaw University M.A. Kolosov. Among the students of Potebnya was the prominent Russian philologist D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky.

Buslaev's student A.N. Veselovsky (1838-1906) showed that in the search for similarities in verbal creativity, it is extremely important to take into account historical facts, which are not the background, but the basis and life-giving force of the development of literature.

One of the first in the world and the first in Russia history of Slavic literature was prepared by A.N. Pypin (1833-1904) together with V.D. Spasovich.

One of the founders of Slavic philology, Czech Josef Dobrovsky (1753-1892), in his 1792 History of the Czech Language and Literature, named the following Slavic languages ​​and dialects: 1) Russian; 2) Polish with Silesian; 3) Illyrian dialects - Bulgarian, Raitsko-Serbian, Bosnian, Slavonian, Dalmatian, Raguz; 4) Croatian with Windows in Styria, Extreme and Carinthia; 5) Czech (Bohemian) with Moravian, Silesian and Slovak. At that time, little was known about the ancient Slavic written language: its most important monuments (the Mariinsky, Zografsky gospels, Savvina's book, Collection of Klots, the Sinai psalter and the Sinai missal) had not yet been discovered. Nevertheless, Dobrovsky not only drew attention to the characteristic phonetic features of the Slavic languages ​​(more than Greek, Latin, Germanic number of consonants, the absence of aspirates, softness [iotation in his representations] consonants, the presence of prosthetic consonants, smooth metathesis, etc.), but also on grammatical features: the absence of an article, seven cases, including vocative, full and short adjectives, etc. Correspondent and younger friend of Dobrovsky Slovene Ernei Kopitar (1780-1844) pushed Slavic philology forward. He opened the Collection of Klotz and published with it the Freising excerpts, studied and intended to publish the Assemaniev Codex, gave a lot of useful advice to Vuk Karadzic in his vocabulary work and the development of the norms of the Serbian literary language, corresponded with many prominent philologists of that time. A zealous polemicist, he was obsessed with the idea of ​​the primacy of the Pannonian language, considered it the basis of Old Slavonic, did a lot to disseminate information about the Slavs, Slavic languages, about the ancient Slavic culture.

OH. Vostokov (1781-1864) got the opportunity to work with ancient Slavic manuscripts in the collection of Count Rumyantsev. The study of the Ostromir Gospel and other monuments, the creation of a description of the Rumyantsev collection of manuscripts allowed him to penetrate deeper than his predecessors into ancient Slavic linguistic problems. Among the discoveries of A.Kh. Vostokov - the discovery of the vowel character b, b, by comparing with the Polish Vostokov, he established that the Old Slavic "yusy" meant nasal vowels. Vostokov compiled a grammar, and many years later, a dictionary of the Old Slavic language. His "Russian Grammar" was an important step in the knowledge of the living Russian language.

The development of Slavic studies continued in Vienna, where it was begun by Kopitar, in Prague, where Dobrovsky's activities continued for many years. Let us name a number of romantically inclined Slavists as the first half of the XIX v. - Czechs and Slovaks J. Kollar, F. Palacky, F. Chelakovsky.

The most significant figure in the development of Slavic studies and the Austrian Empire around the middle of the 19th was the Slovak Pavel Josef Shafarik (1795-1861). In the 40s. Shafarik created and published two of his important collections "Slavic antiquities" and "Slavic narrative".

German science and culture showed interest in the Slavic languages ​​and peoples. So, for example, Jacob Grimm was not only interested in Slavic languages ​​and literature, but also published with his amendments German translation Serbian grammar Vuk Karadzic, with whom, as well as with Kopitar, he corresponded and met several times. In the middle of the XIX century. Germany became the center for the development of linguistics, German scientists included the Slavic languages ​​in the sphere of their research. August Schleicher published the Old Church Slavonic grammar in 1852. This scientist also pointed to the close relationship of the Slavic and Baltic languages. As a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Schleicher published in her works a study on one of the types of Slavic declension, work on the ancient period of development of the northeastern (German-Slavic-Baltic) part of the Indo-European languages. Schleicher continued the special study of Slavic numerals initiated by Shafarik, and after the death of Schleicher, the first grammar of the Polabian language, belonging to his pen, was published in St. Petersburg.

In Vienna, the department of Slavic languages ​​was taken over by an outstanding Slavic scholar who defined a whole period in the development of Slavic linguistics, a Slovene by origin Franz Miklosic (1813-1891). Miklosich created a number of fundamental works on Slavic philology: a comparative dictionary of Slavic languages, an Old Slavonic dictionary, the second edition of which still retains scientific significance, an etymological dictionary of Slavic languages, a four-volume comparative grammar of Slavic languages.

A prominent German Slavic scholar was a student of A. Schleicher, the Leipzig professor August Leskin (1840-1916). His work on declension in the Balto-Slavic and Germanic languages ​​was one of the first special comparative works in the field of Slavic grammar, carried out in the spirit of the then new young grammatical direction in linguistics, which paid great attention to the facts of living languages ​​and sought to find the factors that caused linguistic changes. Leskin wrote the grammar of the Serbo-Croatian language, but his grammar and the textbook of the Old Slavonic language were especially popular. Thanks to the works of Schleicher, Leskin, Fortunatov, the data of the Lithuanian language became not only the property of the comparative grammar of Indo-European languages, but also an important source for establishing kinship relations between Slavic languages ​​and other Indo-European languages.

A huge role in the development of Slavic studies in the latter quarter XIX- the beginning of the XX century. played by Vatroslav Yagich (1838-1923). Yagic was born in the Croatian city of Varazdin and began his educational and scientific career as a teacher in his homeland. In the 60s. published a number of books and articles on the history of the Serbo-Croatian language and writing, entered into correspondence with many Slavists, including the Russian academician I.I. Sreznevsky. In 1872 Yagich became a professor of comparative linguistics in Odessa. Then in 1874 he was elected to the Department of Slavic Philology at the University of Berlin. Here Yagich founded the first international Slavic journal "Archives of Slavic Philology". Yagich, according to VV Vinogradov's description, “strove in his philological works to embrace all Slavs, cultural and linguistic phenomena of all Slavic peoples. he wrote about the ancient Czech glosses in the Latin manuscript, and about the Bulgarian inscription of the 10th century, and about the Old Bulgarian translations of Byzantine works, and about issues of Russian dialectology and the history of the Russian language, about Serbo-Croatian grammar and the history of Serbo-Croatian literature, about the life and works of Yuri Krizhanich, and about Pushkin ... "Quoted. Quoted from: Suprun, A.E. Introduction to Slavic Philology / A.E. Suprun, A.M. Kalyuta. - Minsk: Higher school, 1981. - P. 307 .. According to I.V. Yagich and under his editorship began to be published The Russian Academy Sciences "Encyclopedia of Slavic Philology", in the organization of the publication of which the then academician-secretary of the Department of Language and Literature of the Academy A.A. Chess.

It is impossible not to mention such an outstanding Russian and Polish linguist as I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, who began his scientific career under the guidance of I.I. Sreznevsky. In 1875 the scientist became a professor, and in 1897 a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences.

Before him, linguistics was dominated by historical direction- languages ​​were studied exclusively from written records. Baudouin de Courtenay proved in his works that the essence of language lies in speech activity, which means that it is necessary to study living languages ​​and dialects. This is the only way to understand the mechanism of language functioning and to check the correctness of linguistic theories.

Baudouin de Courtenay studied various Indo-European languages, wrote his scientific works not only in Russian and Polish, but also in German, French, Czech, Italian, Lithuanian and other languages. Working on expeditions exploring Slavic languages ​​and dialects, he recorded all their phonetic features. His discoveries in the field of comparative (typological) analysis of Slavic languages ​​anticipated the emergence of ideas that were later reflected in the works of the outstanding Slavic typologist R.O. Jacobson. These studies allowed Baudouin de Courtenay to create the theory of phonemes and phonetic alternations, set out in his "Experience of phonetic alternations" (1895). Its logical continuation was the created scientists theory letters.

Baudouin de Courtenay was the first to apply in linguistics mathematical models... He proved that the development of languages ​​can be influenced, and not only passively fix all the changes occurring in them. On the basis of his work, a new direction arose - experimental phonetics. In the 20th century, scientists have achieved outstanding results in this area.

Working in Kazan in 1874-1883, the scientist founded the Kazan linguistic school, within the framework of which the activities of the outstanding scientist V.A. Bogoroditsky, under his direct influence the formation of Russian linguists of the 20th century took place. L.V. Shcherba and E.D. Polivanov.

Glottogeus, which is one of the essential components of the ethnogenetic process, is studied primarily by means of linguistics. Language is one of the main stable features of any ethnic group.

Linguistics testifies that the Slavic languages ​​belong to the Indo-European language family, which also includes the Baltic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Greek, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Albanian, as well as the Thracian, Illyrian, Venetian, Anatolian and Tocharian languages ​​common in antiquity.

At the first stage of the development of Indo-European studies, researchers believed that the formation of separate languages ​​was the result of a simple evolution of dialects of the Proto-Indo-European language due to the separation or isolation of the speakers of these dialects from the main mass, as well as as a result of the assimilation of foreign-speaking tribes. The differentiation of the Indo-Europeans was presented as a family tree with a single trunk and branches branching from it. On some schemes of the disintegration of the Indo-European community, characterizing the degree of closeness of individual language groups among themselves, it was discussed above in the historiographic section.

Currently, such views do not correspond to the realities of modern science. HE. In this regard, Trubachev notes that the image of a family tree with a single trunk and branches branching from it does not reflect the entire complexity of the differentiation process of Indo-Europeans, this process is better represented in the form of “more or less close parallel trunks coming from the soil itself, that is, like a bush, and not a tree ”, but this image“ is not entirely satisfactory, since it does not sufficiently express what gives the Indo-European character of the whole ”.

The first period of disintegration of the Indo-European community is associated with the separation of the Anatolian and Indo-Iranian languages. The oldest written records of the Hittite language date back to the 18th century. BC. and indicate that this language was already a completely separate Indo-European language, containing a considerable number of new formations. This assumes a long developmental period. The carriers of the Hittite-Luwian group of Indo-Europeans are recorded in Asia Minor by Assyrian texts of the end of the 3rd millennium BC. Consequently, the beginning of the division of the Indo-European community should be attributed to the time not earlier than the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, and possibly to an earlier period.

In the Near Asian texts of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. traces of the Indo-Iranian language, already separated from the Indo-European community, have been attested. In the Hittite writing monuments of the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. several Indian words are mentioned. This gives grounds to assert that the Indo-Iranian language also began to develop as an independent language at least as early as the 3rd millennium BC, and the Proto-Indo-European community was attributed to the 5th-4th millennia BC. Linguistic materials indicate that at a relatively early time, the Armenian, Greek and Thracian languages ​​were also formed. But the languages ​​of the tribes of Central Europe took shape as independent languages ​​relatively late. Taking these observations into account, American linguists G. Treger and H. Smith proposed the following chronological scheme for the formation of Indo-European languages ​​(Fig. 12).

The question of the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans has been discussed in linguistic literature for a long time and has not yet been resolved. Different researchers localize this territory both in different regions of Europe (from the Rhine to the Don, in the Black Sea-Caspian steppes, in the central regions of Europe, in the Balkan-Danube area and others), and in Asia (Mesopotamia, the Armenian Highlands, India and others) ... In the latest fundamental research on the language, culture and ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans, T.V. Gamkrelidze and Vyach.Bs. Ivanov tried to substantiate the localization of the most ancient territory of this community in the region of the Armenian Highlands. Proto-Indo-European language is viewed in context with other Nostratic languages; its dating before the disintegration is determined by the 4th millennium BC. On the basis of the sum of linguistic facts, the researchers reconstructed the ways of settlement of various Indo-European groups. The identification of the ancient European dialects, which became the basis for the subsequent development of the Celtic-Italic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages, is associated with the migration of the Indo-European population through the Central Asian lands in the Northern Black Sea region and the Lower Volga region (Fig. 13). According to T.V. Gamkrelidze and Vyach.Bs. Ivanov, this movement of Indo-European tribes was carried out during repeated migration waves. The newly arrived tribes joined those already settled in this territory. As a result, an area was formed in the Black Sea-Lower Volga lands, where during the III millennium BC, apparently, the ancient European community was finally formed. The further history of the ancient European dialects is associated with the migration of their speakers to the Western European regions.

The hypothesis of the ancient European linguistic community as an intermediate stage that united the ancestors of Western European historical peoples was first clearly formulated by the German linguist G. Krae. Many years of linguistic research led him to the conclusion that at a time when the Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek languages ​​had already separated from the rest of Indo-European and developed as independent, fully formed languages, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and Illyrian did not yet exist. These Western European languages ​​were still close to each other and constituted a fairly homogeneous community of dialects, in varying degrees related to each other and in constant contact. This ethno-linguistic community, according to G. Krae, existed in Central Europe in the 2nd millennium BC. and named by the researcher of the ancient European. Celts, Italics, Illyrians, Veneti, Germans, Balts and Slavs later emerged from it. Ancient Europeans have developed a common terminology in the field Agriculture, social relations and religion. The traces of their settlement are the ancient European hydronyms identified and characterized by G. Krae. They are distributed over a wide area from southern Scandinavia in the north to mainland Italy in the south and from the British Isles in the west to the Southeast Baltic in the east. Central European regions north of the Alps, according to this researcher, were the most ancient area.

G. Krae's hypothesis has received wide recognition and is confirmed in a number of new scientific facts, but at the same time there are many scientists who do not share it.

Regardless of the acceptance or rejection of the position of the ancient European ethno-linguistic community, it remains undoubted that the Proto-Slavic language, like some other Western European languages, belongs to the relatively young. Its formation as an independent Indo-European language did not occur earlier than the 1st millennium BC, which linguists have long noticed. Already L. Niederle, referring to linguistic works, wrote that the addition of the Proto-Slavic language belongs to the 1st millennium BC. M. Vasmer and the Finnish Slavic scholar P. Arumaa determined the formation of the Proto-Slavic language around 400 BC, T. Ler-Splavinsky - in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. F.P. Filin wrote that the beginning of the Proto-Slavic language cannot be established with sufficient accuracy, but “we can be sure that the Proto-Slavic language in the 1st millennium AD. and in the centuries immediately preceding our era, undoubtedly existed. "

The Czech linguist A. Earhart defines the beginning of the Slavic language as around 700 BC, when, in his opinion, intensive contacts with the archaic Iranian dialects of the Scythians began. The Balto-Slavic community, which existed before this, disintegrates, and the Proto-Indo-European language is conserved in the Baltic area. Period from 700 BC before 300 AD the researcher calls the pre-Slavic, and the Proto-Slavic, that is, the language that was recorded early by medieval materials, dates back to 300-1000. AD ...

Around 500-400 years. BC. (and possibly within 700-200 BC) another Czech scientist A. Lamprecht determines the separation of the early Proto-Slavic language from the Late Indo-European (or Balto-Slavic) language. S. B. Bernstein considers it possible to begin the Proto-Slavic period from the III-II centuries. BC. ...

Some linguists are inclined to determine the beginning of the independent development of the Proto-Slavic language at a later time. Thus, the American Slavic scholar G. Birnbaum believes that truly Slavic language development began only shortly before our era. Z. Stieber dates the beginning of the Proto-Slavic language to the first centuries of our era, assigning the Proto-Slavic period six to seven centuries, and G. Lant even to the middle of the 1st millennium A.D. (the time of the mobile common Slavic), believing that the reconstruction of the first stage of the linguistic development of the Slavs is very problematic.

However, in the linguistic literature there are opinions about a very early separation of the Proto-Slavic language. Thus, the Bulgarian scientist V. Georgiev, arguing his position with the data of external reconstruction (Slavic-Hittite, Slavic-Tocharian and other parallels), considered it possible to attribute the beginning of the birth of the Slavic language to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. True, the researcher noted that the first millennium of its history was still a “Balto-Slavic state”. Even to a deeper antiquity, G. Shevelov took the initial stages of the Slavic language, differentiating them into two parts: the first period of mutation and formation (2000-1500 BC) and the first period of stabilization (1500-600 BC). NS.) . Approximately around 1000 BC determines the emergence of the language of the Proto-Slavs from the intermediate Balto-Slavic community Z. Golomb. From a very early time (III-II millennium BC) begins the history of the language of the Slavs and O.N. Trubachev. However, in all likelihood, these were not yet Slavs, but their linguistic ancestors - carriers of Indo-European (or Old European) dialects, from which the Slavs evolved over time.

The formation of the Slavic language is a gradual process of evolution of dialects of the Old European (or late Indo-European language into Slavic proper, therefore any statement about the isolation of the language of the Proto-Slavs with an accuracy of a century on the basis of linguistic data is impossible. the Slavic language was already developing as a separate language.

Linguistic materials indicate that the formed Proto-Slavic language developed rather unevenly, periods of rapid changes, mutations came to replace calm development, which is to some extent due to the degree of interaction of the Slavs with neighboring ethno-linguistic groups. The periodization of the Proto-Slavic language is an essential moment in the study of the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. However, there is no consensus on this issue in science.

N. Van Wijk n S. B. Berishtein subdivided the history of the Proto-Slavic language into two periods - before and after the loss of closed syllables. Three stages in the evolution of the language of the Proto-Slavs (Proto-Slavic; early, when there was still no dialect division; the period of dialect differentiation) saw
N.S. Trubetskoy. V. Georgiev also divided the "developed" Proto-Slavic language into three periods - early, middle and late, which dated back to the time from IV-V to IX-X centuries. ... According to A. Lamprecht, the Proto-Slavic language also went through three stages - the early one, when it was phonologically still close to the Baltic; "Classic", dating from 400-800. AD; late, defined by 800-1000. AD ...

The simplest and at the same time comprehensive periodization of the Proto-Slavic language was proposed by F.P. Filin. He identifies three main stages in its development. The first stage (until the end of the 1st millennium BC) is the initial stage of the formation of the foundations of the Slavic language system. At this time, the Slavic language had just begun to develop independently and was gradually developing its own system, which was different from other Indo-European language systems.

The next, middle stage in the development of the Proto-Slavic language is determined by the time from the end of the 1st millennium BC. to III-V centuries. AD During this period, significant changes take place in the phonetics of the Slavic language (palatalization of consonants, the elimination of some diphthongs, changes in consonant combinations, the disappearance of consonants at the end of a word), its grammatical structure evolves. At this time, the dialectal differentiation of the Slavic language was developing.

The late stage in the evolution of the Proto-Slavic language (V-VII centuries AD) coincides with the beginning of the widespread settlement of the Slavs, which ultimately led to the division of a single language into separate Slavic languages. Linguistic unity still continued to exist, but conditions appeared for the emergence of separate linguistic groups in different regions of the Slavic settlement.

Slavic lexical material is an extremely important source of history, culture and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Back in the first half of the 19th century. linguists tried to define the ancestral home of the Slavs on the basis of vocabulary. Mainly botanical and zoological terminology was used, but no unambiguous answer was received. Faunistic and floristic zones throughout historical development relatively quickly underwent changes, and it is not yet possible to take this into account. In addition to gogo, this lexical material cannot take into account Slavic
movements and processes of adaptation of the old terminology to new conditions, because the meanings of the old terms changed.

At present, it can be argued that the use of botanical and zoological vocabulary for a specific localization of the Proto-Slavic region is unreliable. Changes in geographical zones in historical periods, population migration, relocation of animals and plants, epochal changes in the meanings of floristic and faunistic vocabulary make any ethnogenetic conclusions based on this terminology unproven.

From zoothermniology to determine the ancestral home of the Slavs, perhaps only the names of anadromous fish - salmon and eel - are significant. Since these lexemes go back to the Proto-Slavic language, it should be assumed that the Slavic region of the most ancient times was within the habitat of these fish, that is, in the river basins flowing into the Baltic Sea. However, these data are used both by supporters of the Vistula-Oder localization of the early Slavs, and by linguists who localize the area of ​​formation of the Slavs in the Middle Dnieper region (covering part of the Western Buta basin), and by researchers defending the Carpathian ancestral homeland of the Slavs (Yu. Udolph).

Comparative-historical linguistics has established that at a time when the Orthodox Slavic language separated from Indo-European and developed as an independent language, the Slavs had linguistic contacts with the Balts, Germans, Iranians and some other European ethnic groups. Comparative-historical linguistics allows us to determine the place of the Proto-Slavic language among other Indo-European languages ​​and describe the structure of their relationship. Researchers have tried to find out the degree of kinship or closeness between various Indo-European languages. As a result, several schemes were proposed, two of which are given in the historiographic section.

However, the latest research shows that the picture of the linguistic interaction of the Slavs with other ethno-linguistic groups was not constant, it was a dynamic process that proceeded unevenly in different periods and in different regions. Contacts between the Slavs and neighboring ethnic groups were very diverse over the centuries, they intensified, then weakened, then interrupted for some time. At certain stages, the Slavs to a greater extent interacted with one ethnic group, then with another.

It has been established that the Slavic language is closest to the Baltic. The ego gave rise to the hypothesis of the existence in antiquity of a single Balto-Slavic language, as a result of the disintegration of which independent Slavic and Baltic languages ​​were formed. This problem has been discussed in linguistic literature for many decades. Several different points of view are expressed, explaining the proximity of the Slavic and Baltic languages. The opinions of researchers differ from the recognition of the complete unity between them in antiquity (that is, the existence of the Balto-Slavic language) to various assumptions about the parallel separate development of these languages ​​in close contact. The discussion on the problem of Balto-Slavic relations, which unfolded in connection with the IV International Congress of Slavists and continues to this day, showed that a number of essential features common to the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​can be explained by the long-term neighboring contacts of the Slavs with the Balts. So, S. B. Berishtein tried to explain many of the Balto-Slavic convergence not as a result of genetic proximity, but as a consequence of the early convergence between the prehistoric Balts and the Slavs and the symbiosis between them in adjacent territories. Later this idea was developed by the Lithuanian linguist S. Karaliunas.

A. Seni categorically denied any Balto-Slavic unity in his works. He believed that in the II millennium BC. there was a separate community that spoke the late Proto-Indo-European language, which included the Proto-Slavs, Proto-Balts and Proto-Germans. Its disintegration was determined by the researcher by the time between 1000 and 500 years. BC, while the Balts were pushed north of the Pripyat bogs and for some time were in absolute isolation. The first contacts with the Slavs began in the southwest on the eve of our era as a result of the migration of the Balts to the west. The Slavs met with the eastern Balts only in the 6th century. e. in the process of its wide settlement in the Eastern European lands.

H. Mayer also argued that the Proto-Slavic language developed directly from one of the late Indo-European dialects. Denying the existence of the Balto-Slavic language, Oi explained the similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​(while emphasizing the presence of deep differences between them, in particular, in the field of vocalism) by the conservative nature of these two language groups.

Denying the idea of ​​the existence of a Balto-Slavic linguistic community in antiquity, O.N. Trubachev emphasizes the presence of deep differences between the Baltic and Slavic languages. In this regard, the researcher argues that at an early stage these ethnic groups developed independently, in different, non-contiguous territories, and only after migrations did the Slavs and the Balts converge, which should be attributed to the last centuries BC. ...

At the same time, a group of scientists, including such prominent linguists as V. Georgiev, Vyach.Bs. Ivanov, V.N. Toporov, G. Birnbaum, continue to develop the idea of ​​the existence of a Balto-Slavic linguistic community in antiquity.

In the linguistic literature, there is a theory about the transformation of the Proto-Slavic language from the peripheral dialects of the Baltic language state. Recently, this idea has been consistently developed by V. Mažiulis. Earlier, T. Ler-Splavinsky believed that the Slavs were part of the Western Balts, on which the Veneti were layered. On the contrary, B.V. Gornung suggested that the Western Balts had branched off from the "Proto-Slavs".

In the study of the problem of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations, it is very important that many Balto-Slavic isoglosses do not cover all Baltic languages. On the basis of the data of the Baltic dialectology, the researchers date the disintegration of the Prabalt language around the middle of the 1st millennium BC. According to V. Maziulis, oi differentiated into central and peripheral dialect areas, which began to develop independently. As a result, separate groups of Balts were formed - western, eastern (or central) and Dnieper. The Proto-Western Baltic language became the basis of the Prussian, Yatvyazh and Curonian languages ​​of the early Middle Ages. On the basis of the eastern group, the Lithuanian and Latvian languages ​​were later formed.

The data of linguistics quite definitely say that the Slavs for a long time were in close contact only with the western group of the Balts. “There is no doubt that the Balto-Slavic community, - emphasized in this regard S. B. Bernstein, - covered primarily the Proto-Slavic, Prussian and Yatvingian languages. V. Mažiulis also noted that in ancient times, of all the Baltic languages ​​attested in writing, only the Prussian language had direct contacts with the Proto-Slavic language. This very important observation reliably testifies to the fact that the early Slavs lived somewhere in the neighborhood of the West Baltic tribes and away from the area of ​​settlement of the ancestors of the Letto-Lithuanians. The meeting of the Slavs with the latter took place not earlier than the middle of the 1st millennium AD, when there was a wide Slavic settlement in the vastness of the Russian Plain.

For the study of the history of the early Slavs, Slavic-Iranian linguistic ties are also essential. The linguistic data collected to date indicate the significance of the Slavic-Iranian lexical convergence and the Iranian influence on Slavic phonetics and grammar. The time of the domination of the Iranian (Scythian-Sarmatian) tribes in Southeastern Europe and the territory of their settlement are attested by written sources and reliably established by archeology and toponymy. An undifferentiated consideration of the Slavic-Iranian relations gives reason to consider the Slavs to be constant neighbors of the Scythian-Sarmatian tribes. This circumstance became one of the most important arguments for the localization of the Slavic ancestral home in the Middle Dnieper and Volyn.

However, the identified Slavic-Iranian linguistic convergences, when examined together, do not give any grounds for the assertion that during the entire centuries-old history, the contacts of the Slavs with the Scythian-Sarmatians were the same and did not interrupt. Therefore, one of the primary tasks in the study of Slavic-Iranian linguistic relations is their temporal periodization. At the same time, immediately from the analysis it is necessary to exclude those lexical convergences that date back to the era of contacts between dialects of the Proto-Iso-European language.

E. Benvennste believed that when considering Iranisms in Slavic vocabulary, three series should be distinguished: 1) jointly inherited Indo-European terms; 2) direct borrowing; 3) semantic tracing papers. H. D. Paul, analyzing the Iranian lexemes in the Russian language, distinguished three layers: 1) borrowings during the Proto-Slavic period; 2) the terms adopted in the post-general Slavic time; 3) words borrowed during the development of the Russian language.

The vast majority of Iranian lexical borrowings in Slavic languages ​​are local. They do not cover the entire Slavic world, but either only East Slavic languages ​​(sometimes even parts of them), or only South Slavic or West Slavic languages. It is quite clear that such lexical penetrations do not reflect the most ancient Slavic-Iranian contacts, but belong already to a relatively late period - to the time of the expansion of the Slavic territory and the division of the Proto-Slavic language into dialects, and partly to the time of the inception of the foundations of individual Slavic languages.

Common Slavic lexical borrowings from Iranian are rare. These are bog - ‘god, kot’ - ‘corral, small barn’, gun’a - ‘woolen clothes’ and topor ’-‘ ax ’. Some researchers add to these; tynъ - ‘fence’, xysъ / xyz’ - ‘house’. All these Iranisms (except for the first) belong to cultural terms that usually move independently from language to language, regardless of migration and the neighborhood of the population itself. Thus, the Iranian kata reached Scandinavia, and the tapaca - the West Finnish range. An assumption has been made about the Iranian origin and some other Slavic words, but their origin should not be attributed to the early stage of Slavic-Iranian contacts.

The phonetic (change of the plosive g into the posterior palatal fricative h) and grammatical (the expression of the perfect form of verbs with the help of preverbs, the emergence of the genitive-accusative, the free locative-dative) influences of the Iranians also do not cover all Slavs, but have a distinctly regional character. Some researchers (V. Pizani, F.P. Filin) ​​have suggested that “the transition of the consonant s to ch after i, r, r, k in the Proto-Slavic language is the result of the influence of the Iranian languages. The inconsistency of this was shown by A.A. Zaliznyak.

The contribution of the Scythian-Sarmatian population to Slavic ethnonymy and theonymy also generally cannot be attributed to the most ancient period. The Iranian origin of such Slavic deities as Hora, Dazhbog, Svarog and Simargl seems undeniable. However, they are not known in the entire early medieval Slavic world. Nothing prevents the attribution of their appearance in the Slavic environment to the era of Slavic-Iranian symbiosis, which took place, as will be shown below, in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. In all likelihood, ethnonyms of the Slavs of Iranian origin (Croats, Serbs, Antes, etc.) are also associated with this period. In the era of Slavic settlement in the early Middle Ages, they were spread over a wider territory from the Northern Black Sea region.

The Iranian influence on the Slavs also affected anthroponymy, but again, there is no reason to associate this phenomenon with the most ancient times.

Researchers have different assessments of the Iranian influence on the Slavs. Some give priority to Slavic-Iranian contacts and believe that their origin dates back to the most ancient times (Z. Golomb, G. Birnbaum and others). The second group of researchers (V. Manchak and others) argues that in the early stages of the development of the Proto-Slavic language, they were very secondary.

The materials that linguistics have to date give reason to believe that at the first stage of the history of the Proto-Slavs, the Iranian population did not have a noticeable impact on them. This was noted, in particular, by the Finnish linguist V. Kiparsky. Analyzing the Iranisms revealed in the East Slavic languages, he emphasized that they do not go back to the early phase. Only at the next stage, which cannot be dated on the basis of linguistic data, some significant part of the Slavs was in the closest contact with the Scythian-Sarmatian population Southeast Europe; possibly there was a Slavic-Iranian symbiosis. Contacts with Iranian tribes continued here until the early Middle Ages. However, it is not yet possible to differentiate them into time stages.

The discovery of O.N. Trubachev a series of regional lexical Iranisms in the West Slavic languages. However, it is premature to assume in this regard that the distant ancestors of the Poles in the Scythian time occupied the eastern part of the Slavic area. Iranian-Polish lexical connections seem to be the result of the infiltration of the Iranian population in the Sarmatian era.

HE. Trubachev collected linguistic evidence of residence in a part of the territory of the Northern Black Sea region along with the Iranian Indo-Aryan ethnic component. In this regard, this researcher speaks of the possibility of Slavic-Indo-Aryan contacts that took place in antiquity.

In connection with the consideration of the problem of Slavic-Iranian contacts, it is interesting to draw attention to the following circumstance. Localizing the early Slavs in the Middle Dnieper region, the researchers believed that the Slavs distinguished between the Scythian-Sarmatian and Baltic populations. However, it has now been reliably established that the Balts in the south were directly adjacent to the Iranian population, and there was a close relationship between them. This is recorded by dozens of Baltic lexical borrowings from Iranian, joint new formations and evidence of hydronymy. “As a result,” O.N. Trubachev, - we already imagine the Balto-Iranian lexical relations as a rather significant and fruitful episode in the history of both language groups "

Somewhere in the south-west of their area, the Balts came into contact with the Thracian population. The parallels in the Baltic and Thracian languages, which speak of direct Baltic-Thracian contacts in antiquity, have been repeatedly noted by linguists. On the right-bank Ukraine, a layer of Thracian hydronyms was also identified, territorially adjacent to the area of ​​ancient Baltic water names.

Considering all these observations, it should be assumed that at the early stage of the development of the Proto-Slavic language, the Slavs were neighbors with the western group of the Balts and for some time were separated from the northern Iranian tribes by the Thracians. At the next stage, the Thracian wedge was torn apart, and the southeastern part of the Slavs entered into close interaction with the Iranian-speaking tribes of the Northern Black Sea region.

Theoretically, it can be assumed that the Thracians were the southern or southeastern neighbors of the Slavs at some stage. However, the Proto-Slavic-Thracian linguistic contacts do not lend themselves to study: “... to single out Thracian words in Proto-Slavic,” wrote S. B. Bernstein, - is not possible, since our information about the Thracian vocabulary is vague and uncertain. There are no completely case and phonetic criteria to separate the common Indo-European from the borrowed. " Identified by V. Georgiev and some other researchers, the phrases are narrowly regional. They are associated with the Balkan area and, obviously, belong to the period of the Slavic development of these lands.

Slavic-Germanic linguistic relations are of great importance for the study of the early history of the Slavs. This problem has been developed in linguistics for a long time. A significant contribution was made by V. Kiparsky. Using the results of previous research, he identified and characterized several layers of common Slavic borrowings from the Germanic languages: the oldest, dating back to the Pro-German period; borrowings testifying to the contacts of the Slavs with the Germans from the 3rd century. BC. (that is, after the first Germanic movement of consonants); a series of words that got into the Proto-Slavic language from the Gothic; layers reflecting the Balkan-Germanic ties of the Slavs and contacts with West Germanic dialects.

The most ancient period of Slavic-Germanic lexical interpenetration, dating back to the middle of the 1st millennium BC, was the object of analysis by V.V. Martynov. Lexical materials are divided by him into two sections: 1) borrowing from the Proto-Germanic to the Proto-Slavic; 2) lexemes that have penetrated from Proto-Slavic to Proto-German. The researcher used these data to substantiate the hypothesis about the Vistula-Oder ancestral home of the Slavs. Indeed, considered by V.V. Martynov, the materials indicate that the Slavs at an early stage in their history lived in the vicinity of the ancient Germanic world. This is supported not only by lexical data, but also by other linguistic data. Germanic borrowings in the Proto-Slavic language, their temporal differences and origins were also analyzed by G. Birnbaum and V. Manchak.

Thus, comparative studies, revealing an indisputable layer of ancient Proto-Slavic-Proto-Germanic linguistic ties, testifies to the neighboring development of these ethnic groups. In this regard, the earliest Slavic territory should be localized somewhere in the vicinity of the Pragermanian area. The time of the early Slavic-Germanic contacts must be determined by the first half or the middle of the 1st millennium BC. (before the first movement of consonants in German). In further history, the Slavs, as can be judged from the analysis of the Slavic-Germanic linguistic relations, rather closely contacted the East Germanic tribes (Goths and others), met with the West Germans, and at the later stage of the evolution of the Proto-Slavic language had connections with the Germanic population of the Balkan Peninsula.

The problem of Slavic-Celtic linguistic relations is very difficult. “To the Slavs for a long time,” wrote S. B. Bernstein, - had to closely communicate with various Celtic tribes inhabiting modern Czechoslovakia, some areas of southern Poland and neighboring regions. These were the southern and southwestern neighbors of the Slavs for several centuries (the last centuries BC and the first centuries AD). From the Celts, the Slavs got acquainted with new methods of metal processing, blacksmithing, pottery, glass production and many others ... ".

However, in the study of the Celtic influence on the Proto-Slavic speech, difficulties arise, since there are no traces left of the Celtic languages ​​of Central Europe, and the surviving West Celtic dialects are essentially different from them. At present, researchers attribute several dozen terms to the Proto-Slavic lexical borrowings from the Celtic languages.

T. Lep-Splaviyskiy tried to explain the appearance of Mazuria in Polish by the Celtic influence. However, this assumption was not supported by other researchers.

The observations of O.N. Trubachev on the ethnonymy of ancient Europe, not yet covered by state formations. It turned out that the type of the early Slavic ethnonym is closest to the Illyrian, Celtic and Thracian ethnonymy. Since the considered by O.N. Trubachev, ethnonyms are the product of already isolated ethnolinguistic groups of Indo-Europeans, the proximity of ethnonymy can only be explained by the contact ties of the Slavs with the Celts, Thracians and Illyrians.

Great hopes in further ethnogenetic research can be pinned on accentology. Considerable factual material was collected by researchers of the first half of the 20th century. At the same time and in the middle of this century, attempts were made to generalize it and phonological interpretation of some accentological processes of the Proto-Slavic language (N. Van Wijk, E. Kurilovich, H. Stang and others). In recent years, very significant results have been achieved by a group of Slavists under the leadership of V. A. Dybo. A complete reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic accent system is proposed, and on this factual basis, a scheme of Proto-Slavic dialect division has been created (4 groups of dialects have been identified, which are currently very scattered in different regions of the Slavic world). Researchers are trying to compare the identified accentological groups with the late period of the history of the Proto-Slavs and the archaeological areas of the early Middle Ages.

These studies give every reason to believe that the wide migration of the Slavs at the beginning of the medieval period was accompanied by significant rearrangements of the speakers of the Proto-Slavic dialects, which is quite consistent with archaeological materials. The original areas of the Proto-Slavic dialects are still not possible to determine according to accentological data.

What has been said, perhaps, exhausts everything that modern linguistics can give to illuminate the problem of the origin and ancient history of the Slavs. The data of linguistics make it possible to restore the process of glottogenesis and, through it, to solve certain issues of Slavic ethnogenesis. At the same time, it is obvious that although the language and
is the most reliable sign of an ethnic unit, many details of the ethnogenetic process linguistics are not able to independently resolve. Linguistic materials very often lack spatial, chronological and concrete historical certainty. Involvement of data from archeology, ethnology and other disciplines that can illuminate the unclear aspects of Slavic ethnogenesis to the aid of linguistics is an urgent need for modern science.

1. 2. Trubachev O. H. Ethnogenesis of the Slavs and the Indo-European problem // Etymology 1988-1990 M., 1993. P. 12
2. Trager G. L., Smith H. L. A Chronology of Tndo-Hittile If Studies in Linguistics. T 8.No. 3. 1950.
3. Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov Vyach.B.S. Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans. Reconstruction and Historical and Typological Analysis of Proto-language and Proto-culture T. I-II Tbilisi, 1984
4. Krahe H Sprache und Vorzeit Heidelberg, 1954, Idem Die Struktur der aiteuropfiischen Hydronymie P Akademic der Wissenschaft und der Literatur Ab * handlungen der Geistis- und Sozialwissenschafiiichen Klasse Wiesbaden, 1962 No. 5. Idem. Unsere Sites- ten FIflssnamen Wiesbaden, 1964
5. V.P.Schmid, who continued his studies of ancient European hydronymy, showed that it has a somewhat wider distribution, and proposed to consider it early Indo-European (Schmid WP AlteuropSisch und Indogemanisch // Probieme der Namenforschung im deutschsprachigen Raum Darmstadt, 1977. S 98-J16 Die alteuropaische Hydronymie Stand und Aufgaben ihre Erforschung // Beitrage zur Namenforschung Bd 16.H 1 1981 S 1-12). The aquatic names of the types, identified by G. Krae as ancient European, were also identified in the Northern Black Sea region, where T.V. Gamkrelidze and Vyach.Bs. Ivanov localize the ancient Europeans before their settlement in Central Europe. According to these researchers, this layer of hydronymy here turned out to be largely erased as a result of the settling, first of the Iranian, and then several waves of the Turkic tribes.
6. Filin F.P. On the Problem of the Origin of Slavic Languages ​​// Slavic Linguistics VII International Congress of Slavists. M, 1973 C 381.
7. Erhart A U kolebky slovanskich jazykft It Slavia Casopispro slovanskci filologn 198S R 54 No. 4 S 337-345
8. Lamprecht A Praslovan Stma Brno. 1987.
9. Bernshtein S.B.Some questions of the methodology for studying the problems of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs // Ethnogenesis of the peoples of the Balkans and the Northern Black Sea region, Moscow, 1984, p. 16
10. Bimbaum H Zur Problematik der zeitlichen Ab ~ grenzung des Urslavischen Ober die Relativitat der begnffe Balto-slavisch / Frilhslavisch bzw. Spatgemein-slavjscher Dialekt / Uretnzelslavme II Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 1970 No. 35-1 S 1-62
11. Stieber Z. Zarys gramatyki porownawczej jezykow slowianskich Fonologm. Warszawa 1969; Idem Praslowianski j§zyk II Slownik staro £ ytno6ci slowiafrskich T IV 4 1 Wroclaw; Warszawa; Krakow, 1970 S. 309-312.
12. Lunt H.G On common slavik // Zbornik matice srlskea philolopda and linguistic. T. XXVII-XXVIII. Novi Sad, 1984-1985. S. 417-422
13. Georgiev V. Proto-Slavic and Indo-European languages ​​// Slavic philology. T. 3. Sofia, 1963
14. Shevelov G. Y Prehistory of Slavic. New York, 1965
15. Gok | b Z The Ethnogenesis of the Slavs m the Light of Linguistics // American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists. 1. Linguistics. Colombus, 1983 P 131-146
16. Trubachev O.H. Linguistics and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Ancient Slavs according to etymology and onomastics // Slavic linguistics. IX International Congress of Slavists. Reports of the Soviet delegation. M., 1983 S. 231-270; He's the same. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs. Linguistic Research M., 1991
17. Van Wijk N. Les langues slaves. Mouton; Gravenhage, 1956; Bernshtein S.B. An outline of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. M., 1961
18. Trubetzkoy N S £ ssai sur chronologie des certains faits phonetiques du slave commim II Revue des dtudes slaves P П Paris, 1922.
19. Georgiev V. Three periods of development of the Proto-Slavic language // Slavic philology. Reports and articles for the VII International Congress on Slavicism. Ez1 Awareness Sofia, 1973.S. 5-16
20. Lamprecht A PraslovanStma a jeje chronologicke tlenem II Ceskostovenskd pfedofiSky pro VU3. mezmdrodni sjezd slavish! v Zahrebu Lingvistika. Praha, 1978 S 141-150, Idem. PraslovanStma. Brno, 1987
21. Filin F.P. Education of the language of the Eastern Slavs M; L., 1962.S. 99-110.
22. Bernshtein S.B. Balto-Slavic language community // Slavic philology. Digest of articles. Issue 1 M .. 1958.S. 45-67.
23. KaraliUnas S Kai kune baity, tr slavu kaibq sentau- stqju santykniklausimai // Lietuviu kalbotyros klausimai T X. Vilnius, 1968 P 7-100
24. Senn A The Relationships of Baltic and Slavic! ’Ancient Indo-European dialects. Proceeding of the Conference on mdo-european linguistics. Berkeley; Los Angeles, 1966 P 139-151; Idem. Slavic and bal- tic linguistic relations // Donum Ballicum. The pro¬fessor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seven¬tieth birthday, 15 March 1970. Stockholm, 1970. p 485_494.
25. Mayer H Kann das Baltische als das Muster fiir das Slavische gelten? II Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie T 39 1976 S 32-42, Idem Die Divergenz des Baltischen und Slavischen II Zeitschrift for slavische Philologie. T. 40. 1978 S 52-62
26. Trubachev O.H. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs ... pp. 16-29.
27. Ivanov VV, Toporov VN On the formulation of the question of the most ancient relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​// Studies in Slavic linguistics, Moscow, 1961. P 303; Toporov V.N. On the problem of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations // Actual problems Slavic studies (Brief reports of the Institute of Slavic studies. Issue 33-34). M, 1961 C 211-218; He is also On the reconstruction of the ancient state of the Proto-Slavic // Slavic linguistics. X International Congress of Slavists. Reports of the Soviet delegation Moscow. 1988. S. 264-292.
28. Maiiulis V Apte senoves vakaru baltas bei ju santykius su slavais, ilirais it germanais // i§ lietuviu etnogenezis Vilnius, 1981 P 7
29. Lehr-Splawmski T. About pochodzemu I praojczyzme slowian. Poznan, 1946 S. 114
30. Gornung B.V. From the prehistory of the formation of general-Slavic linguistic unity. Moscow, 1963 S. 49. V.P. In this connection, Schmid argues that neither Slavic from Baltic, nor Baltic from Slavic, nor both from Balto-Slavic, can in any way be deduced (Schmid WJP. Baltisch und Indogermamscb II Baltistica. XII (2). Vilnius. 1976. S. 120).
31. MaSulis V. Baltu ir kitu indoeuropieciu kalbu santykiai (Deklinacija). Vilnius, 1970 P. 314-327, Lietuviu etnogeneze. Vilnius, 1987 P 82-85
32. Bernshtein S.B. An outline of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. M., 1961 P 34.
33. Mayi] is V Apie senoves vakaru baltas P 6, 7, Idem Zum Westbaltischen und Slavischen II Zeitschrift fiir Siawistik. Bd 29.1984 S 166.167
34. Zaliznyak A. A Problems of Slavic-Iranian linguistic relations of the ancient period // Questions of Slavic linguistics Issue 6.M., 1962. P 28-45
35. Benveniste E. Les relations lexicales slavo-iramermes II To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 11 Oktober 1966.T. I The Hague: Mouton, 1967. P. 197-202.
36. Paul G. D. Words of Iranian origin in Russian // Russian Linguistics. 1975. No. 2. S. 81-90.
37. Georgtev V.I. Slavischer Wortschatz und Mythologie // Anzeiger fur slavische Philologie 1972 No. 6. S 20-26; Pol & k V Etymologickd pfispfivky k slovan- skoj de mono log ii II Slavia. 46- 1977. S. 283-291; Dukova U. Zur Frage des iranischen Emflusses auf die alawische mythologische Lexik II Zeitschrift fur Slawistik. 24 1979. S 11-16.
38. V. I. Abaev On the origin of the phoneme> (h) in the Slavic language // Problems of Indo-European linguistics. M., 1964.S. 115-121; He's the same. Transfusions and perfection. About one Scythian-Sarmatian isogloss // Ibid. S. 90-99; Toporov V.N. On one Iranian-Slavic parallel in the field of syntax // Brief communications of the Institute of Slavic Studies. Issue 28. M., 1960.S. 3-11.
39. Filin F.P. Formation of the language of the Eastern Slavs ... pp. 139, 140.
40. A.A. Zaliznyak On the nature of linguistic contact between the Slavic and Scythian-Sarmatian tribes // Brief reports of the Institute of Slavic Studies. Issue 38.M .. 1963.S. 22.
41. Kiparsky V. Russische historiche Grammatik. Ill: Entwicklung des Wortschatzes. Heidelberg 1975 S. 59-61.
42. Trubachev O.H. From the Slavic-Iranian lexical relations // Etymology. 1965. M., 1967.S. 3-81.
43. Sulimirski T. Sarmaci nie tylko w kontuszach // Z otchlani wiek6w. 1977. No. 2. S. 102-110; Sedov B.B. Scythian-Sarmatian influence on the culture of the ancient Germans of Scandinavia and the Southern Baltic // Abstracts of the VI All-Union conference on the study of the Scandinavian countries and Finland. 4.1. Tallinn, 1973.S. 109.
44. Trubachev O.N. Linguistic periphery of the ancient Slavs. Indo-Aryans in the Northern Black Sea Region // Slavic Linguistics. VIII International Congress of Slavists. Reports of the Soviet delegation. M., 1978.S. 386-405; He's the same. "Old Scythia" by Herodotus (IV.99) and the Slavs. Linguistic aspect. // Questions of linguistics. 1979. No. 4. S. 41.42.
45. Trubachev O.N. From the Slavic-Iranian lexical relations ... p. 20.
46. Wiesner J Die Thraken. Stuttgart, 1963 S 43; Nalepa J. O s ^ siedztwie prabaltow z pratrakami II Sprakliga Bidrag. V. 5. Ms 23.1966 S 207,208; Duridanov I Thrakisch-dakische Studien. Die thra- kiscli- und dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen Sofia, 1969, Toporov B.H. Towards the Thracian-Baltic language parallels // Balkan linguistic knowledge. M., 1973.S. 30-63; Trubachev O.N. The names of the rivers of the Right-Bank Ukraine. Word formation. Etymology. Ethnic interpretation M., 1968.
47. ... Bernshtein S.B. Essay on comparative grammar ... p. 93.
48. Kiparsky V Die gemeinslavischen LehrwOrter aus dem Germanischen. Helsinki. 1934
49. Martynov B.B. Slavic-Germanic lexical interaction of the most ancient times. Minsk, 1963; He's the same. On the reliability of examples of Slavic-Germanic lexical interpenetration // Typology and interaction of Slavic and Germanic languages. Minsk, 1969.S. 100-113.
50. Savchenko A.N. On the genetic connection between Proto-Slavic and Proto-Germanic // Typology and interaction of Slavic and Germanic languages. Minsk, 1969.S. 39-48.
51. Bimbaum EL W sprawie praslowmnskich zapozyczen z wczesnogermaftskiego, zwlaszcz z gockiego // International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poe-Hics. 27. 1983. S. 25-44; Idem. Zu den aitesten lexikalen Lehnbeziehungen zwischen Slawen und Germanen // Wiener Slawistrscher Almanach. Bd 13 Wien. 1984 S. 7-20; Manczak W. Czas i miejsce zapozycnen germansktch w praslowiaAskiin // International Journal of Slavic linguistics and poetics Bd. 27 1983 S 15-23.
52. Bernshtein S.B. An outline of comparative grammar ... p. 94.
53. Treimer K. Ethnogenese der Slawen. Wien 1954 S 32-34; Bernshtein S.B. Essay on comparative grammar ... pp. 94, 95; Trubachev O.N. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs ... p. 43
54. Lehr-Splawmski T. Kilka uwag about stosunkach jfzykowych celtycko-praslowiafiskich // Rocznik slawistyczny. T. XVIII. 1956 S. 1-10.
55. Trubachev O.N. Early Slavic ethnonyms - witnesses of the migration of the Slavs // Questions of linguistics. 1974. Issue. 6.S. 48-67.
56. Dybo V.A. Slavic accentology. Experience of reconstruction of the system of accent paradigms in Proto-Slavic. M., 1981; Bulatova R.V., Dybo V.A., Nikolaev S.L. Problems of accentological dialectisms in Proto-Slavic // Slavic linguistics. X International Congress of Slavists. Reports of the Soviet delegation. M., 1988.S. 31-65; Dybo V.A., Zamyatina G.I., Nikolaev S.L. Foundations of Slavic Accentology. M., 1990; They are. Proto-Slavic accentology and linguo-geography // Slavic linguistics. XI International Congress of Slavists. Reports of the Russian delegation M., 1993. S. 65-88.

On this day:

• Days of death
• 1898 Died Gabriel de Mortilla- French anthropologist and archaeologist, one of the founders of modern scientific archeology, creator of the Stone Age classification; also considered one of the founders of the French school of anthropology.

Linguistics as a science of language originated in ancient times, presumably in the Ancient East, in India, China, Egypt. Conscious language learning began with the invention of writing and the emergence of specific languages ​​other than spoken languages.

Initially, the science of language developed within the framework of private linguistics, which was caused by the need for training written language, i.e. primarily from the needs of practice. The first theoretical experience in describing the language was the Sanskrit grammar of the Indian scientist Panini (V-IV centuries BC), which was called the "Eight Books". It established the norms of Sanskrit, the single literary language of Ancient India, and was given accurate description language of sacred texts (Vedas). This was the most complete, albeit extremely concise (most often in the form of tables), description of spelling, phonetics, morphology, morphology, word formation and elements of Sanskrit syntax. Panini's grammar can be called the first generative grammar, since in a sense she taught the generation of speech. Giving a list of 43 syllables as a source material, the scientist outlined a system of rules that made it possible to build words from these syllables, from words - sentences (statements). Panini's grammar is still considered one of the most strict and full descriptions Sanskrit. She ensured the preservation of the ritual language in its traditional form, taught to form word forms from other words, contributed to the achievement of clarity and brevity of description. Panini's work had a significant impact on the development of linguistics in China, Tibet, Japan (in Chinese linguistics, for a long time, phonetics was the main direction), and later, when European science became acquainted with Sanskrit, - and on all European linguistics, especially on comparative historical linguistics.

The applied nature of ancient linguistics also manifested itself in the interest in the interpretation of the meanings of words. The first explanatory dictionary "Er Ya" ("Approaching the Right"), on which several generations of scientists worked, appeared in China (III-II centuries BC). In this dictionary, a systematic interpretation of words found in the monuments of ancient writing was given. In China, at the beginning of our era, the first dialect dictionary Fangyan ("Local Speech") also appeared.

The European linguistic, or rather grammatical, tradition originated in Ancient Greece. Already in the IV century. BC. Plato, describing the grammar of the Greek language, introduces the term techne grammatike(literally ‘the art of writing’) defining the main sections modern linguistics(hence the term "grammar" comes from). And today European grammatical science actively uses Greek and Latin terminology.

The grammatical and lexicographic direction of private linguistics was the leading one in the science of language in the ancient linguistic tradition, in medieval Europe and especially in the East. So, in particular, in the IV century. the "Grammar Guide" by Elia Donat appears in Rome, which served as a textbook Latin over a thousand years. Mastering this grammar as a symbol of wisdom, a model of correct speech was considered the height of learning, and Latin for a long time became the most studied language.

In the VIII century. the Arab philologist Sibaveikhi creates the first extant classical grammar of the Arabic language, which for the Muslim world was a kind of "Latin". In this extensive work (it was called "Al-Kitab", ie "Book"), the scientist expounded the doctrine of the parts of speech, the inflection of the name and the verb, their word formation, described the phonetic changes that occur in the process of the formation of grammatical forms , spoke about the peculiarities of articulation of certain sounds, their positional variants.

In the East, by the X century. the conceptual apparatus and terminology of lexicology is formed, which is distinguished into an independent scientific discipline. This is evidenced by the works of the Arab scientist Ibn Faris ("Book on Lexical Norms", "A Brief Sketch on Lexicon"), which for the first time raise the issue of the volume of the vocabulary of the Arabic language, give a classification of its vocabulary in terms of its origin and use, and develop a theory words (the problem of word ambiguity, direct and figurative meanings, homonymy and synonymy).

Arabic linguistics influenced the formation of Jewish linguistics, the development of which also proceeded mainly in two directions - grammatical and lexicographic. The first grammar of the Hebrew language appears at the beginning of the 10th century. Its author is Saadiya Gaon. However, the actual scientific study of the Hebrew language begins with the works of David Hayudzh, who in two "Books on Verbs" identified the main categories of the morphology of the verb and for the first time introduced the concept of root morpheme. This concept is firmly established in Hebrew linguistics, as evidenced by the fundamental dictionary of root morphemes by Samuel Nagid (XI century) "A book that eliminates the need to refer to other books", which includes all words and word forms found in the Old Testament. At the turn of the XII-XIII centuries. the grammars of the Hebrew language of the Kimkhids brothers appeared, which for a long time became the classic textbooks of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages ​​in many Christian universities in Western Europe.

The grammatical and lexicographic directions of private linguistics, developing and deepening their scientific apparatus, become leading in the science of the development and functioning of individual languages. However, the actual theoretical study of the language, the formation of a special scientific discipline - linguistics - occurs within the framework of general linguistics.

Philosophical understanding of language, its study as a means of knowing the world begins in Ancient Greece, where the comprehension of the laws of language took place within the framework of philosophy and logic. It was philosophy that became the cradle of the science of language. The linguistic interest of ancient philosophers was focused on such complex problems as the origin of language, language and thinking, the relationship between words, things and thoughts, etc. Language was seen as a means of forming and expressing thoughts. Mind and speech were understood as one logos. Therefore, the doctrine of the word (logos) was the basis of ancient Greek linguistics. The word in the understanding of ancient Greek scientists formed the social and sacred experience of a person, gave him the opportunity to comprehend and explain the world... The word made you think about how the name of this or that object occurs outside world... It demanded careful attention to itself, because it was believed that improper education or the use of words could disrupt the harmony in society.

Thus was born the theory of naming, which developed in two directions. Some scientists (for example, Heraclitus c. 540-480 BC) argued that the name of objects is determined by their very nature (theory physei "Fuze", i.e. ‘But to nature’), and each name reflects the essence of the thing designated, therefore, by studying words, one can understand the true essence of the object. In accordance with this theory, each word either reproduces the sounds made by the object itself, or conveys the impressions and sensations that it evokes in a person (honey, for example, tastes as sweet as the word mel ‘Honey’ is gentle on human hearing). Other scholars (for example, Democritus c. 460-370 BC) believed that the naming occurs by establishing a conditional agreement of people, i.e. according to custom, without any connection with the natural essence of the objects themselves (theory thesei "Theseus", i.e. 'by position'), since in the natural world there are many objects and phenomena that have several names (a phenomenon of synonymy) or do not have their own names at all, since no object in itself needs a name and can exist in nature without name. Names, however, are needed only by a person to express thoughts about an object, and therefore they are established by people by conditional agreement. Also, the same name can refer to different subjects(the phenomenon of homonymy), which is completely incomprehensible if the connection between a name and an object is natural.

This opposition between the two directions of ancient linguistics was reflected in the work-dialogue of Plato (c. 427-347 BC) "Cratilus". Cratilus, the champion of the theory physei , believes that everything that exists in nature has its own, "correct name inherent in nature." His opponent Hermogenes defends the theory thesei and believes that no name is innate from nature, but is established by people according to their laws and customs. Socrates opposes these two points of view in the dialogue, who says that the connection between the object and its name was not accidental at first, but over time it was lost in the linguistic consciousness of native speakers, and the connection between the word and the object was fixed by social tradition, custom.

The ancient theory of naming saw in the word a rational principle that regulates the world, helping a person in the complex process of comprehending the world. According to this teaching, sentences are formed from words, therefore the word is considered both as a part of speech and as a member of a sentence. The most prominent representative of the ancient grammatical tradition is Aristotle (384-322 BC). In his works ("Categories", "Poetics", "On Interpretation", etc.), he outlined the logical-grammatical concept of language, which was characterized by an undivided perception of the syntactic and formal-morphological characteristics of language units. Aristotle was one of the first ancient philosophers who developed the doctrine of parts of speech (and singled out the name and the verb as words expressing the subject and predicate of a judgment) and syntax simple sentence... Further development of these problems was carried out by scientists of Ancient Stoy, the largest philosophical and linguistic center of Greece (the so-called Stoics), who improved the Aristotelian classification of parts of speech and laid the foundations for the theory of semantic syntax, which is actively developing at present.

The philosophical study of the language reaches its peak in the 16th-17th centuries, when the need for a means of interethnic and scientific-cultural communication is acutely realized. The development of linguistics during this period takes place under the banner of the creation of the so-called grammar of a philosophical language, more perfect than any natural language. The birth of this idea was dictated by the time itself, the needs and difficulties of interlingual communication and learning. In the works of Western European scientists F. Bacon (1561 - 1626), R. Descartes (1596-1650) and W. Leibniz (1646-1716), the project of creating a single language for all mankind as a perfect means of communication and expression of human knowledge is substantiated. So, in particular, F. Bacon in his work "On the merits and improvement of sciences" put forward the idea of ​​writing a kind of comparative grammar of all languages ​​of the world (or at least Indo-European). This, in his opinion, would make it possible to identify the similarities and differences between languages, and subsequently to create, on the basis of the identified similarities, a single language for all mankind, free from the shortcomings of natural languages. This language would be a kind of "library" of human knowledge. In fact, it was about the development of a language like Esperanto as a perfect means of communication.

R. Descartes came up with the same idea of ​​creating a unified philosophical language. This language, according to R. Descartes, must have a certain amount of concepts that would allow obtaining absolute knowledge through various formal operations, since the system of human concepts can be reduced to a relatively small number of elementary units. The truth of this knowledge, in his opinion, was guaranteed by the philosophical nature of the language. The grammatical system of such a language should be quite simple: it should have only one way of conjugation, declension and word formation, and incomplete or irregular forms of inflection should be absent in it, i.e. and here it was about the construction of a universal artificial language.

A similar idea was at the heart of the concept of W. Leibniz, who proposed a project for the creation of a universal symbolic language. This language was presented to him as "the alphabet of human thoughts, ideas and knowledge", because all the variety of concepts can be reduced to it. W. Leibniz believed that all complex concepts consist of simple "atoms of meaning" (just as all divisible numbers are the product of indivisible ones), for example, "existing", "individual", "I", "this", "some" , "Everyone", "red", "thinking", etc. The combination of these "atoms of meaning" will make it possible to express the most complex abstract matters. Therefore, he proposed replacing reasoning with calculations, using a special formalized language for these purposes. He proposed to designate the first nine consonants with numbers from 1 to 9 (for example, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, etc.), and other consonants with combinations of numbers. He proposed to transfer vowels in decimal places (for example, a = 10, e = 100, i = 1000, etc.). Leibniz's ideas and the project of a formalized language itself gave impetus to the development of symbolic logic and later proved to be useful in cybernetics (in particular, in the design of machine languages), and the idea of ​​creating a special semantic language (consisting of "atoms of simple meanings") to describe the meaning of words became a commonplace of many modern semantic theories (for example, the theory of semantic primitives by the Polish researcher A. Wierzbicka).

The logical approach to language as a way of knowing its universal properties was continued in the rationalistic concepts of language that underlie the Port-Royal grammar, named after the abbey of the same name. Based on the logical forms of language identified by Aristotle (concept, judgment, essence, etc.), the authors of the "General Rational Grammar" (the learned monks of the Port-Royal monastery, the followers of R. Descartes - the logician A. Arno (1612-1694) and the philologist K. Lansloh (1612-1695) proved their universality for all languages ​​of the world, since the diversity of languages ​​is based on structures and logical laws that are common for all thinking beings. are a means of embodying the forms of thought), should be, in their opinion, universal, just as logic itself is universal. The very name of this grammar is eloquent: "A universal rational grammar, containing the foundations of the art of speech, which are set out in a clear and simple language; the logical foundations of all that what is common between all languages, and the main differences between them, as well as numerous new remarks on the French language. ”Drawing on materials from Latin, Hebrew, Greek, French, Italian, Spanish, English, German languages, scientists sought to reveal the unity of the grammar underlying the grammatical structure of each of these languages. They investigated the nature of words (the nature of their meanings, methods of education, relationships with other words), identified the principles structural organization of these languages, determined the nomenclature of general grammatical categories, giving a description of each of them, established the relationship between the categories of language and logic, thereby presenting the scientific understanding of natural language through the variety of languages ​​of the world. Relying on the laws of logic (which are the same for all mankind), the authors strove to find uniform rules of their functioning that are universal for all languages, which do not depend on either time or space. Having identified the "rational foundations common to all languages" (that is, the universal invariants of their meanings - lexical and grammatical) and "the main differences that occur in them" (that is, the originality of these languages ​​in the organization of their grammatical system), this grammar played an important role in understanding the general laws of the structure of language, laid the foundation for general linguistics as a special scientific discipline. Awareness of the fact of the plurality of languages ​​and their infinite diversity served as an incentive to develop methods for comparing and classifying languages, to form the foundations of comparative historical linguistics. Grammar actually proved that languages ​​can be classified in a variety of ways - both in terms of their material similarities and differences (i.e., similarities and differences in the material expression of the significant elements of the language), and in terms of their semantic similarities and differences. However, considering language as an expression of “immutable logical categories”, The authors of this grammar absolutized the principle of the immutability of the language and ignored the principle of linguistic evolution. At the same time, the ideas of universal grammar found their further development in the field of linguistic universalism and typology of languages ​​involved in the study of linguistic universals. It is to these grammatical philosophers that the idea of ​​the deep and superficial structure of language belongs, which will later form the basis of the teachings of the structuralists of the 20th century, who developed the idea of ​​generative (generative) grammar. So, in particular, they believed that in their deep structure languages ​​have universal features that are common property of all people, although at the superficial level of certain languages ​​they are implemented in different ways.

Within the framework of the general theory of language, comparative-historical linguistics is also formed, in which the comparison of languages ​​is a method, and the historical approach to language is the main principle of research. Its roots go back to antiquity: the first observations of the relationship of languages, in particular, Hebrew and Arabic, are found in Jewish linguistics in the work of Isaac Barun "The Book of Comparison of the Hebrew Language with Arabic" (XII century). In the XVI century. the work of the French humanist G. Postellus (1510-1581) "On the relationship of languages" appeared, in which the origin of all languages ​​from Hebrew was proved. In the same XVI century. Dutch scientist I. Scaliger (1540-1609) writes a treatise "Discourse on the languages ​​of Europeans", in which, comparing names

God in European languages, tries for the first time to classify languages. He distinguishes four large groups of genetically unrelated languages ​​(Latin, Greek, Teutonic (Germanic), Slavic) and seven small groups of mother languages ​​that form Albanian, Tatar, Hungarian, Finnish, Irish, British, Basque. These conclusions, however, were soon refuted by the Lithuanian scientist M. Lituanus, who found about 100 words that reveal a similarity between the Lithuanian language and Latin.

In the formation of comparative historical linguistics, the acquaintance of European scholars with Sanskrit and the discovery in it of striking lexical and grammatical coincidences with many European languages ​​was of great importance. The first information about this “sacred language of the Brahmins” was brought to Europe by the Italian merchant F. Sasseti, who discovered an amazing similarity between Sanskrit and Italian. In his Letters from India, he suggests a relationship between Sanskrit and Italian, and gives as evidence the following examples: Skt. dva- it. due] sapskr. tri- it. tre; Skt. sarpa‘Snake’ - it. serpe. Later, in the 18th century, the English orientalist W. Jones (1746-1794), having studied Sanskrit and discovered a stunning similarity with it not only in vocabulary, but also in the grammatical structure of European languages, came to the idea of ​​the existence of a proto-language. “Sanskrit, whatever its age, has an amazing structure,” writes Jones. - It is more perfect than Greek, richer than Latin and surpasses both of these languages ​​in refined sophistication ... In its verbal roots and in grammatical forms, there is a clear similarity with these two languages, which could not have arisen by chance; it is so strong that no linguist in the study of all three languages ​​can not come to the conclusion that they originated from one source, which, apparently, no longer exists. " This hypothesis put comparative historical linguistics on a new basis. An active search begins for the proto-language and “proto-people”, the origins and forms of life of the common ancestral society for all mankind. In 1808, the German scientist F. Schlegel (1772-1829) published his book "On the language and wisdom of the Indians", in which, explaining the relationship of Sanskrit with Latin, Greek, Persian and Germanic languages, he says that Sanskrit is the source from which all Indo-European languages ​​originated. This is how the ideas of comparative historical linguistics are gradually formed.

Achievements in the natural sciences also contributed to the strengthening of these ideas. Using the vast material accumulated by this time, natural science for the first time proposed the classification of the animal and flora, which took into account all its diversity. This could not but prompted the idea that behind all these species and subspecies of animals and plants there is some kind of inner unity, a kind of archetype, from which the development of all the attested species is explained, the changeability of forms of which was interpreted as the reason for their diversity.

Thus, comparative historical linguistics received support from the natural sciences.

The comparative historical study of languages ​​was based on the following principles:

• 1) each language has its own distinctive features that distinguish and contrast it with other languages;
• 2) these signs can be identified by comparative study of languages;
• 3) comparative analysis reveals not only differences, but also similarities of languages;
• 4) related languages ​​form a linguistic family;
• 5) differences between related languages ​​are the result of their historical changes;
• 6) the phonetic system of the language changes faster than other language systems; phonetic transformations within the framework of one language family are carried out with a strict sequence that knows no exceptions.

At the origins of comparative-historical linguistics were the German scientists F. Bopp (1791 - 1867), J. Grimm (1785-1863), Danish R. Rask (1787-1832) and Russian A. Kh. Vostokov (1781 - 1864), who developed principles and methods of comparative historical study of both living and dead languages. In the works created by them ("The conjugation system in Sanskrit in comparison with Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic languages" and "Comparative grammar of Indo-Germanic languages" by F. Bonn, "Study of the origin of the Old Northern or Icelandic language" R. Rask, four-volume "German grammar "J. Grimm," Discourse on the Slavic language, serving as an introduction to the grammar of this language, compiled from the oldest written monuments thereof "A. Kh. Vostokov), substantiated the need to study the historical past of languages, proved their change in time, established the laws of their historical development , put forward the criteria for determining the linguistic relationship.

So, in particular, F. Bopp was one of the first to select and systematize genetically common root elements of Indo-European languages. In his work "The Conjugation System ..." he tried to reconstruct the grammatical system of that proto-language, the collapse of which marked the beginning of all Indo-European languages. Depending on the peculiarities of the structure of the root, he distinguished three classes of languages:

• - languages ​​without real roots, i.e. without roots capable of connecting, and therefore without grammar (Chinese);
• - languages ​​with monosyllabic verbal and pronominal roots, capable of combining, and therefore having their own grammar (Indo-European languages); moreover, the correspondence of languages ​​in the system of inflections is, according to F. Bopp, a guarantee of their relationship, since inflections are usually not borrowed;
• - languages ​​with two-syllable verbal roots, consisting of three consonants, the internal modification of the root allows the formation of grammatical forms (Semitic languages).

It was F. Bonn that science owes the development of a methodology for comparing the forms of related languages, the interpretation of the very phenomenon of language kinship and the creation of the first comparative-historical grammar of Indo-European languages. This research work of F. Bopp, his search for the Indo-European proto-language, which led to the discovery of the principles of comparative historical linguistics, was compared by A. new way to India.

R. Rusk's research was no less valuable for comparative historical linguistics. According to R. Rask, language is a means of knowing the origin of peoples and their family ties in ancient times. At the same time, the main criterion for the kinship of languages, from his point of view, is grammatical correspondence as the most stable, as for lexical correspondences, they, according to R. Rusk, are in the highest degree unreliable, since words often pass from one language to another, regardless of the nature of the origin of these languages. The grammatical structure of the language is more conservative. A language, even mixing with another language, almost never borrows from it the forms of conjugation or declension, but on the contrary, it rather loses its own forms ( English, for example, did not perceive the forms of declension and conjugation of the French language or Scandinavian, but, on the contrary, due to their influence, he himself lost many of the ancient Anglo-Saxon inflections). From this he concludes: the language, which has a grammar rich in forms, is the most ancient and closest to the original source. Another, no less important criterion of linguistic kinship, R. Rask considered the presence of a number of regular sound transitions in the languages ​​being compared, an example of which is the complex of interrelated phonetic changes during the formation of stop consonants in Germanic languages ​​from the corresponding Indo-European sounds.

Later J. Grimm called this phenomenon the law of the first German movement of consonants. The essence of this law lies in the fact that a) the ancient Indian, ancient Greek and Latin occlusive voiceless consonants p, t y k in the common Germanic proto-language there correspond unvoiced gap consonants /, th, h b) Old Indian voiced aspirated consonant bh, dh, gh correspond to the common German voiced non-aspirated by d, g; c) ancient Indian, ancient Greek and Latin voiced stop consonants b, d t g correspond to common German voiceless occlusive consonants p y t, k. Thanks to the discovery of this law, linguistics took a step forward towards becoming an exact science. J. Grimm entered the history of linguistics not only as the author of the law of the first Germanic movement of consonants, but also as the creator of the first comparative historical grammar of Germanic languages, since his four-volume "German Grammar" was devoted to reconstruction internal history evolution of Germanic languages.

A. Kh. Vostokov was also engaged in the reconstruction of the history of languages, but already Slavic. Unlike R. Rusk, he believed that when establishing the relationship of languages, one should take into account the lexicon data. The generality of the semantics of certain lexical classes of words (such as, for example, the names of a person, parts of his body, terms of relationship, pronouns and numerals, verbs of motion, interjections) existing in different languages, indicates that this vocabulary belongs to the most ancient layer of the vocabulary of these languages. And the similarity in the semantics of these words is a true proof of the kinship of languages. A. Kh. Vostokov, like J. Grimm, believed that one should compare not only different languages, but also different stages of development of one language: it was such a comparison that allowed him to establish the sound meaning of special letters of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages, called Yus, - and a, denoting nasal sounds.

Thanks to the work of these scientists, a comparative historical method of studying languages ​​was formed in linguistics, which was based on the establishment of regular sound correspondences, the identification of commonality in certain classes of vocabulary, in the roots and especially in the inflections of the languages ​​being compared.

The comparative historical approach to the study of languages ​​contributed to the development of their genealogical classifications. The first linguist to propose such a classification was the German scientist A. Schleicher (1821-1868). Rejecting the possibility of the existence of a single proto-language for all languages ​​of the world, he put forward the idea of ​​the historical relationship of related languages. Languages ​​originating from a single parent language form a language genus (or "language tree"), which is divided into language families. These language families are differentiated into languages. Individual languages ​​break down further into dialects, which over time can separate and turn into independent languages... At the same time, Schleicher completely ruled out the possibility of crossing languages ​​and dialects. The task of the linguist, he believed, is to reconstruct the forms of the base language on the basis of the late forms of the existence of the language. Such a language-basis for many European languages ​​was the "common Indo-European proto-language", the ancestral home of which, according to A. Schleicher, was in Central Asia. The closest (both territorially and linguistically) to the Indo-European language, according to A. Schleicher, were Sanskrit and Avestan. The Indo-Europeans, who moved south, laid the foundation for the Greek, Latin and Celtic languages. The Indo-Europeans, who left their ancestral home by the northern route, gave rise to the Slavic languages ​​and Lithuanian. The ancestors of the Germans, who went farthest to the west, laid the foundation for the Germanic languages. Illustrating the process of the disintegration of the Indo-European proto-language, he proposed the following scheme for the genealogy tree of Indo-European languages:

On the basis of the theory of the “genealogical tree” A. Schleicher makes the following conclusions: 1) the proto-language was simpler in structure than its descendant languages, which were distinguished by the complexity and variety of forms; 2) languages ​​belonging to the same branch of the family tree are closer to each other linguistically than to the languages ​​of other branches; 3) the more east the Indo-European people live, the more ancient their language is, the more west, the more new formations in the language and the less old Indo-European forms have survived (an example is the English language, which has lost the ancient Indo-European inflections and the declension system itself). These conclusions, however, did not stand up to criticism from the point of view of the real facts of Indo-European languages: descendant languages, in terms of the number of sounds or grammatical forms, often turn out to be simpler than the proto-language; the same phonetic processes could cover languages ​​belonging to different branches of the family tree; even in Sanskrit, the recognized standard ancient language, there are many neoplasms; in addition, the Indo-European languages ​​already in ancient times entered into contacts with each other, and were not isolated from each other, as A. Schleicher tried to prove, denying the possibility of crossing languages ​​and dialects. The process of language divergence is a long and gradual process. Geographic proximity allows for maintaining linguistic contacts between native speakers, so different languages ​​and their dialects continue to influence each other.

The criticism of A. Schleicher's theory gave impetus to further understanding of the problem of linguistic kinship and the emergence of new hypotheses of the origin of languages. One of these hypotheses was the "theory of waves" by A. Schleicher's student Johann Schmidt (1843-1901). In his book "Relationships between Indo-European Languages," he proves that all Indo-European languages ​​are linked by a chain of mutual transitions.

There is not a single language that is free from crossings and influences. And they are the reason for the language changes. Schleicher's theory of the successive fragmentation of the Indo-European proto-language, Schmidt contrasted with the theory of gradual, imperceptible transitions between dialects of the proto-language that have no clear boundaries, which he likened to a "waving field." These transitions spread in concentric circles, "waves". He compared language waves to waves from a stone thrown into the water, as they become weaker and weaker as the distance from the center of neoplasm appears. However, this theory also had its drawbacks. Despite the fact that the mutual influence of languages ​​located in adjacent territories does take place, I. Schmidt's wave theory ignored the issue of the dialectal originality of the languages ​​that are part of the Indo-European linguistic community. Today, the maps of the "Common Slavic Linguistic Atlas" speak eloquently about this. They often indicate the presence of clear boundaries in the spread of a particular linguistic phenomenon. A vivid illustration of the existence of such boundaries are the areas of words that are characteristic of only one language. Sometimes they can cover vast spaces of dialects of a particular language, but at the same time not go beyond them, i.e. the idea of ​​a "swaying cornfield" underlying this theory clearly does not work here.

In parallel with comparative historical research, general and theoretical linguistics continues to develop, new directions in the study of language are being formed. So, in particular, in the depths of comparative-historical linguistics arises psychological direction, the founders of which were the German scientists W. von Humboldt (1767-1835), G. Steinthal (1823-1899) and the Russian philosopher-linguist A. A. Potebnya (1835-1891). In their works, they tried to clarify the principles of the evolutionary development of language, the issues of the relationship between language and thinking, language and mentality of the people. The linguistic concept of W. Humboldt was based on an anthropological approach to language, according to which the study of language should be carried out in close connection with the consciousness and thinking of a person, his spiritual and practical activities. Language, according to Humboldt, is the living activity of the human spirit, it is the energy of the people coming from its depths. In his work "On the difference in the structure of human languages ​​and its influence on the spiritual development of mankind," he put forward the idea of ​​the relationship between language, thinking and the spirit of the people. Language is a means of developing a person's inner forces, his feelings and worldview, it is a mediator in the process of “transforming the external world into people's thoughts”, as it promotes their self-expression and mutual understanding. In the interpretation of V. Humboldt, acts of human interpretation of the world are carried out in the language, therefore, different languages ​​are different worldviews (“The word is not the imprint of the object itself, but of its sensory image in our soul”). Each language, denoting phenomena and objects of the external world, forms its own picture of the world for the people speaking it. Thus, thought and language become interdependent and inseparable from each other. Words of any language are organized as a systemic whole, each of them has the whole language with its semantic and grammatical structure. The differences between languages ​​are not associated with differences in sounds, but with differences in the interpretation of the world in which they live, and in the understanding of this world by the speakers. Hence his statement: "The language of the people is their spirit, and the spirit of the people is their language." Linguistics, therefore, should strive for "a thorough study of the various ways in which countless peoples solve the all-human task of comprehending objective truth through languages."

Developing the ideas of W. Humboldt, representatives of the psychological direction considered language as a phenomenon of the psychological state and human activity. Language, according to A.A. Potebnya, is a stream of continuous verbal creativity, and therefore it is a means of revealing the individual psychology of the speaker. Hence the desire to study the language in its real use, relying primarily on social psychology, folklore, mythology, the customs of the people, which are expressed in various speech forms (proverbs, sayings, riddles).

Awareness weaknesses psychological direction (and above all the excessive exaggeration of the role of psychological factors in language, reducing the essence of language to speech, to the expression of individual states of the human soul) contributed to the development of new approaches to language learning. In the 80s. XIX century. the course of young grammatism is taking shape, the supporters of which sharply criticized the older generation of linguists. It is for this criticism that the founders of the new trend - young German scientists F. Zarnke, K. Brugman, G. Paul, A. Leskin, I. Schmidt, and others - were called young grammatics, and the current they advocate was called young grammatical. The concept of young grammarians is presented in the most complete and consistent form in the book by G. Paul "Principles of the History of Language". The young grammarians abandoned, first of all, the philosophical concept of language learning, believing that linguistics had entered a historical period of development. The historical principle was proclaimed as the only scientific principle of linguistic analysis. Sharing ideas about the psychological nature of language, representatives of this trend rejected ethnopsychology as a scientific fiction, recognizing the only real speech of the individual. Hence their call to study not an abstract language, but the speech of a speaking person. The close attention of young grammarians to the facts of speech activity contributed to the development of interest in folk dialects and dialect speech. Investigating the physiology and acoustics of speech sounds, young grammarians identified phonetics as a special section of linguistics. It helped to make sense of the spelling to a great extent. oldest monuments writing, correlate the spelling with the real sound value. Without denying the dynamics of language development, the young grammarians reduced it, in essence, to two phenomena - to regular sound changes (or phonetic laws) and to changes by analogy. The phonetic laws of language development are characterized, in their opinion, by regular sound changes, which are performed with a strict sequence, not knowing exceptions. It follows from this that the systemic correspondences between the sounds of different languages ​​indicate their relationship.

The active nature of a person's speech activity leads to the fact that sound changes can occur not only under the influence of phonetic laws, but also by analogy, which contributes to the alignment of the forms of the language, the restructuring of its grammatical system. The confirmation of the operation of these laws in the evolution of the grammatical structure of the language contributed to their detailed development of the issues of morphology reconstruction: they clarified the concept of a root morpheme, proving that its composition can change in the process of language development, showed the role of inflection, especially in the process of aligning the bases by analogy. A scrupulous study of the phonetics of the root and inflection made it possible to make the linguistic reconstruction of the proto-language more reliable. Thanks to the linguistic reconstructions of young grammarians, a clear understanding of the sound composition and morphological structure of the Indo-European proto-language has been formed in science. Comparative-historical linguistics has risen to a new stage of development.

However, the superficial character of the historicism of the young grammarians, the absence of serious developments in the theory of analogy, the absolutization of the immutability of the action of phonetic laws (which often, due to the action of contradictory factors, could not be called a law), a subjective psychological understanding of the nature of language, the idea of ​​its system as a sea of ​​atomic facts led gradually towards the crisis of young grammatism.

It is being replaced by a new direction, namely, "words and things" associated with the names of Austrian scientists G. Schuhardt (1842-1928) and R. Mehringer (1859-1931). In 1909, they began to publish the journal "Words and Things" (hence the name of this trend of linguistics). In contrast to the theory of young grammarians, who studied primarily the phonetic level of language and considered language as a self-sufficient mechanism that develops in accordance with phonetic laws and laws of analogy, they turn to the semantic side of language and propose to study language in its connection with social and cultural institutions of society. They urge to study the history of words in the context of the history of things, because the word exists only depending on the thing. This, in their opinion, reveals a complete parallelism between the history of a thing and the history of a word. However, this direction of linguistics was confined to the problems of historical lexicology and etymology and ignored other aspects of the language.

The historical and genetic orientation of linguistics gradually ceased to satisfy scientists who saw in comparative historical research a disregard for the modern state of the language. Attention to the history of the individual linguistic phenomena or words without taking into account their place in the language system gave rise to reproaches for the atomism of linguistic studies by comparativists who ignore the internal connections and relationships between the elements of the language. Comparative-historical linguistics was also reproached for the fact that it was engaged not so much in the knowledge of the nature of language as in the knowledge of historical and prehistoric social conditions and contacts between peoples, focusing its attention on phenomena that are outside the language. Meanwhile, linguistics should deal with the study of the properties inherent in language, it should look for that constant, not connected with extra-linguistic reality, which makes language a language. Awareness of the limitations of comparative historical linguistics led to a radical change in linguistics - the birth of interest in the structure of language and the emergence of a new direction - linguistic structuralism. This is the most striking difference between the linguistics of the XX century.

At the origins of structuralism was the Swiss scientist F. de Sosser and the Russian scientists I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. F. Fortunatov, R. O. Jacobson, and others. Structural linguistics was characterized by the desire to develop the same rigorous approach to synchronous description language, which was the comparative historical method for diachronic description. Hence the heightened interest in the structure of the plan of expression, in the description of various relations between the elements of the system (especially before the 50s of the XX century), later in the structure of the plan of content, in the dynamic models of the language. Structuralism was based on the understanding of language as a system uniting a strictly coordinated set of heterogeneous elements ("language is a system subject to its own order," F. de Saussure argued), attention to the study of the connections between these elements, a clear distinction between the phenomena of synchrony and diachrony in language, use structural analysis, modeling, formalization of linguistic procedures. This weight allowed the structuralists to move from the “atomistic” description of the facts of the language to their systemic representation and to prove that, although the language is constantly developing, but at each synchronous slice of its history it is an integral system of interrelated elements.

The merit of the structuralists, and in particular F. de Saussure, was that they clearly defined the fundamental foundations of linguistic research. They stated the need for a distinction:

• 1) synchrony, in which language at a given time interval is considered as a self-sufficient communicative system, and diachrony, in which the inevitable changes occurring in the language are considered from a historical point of view;
• 2) the concepts of language ( longue) and speech (parole ): language differs from speech as essential from collateral and accidental, allowing for variability, fluctuations and individual deviations;
• 3) two fundamental dimensions of synchronous linguistics - syntagmatic (in accordance with the sequence of successive language elements) and paradigmatic (in systems of opposed elements).

Within the framework of linguistic structuralism, various schools were formed (Prague, Copenhagen, London, American), in which the structural direction developed in its own way. All these schools, however, were united by a common conceptual platform, the essence of which can be summarized as follows:

• 1) language is a system in which all units are interconnected by various relationships;
• 2) language is a system of signs correlating with other symbolic systems within the framework of a general science - semiotics;
• 3) when studying any natural language, one should distinguish between the concepts of "language" and "speech";
• 4) the linguistic system is based on universal syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations that connect its units at all linguistic levels;
• 5) the language can be studied from the synchronous and diachronic points of view, however, in the systematic description of the language, the priority belongs to the synchronous approach;
• 6) statics and dynamics are coexisting states of the language: statics ensures the balance of the language as a system, dynamics - the possibility of language changes;
• 7) the language is organized according to its internal laws, and it is necessary to study it taking into account internal linguistic factors;
• 8) in the study of language, it is necessary to use rigorous linguistic methods that bring linguistics closer to the natural sciences.

By the 70s. XX century. the basic concepts and principles of structural linguistics as a special system of scientific views on language turned out to be blurred, becoming an integral part of the general theory of language. However, it was structural linguistics that gave impetus to the emergence of a new direction - constructivism, the founder of which was the American scientist N. Chomsky (in domestic linguistics, N. Chomsky's ideas were developed at the school of S. K. Shaumyan). This trend is based on the idea of ​​the dynamism of language: language is understood as a dynamic system that ensures the generation of statements, therefore, if structuralists tried to answer the question "how is language arranged?" ... Hence their desire to create a grammar that would facilitate the generation of sentences in one language or another, since the dynamic laws of sentence construction were recognized by them as universal. This grammar is based on the idea that the whole variety of syntactic models of sentences in different languages ​​can be reduced to a relatively simple system of nuclear types (for example, the noun phrase of the subject + the verb group of the predicate), which can be transformed using a small number of transformation rules and obtained more complex sentences... Therefore, the task is to identify all the deep structural types of sentences and, by means of various operations on their components (for example, addition, permutation, omission, replacement, etc.), to establish their possibilities in generating different types of sentences, thereby revealing the correspondences of deep sentence structures are superficial. However, the application of this theory to specific linguistic material revealed its limitations in the presentation of the syntactic and especially the semantic structure of the sentence, since the language turned out to be much richer and more diverse than these models.

In modern linguistics, there is a tendency to synthesize various ideas and methods of linguistic analysis developed in the philosophy of language and in the research practice of various linguistic schools and trends, which has an impact on general level the science of language, stimulating its development. Comparative-historical linguistics, which critically assimilated the experience of diachronic linguistics of the 18th-19th centuries, is developing especially rapidly today. Creation of such large-scale scientific projects as "Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages" (edited by ON Trubachev), "Dictionary of the Proto-Slavic Language" ("Slownik praslowiaiiski"), ed. F. Slavsky, European and Common Slavic linguistic atlases testifies to the flourishing of this area of ​​historical linguistics.

The latest linguistic trends include ethnolinguistics, psycholinguistics, areal linguistics, and cognitive linguistics.

Ethnolinguistics studies the language in its relation to the culture of the people, it examines the interaction of linguistic, ethnocultural and ethnopsychological factors in the functioning and evolution of the language. With the help of linguistic methods, she describes the "content plan" of culture, folk psychology, mythology, regardless of the method of their formal expression (word, ritual, object, etc.). The issues related to the study of the speech behavior of an “ethnic personality” within the framework of cultural activities as a reflection of the ethnic linguistic picture of the world are brought to the fore. The subject of ethnolinguistics is a meaningful and formal analysis of oral folk art within the framework of material and spiritual culture, as well as a description of the linguistic picture (or rather the linguistic model) of the world of a particular ethnic group. Within the framework of ethnolinguistics, there are different trends and directions (German - E. Cassirer, I. Trier, L. Weisgerber, Russian - A. A. Potebnya, N. I. Tolstoy's school, American - F. Boas, E. Sapir, B. Whorf), which differ not only in the subject of research, but also in the initial theoretical positions. If representatives of the German and Russian ethnolinguistic schools develop the philosophical and linguistic ideas of F. Schlegel and W. Humboldt, then the American school relies primarily on the teachings of E. Sapir, who put forward the idea of ​​determining the thinking of the people by the structure of language. The structure of language, says the hypothesis of E. Sapir and his student B. Whorf, determines the structure of thinking and the way of knowing the external world, i.e. the real world is largely unconsciously built by man on the basis of linguistic data. Therefore, the knowledge and division of the world, according to E. Sapir, depends on the language in which this or that people speaks and thinks. “The worlds in which different societies live are different worlds, and not at all the same world with different labels attached to it,” writes

E. Sapir. “We see, hear and generally perceive the world around us exactly this way, and not otherwise, mainly due to the fact that our choice in interpreting it is predetermined by the linguistic habits of our society.” Language is thus viewed as a self-sufficient force that creates the world. However, the anthropocentric nature of science at the end of the 20th century, and in particular numerous works on semantics, suggest the opposite picture: mental representations are primary, which are conditioned by reality itself and the cultural and historical experience of the people, and the language only reflects them, i.e. the arrows in the indicated double correlation must be reoriented.

At the same time, one cannot but admit that the role of language in the development of thinking of each individual person is enormous. A language (its vocabulary and grammar) not only stores information about the world (being a kind of "library of meanings"), but also transmits it in the form of oral or written texts created on it (being a "library of texts"), thereby influencing on the formation and development of the culture of the people.

Psycholinguistics studies the processes of speech formation, as well as the perception of speech in their correlation with the language system. She develops models of a person's speech activity, his psychophysiological speech organization in the process of adapting a person to language: psychological and linguistic patterns of speech formation from linguistic elements, as well as recognition of its linguistic structure. Psycholinguistics deals with the study of such issues as the acquisition of language (native or foreign) by children and adults, the generation of an utterance by the speaker and its perception by the listener. She seeks to interpret language as dynamic system human speech activity. Hence the attention to such issues as the ways of generating a text (conscious or unconscious), stages of generating speech (motivational, semantic, semantic and linguistic), ways of perceiving a text, in particular, signs that allow the listener to identify linguistic units. Within the framework of psycholinguistics, the following linguistic schools are the most noticeable: Moscow - the Institute of Linguistics and the Institute of the Russian Language RLN, Leningradskaya, which was founded by L.V.Shcherba, the Institute of Linguistic Research, a group of psycholinguists led by L.R. Zinder, and the American one - Ch. Osgood, J. Miller.

On the basis of psycholinguistics, a new direction in linguistics, cognitive linguistics (or cognitology), was born - the science of knowledge and cognition, the results of the perception of the world and the subject-cognitive activity of a person, enshrined in the language. The object of the study of cognitive linguistics is the mental activity of a person, his mind, thinking and those mental processes that relate to them. Cognitive processes are associated with language, since the intellectual and spiritual activity of a person is impossible without language. Therefore, it is language that is in the center of attention of cognitologists. Language is considered as a cognitive mechanism that ensures the production and understanding of meanings in a person's speech activity, with its help, the transmission, reception and processing of information, knowledge, messages received by a person from the outside is carried out. Thanks to language, the structure and dynamics of thought materialize. The knowledge that exists in a particular society is ordered and organized into a linguistic picture of the world characteristic of a given ethnocultural collective, since it is language that dismembers it and fixes it in human consciousness, i.e. is a means of objectification and interpretation of knowledge. Cognitive linguistics has as its goal the study of the processing of information by a person coming to him through different channels; understanding and forming the thoughts outlined on natural language; the study of mental processes serving mental acts; creation of models of a computer program capable of understanding and producing text. Cognitive linguistics seeks to understand how the processes of perception, categorization, classification and understanding of the world are carried out, how the structures of knowledge, pictures and models of the world are formed and how they are reflected in the language, i.e. ultimately, it is aimed at identifying the system of human knowledge fixed in the language, because language is considered both as a tool for understanding the world, and as a mechanism for expressing and storing knowledge about the world.

Areal linguistics ( area"area, space") deals with the study of the spread of linguistic phenomena in space in interlanguage and inter-dialectal interaction. The task of areal linguistics is to localize, characterize and interpret the area of ​​one or another linguistic phenomenon in order to study the history of a language, the process of its formation and development (comparing, for example, territory of distribution of mapped linguistic phenomena, it is possible to establish which of them is more ancient, how one of them replaced the other, ie to define archaisms and innovations). The term "areal linguistics" was introduced by the Italian scientist M. Bartoli. areal linguistics is being developed on the material of various languages ​​- Indo-European (E.A.Makaev), Slavic (R.I. Avanesov, S. B. Bernshtein, N.I. V. M. Zhirmunsky), Roman (M. A. Borodin), Turkic (N. 3. Hajiyeva), Balkan (P. Ivich, A. V. Desnitskaya) and others. Areal linguistics has proved the complexity of language in territorial and social relations. Thanks to areal studies, I. Schmidt's thesis about language as a continuous continuum, having its center and periphery, became obvious. The statement that there are no unmixed languages ​​was also confirmed, since dialects of one language constantly interact both with each other and with the literary language.

The history of the formation and development of linguistics testifies to the fact that various directions and teachings did not cancel one another, but mutually complemented each other, presenting language as a complex phenomenon in which the material and the ideal, the mental and the biological, the social and the individual, the eternal and the changing, are combined. The logic of the development of scientific knowledge, the emergence of new directions and trends in the history of linguistics suggests that the complexity of the study of language (for all its given in direct observation) is determined not so much by its forms as by its internal structure.

Modern linguistics, improving various research methods, continues the traditions of the science of language, rooted in antiquity. At the same time, it is also the matrix of the future. The theory of naming, formulated in ancient linguistics, in which the Word was interpreted as the basis for the formation of the world, is again brought to the fore in modern science. This is eloquently evidenced by numerous works devoted to the linguistic "portrayal" of the word. When describing the meanings of a word, in order to achieve the full completeness of its semantic characteristics, its compatibility, communicative and pragmatic properties are studied in detail. Therefore, the word is considered in the broadest cultural context, taking into account the entire spectrum of situations, in all the variety of its textual uses against the background of the set of rules of a particular language (compare, for example, linguistic portraits of words such as truth, truth, freedom, fate, soul, have, know, speak, fear, hope, each, any, everyone, little, much, rarely, often, here, now, now, really, really, -or and others, who became the heroes of many scientific studies).

At the same time, in modern linguistics, there is a breakthrough in the linguistics of text, sentences, utterances. This is evidenced by the emergence of such scientific disciplines as pragmatics, the theory of speech acts, linguistics of the text.

Control questions

• 1. What is linguistics? When and where did linguistics originate?
• 2. The place of linguistics in the system of humanities and natural sciences? What does general and specific linguistics study?
• 3. What is the language level? What language levels do you know?
• 4. How did private linguistics develop? What ancient grammars do you know? What is a lexicographic direction? What are the oldest dictionaries you know?
• 5. How did general linguistics develop? What is a philosophical direction in linguistics? What is a logical approach to language? What grammar is the clearest illustration of the rationalistic concept of language?
• 6. What are the basic principles of comparative historical linguistics?
• 7. What is the psychological direction in linguistics?
• 8. What is the course of young grammatism?
• 9. What is the essence of linguistic structuralism?
• 10. Modern linguistic trends.

• 1. Llefirenko N.F. Methodological problems of modern linguistics / NF Alsfirenko // Modern problems of the science of language: textbook, manual. - M., 2009.
• 2. Alpatov V.M. History of linguistic teachings / V. M. Alpatov. - M., 1999.
• 3. Amirova T.A. Essays on the history of linguistics / T. A. Amirova, B. A. Olkhovnikov, Yu. V. Rozhdestvensky. - M., 1975.
• 4. Atlas of languages ​​of the world. The origin and development of languages ​​around the world. - M., 1998.
• 5. Berezin F.M. History of linguistic teachings / FM Berezin. - M., 1984.
• 6. Burlak S.A. Introduction to linguistic comparative studies / S. A. Burlak, S. A. Starostin. - M., 2001.
• 7. B. N. Golovin Introduction to linguistics / BN Golovin. - M., 1983. - Ch. 16.
• 8. Gak V.G. Language transformations: some aspects of linguistic science at the end of the 20th century. / V.G. Gak. - M., 1998.
• 9. Ivanov V.V. Linguistics of the third millennium: questions for the future / V. V. Ivanov. - M., 2004.
• 10. Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics / Yu. S. Maslov. - M., 1998. - Ch. I.
• 11. Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistics / A. A. Reformatsky. - M., 1967. - Ch. I.
• 12. Robins R. X. A Brief History of Linguistics / R. X. Robins. - M., 2010.
• 13. Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky Lectures on General Linguistics / Yu. V. Rozhdestvensky. - M., 1990 .-- 4.2.
• 14. Semereni O. Introduction to Comparative Linguistics / O. Semerenyi. - M., 1980.
• 15. Shaikevich A. Ya. Introduction to linguistics / A. Ya. Shaikevich. - M., 1995.

• The founder of the school is considered Zeno of Kygion in Cyprus (c. 336-264 BC) Not satisfied with the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophical schools (in particular, the Platonic Academy), Zeno founded his own school in the "patterned portico" (Greek. stoa - 'portico'), from which it got its name.
• Semerenyi O. Introduction to Comparative Linguistics. M., 1980.S. 20.
• Carried away by the task of reconstructing this language, he even wrote a fable in Indo-European proto-language, which was called "Sheep and Horses": Gwerei owis kwesyo wlhna ne estckwons espeket oinom ghe gwrum vvoghom (literally: a hill on a sheep whose wool does not exist; A sheep, on which there was no wool, several horses were noticed on the hill, one of which was carrying a heavy cart ”); weghontm oinom-kwemegam bhorom oinom-kwe ghmenm oku bherontm (literally: one who is also carrying a large load, one also carries a fast: “the other was dragging a large load, and the third was fast carrying the rider”); owis nu ekwomos ewewkwet: "Kög aghnutoi moi ekwons agontm nerm widentei" (literally: the sheep now the horses said: "My heart hurts horses driven by man to see": "The sheep said to the horses:" My heart breaks when I see that a man controls horses ””); ek'wos tu ewewk "vont:" Kludhi owei ker ghe aghnutoi nsmei widntmos: ner, potis "(literally: the horses then said:" Listen, the sheep hurts our heart seeing the owner man ":“ The horses said: “Listen, sheep, our hearts are torn when we see that the man is the master ""); owiom i wlhnam sebhi gwermom westrom kwrneuti. Neghi owiom wlhna esti (literally: he makes warm clothes for himself. clothes. But the sheep has no wool "); tod kekluwos owis agromebhuget (literally: when the sheep heard this, the field ran away:" When the sheep heard this, the sheep fled into the field. " 1998.S. 27).
• Humboldt von B. On the difference in the structure of human languages ​​and its influence on the spiritual development of mankind // Humboldt von V. Selected works in linguistics. Moscow, 1984, p. 68-69.
• Sapir E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. M., 1993.S. 261.

Modern Slavic studies, or Slavic studies, studies the material and spiritual culture of the Slavic peoples through the linguistic analysis of written, folklore and cultural texts, studies their languages, history, ethnography, archeology - everything that allows us to talk about the Slavs as a special linguistic and cultural group of the world's population. A narrower section of Slavic studies is Slavic philology, which studies the Slavic languages, their emergence, history, state of the art, dialectal division, history and functioning literary languages... Slavic philology, on the one hand, is an integral part of Slavic studies, on the other, linguistics.

Recently, the term mentality has become very fashionable - a set of ethnocultural, social skills and spiritual attitudes, stereotypes, which make up a special way of life of a particular people. However, ethnic characteristics that distinguish one culture from another did not begin to be discussed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. When an individual ethnos begins to realize itself as a special people, different from other ethnic groups, when it begins to oppose itself to other ethnic formations, people always appear who indicate by what parameters “we are not like everyone else” and explain “why we are not like that. ".

The national consciousness of the Slavs intensified in the second half of the XIV - XVII - XVIII - XIX - XX centuries. (among different nationalities at one time). And the first stage in the development of Slavic studies is connected with the beginning of the growth of national self-awareness. It falls on the XIV - end of XVIII v. and, which is quite natural, is still sporadic. It was at this time that a wave of national liberation movement passed among the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and then among the Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes ... The former separated themselves from the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians, the latter from the Turks, Hungarians, Austrians, Greeks. The dominant nationalities (and nations) of empires at this time are no longer able to perform a unifying function, and their pressure on other peoples of the state is now perceived as something negative, which must be gotten rid of. But it is one thing to separate oneself from others, and another to unite with one's own kind. This is necessary so that those from whom they separated would understand: this nation is a strong people, it deserves independence, it is necessary to reckon with it. But it turns out that in order to unite with their own kind, you also need grounds. And what, if not culture, brings peoples closer together? What then, no matter how common beliefs, common features in housekeeping, common rituals, common traditions? Scientists subconsciously try to explain that the Slavic peoples are different from the Germanic, Hungarian, Turkic and others, which, together with the Slavs, are part of the three greatest empires at that time: Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian. In the XVII - XVIII centuries. The most obvious thing - the language - becomes the unifying principle of the Slavic peoples. Some experience in describing individual Slavic languages ​​(Czech, Polish), compiling bilingual dictionaries, and graphic innovations was gained during the Hussite wars (16th century). At this time, the grammars of the Polish, Czech, Slovenian, Croatian, Church Slavonic languages ​​appeared. Horvat Yuri Krizhanich (circa 1618 - 1683) writes "The words are grateful" (1666). His work is a kind of project of the "all-Slavic language". The predecessors of scientific Slavic studies in the 18th century were Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711 - 1765), August Ludwig von Schlözer (1735 - 1809; Russia), Vyacheslav Mikhail Durich (1735 or 1738 - 1802; Czech Republic) and others. Slavic studies at this time are descriptive.

The second stage in the development of Slavic studies

(late 18th - first half of the 19th century)

The ideas of uniting the Slavs are constantly in the air. They are either expansive-conquering, then liberating, then educational, then friendly in nature. Back in the second half of the 17th century. Yuri Krizhanich came up with the idea of ​​creating an all-Slavic language. In the XVIII century. here and there voices are heard about the commonality of the Slavs, their historical traditions and cultures. In the 30-60s years XIX v. different Slavic peoples have nationalist circles and communities, which, on the one hand, have a political orientation, and on the other, cultural and educational. Scientists bit by bit collect and classify ancient manuscripts, ancient monuments, objects of Slavic life, folklore, make up all kinds of ethnographic descriptions, study and compare Slavic languages. Public figures in every possible way propagandize the national identity of the Slavs, defend the rights of the Slavic peoples living within the most powerful empires of the 19th century. (Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian), talk about the need to remember their roots, to cultivate the ideas of communality. Moreover, the line between a scientist and a politician turns out to be very conditional.

The activities of nationalist circles and communities result in strong socio-political and cultural movements. In Russia, this is the movement of Slavophilism (I.V.Kireevsky, K.S.Aksakov, A.S. Khomyakov, K. Leontiev, N. Danilevsky), among the Chekhovs - Pan-Slavism (J. Kollar, L. Shtur, P.Y. Shafarik, K. Kramarzh), among the southern Slavs, in particular, in Croatia, Slavonia, - Illirism (L. Gai, I. Kukulevich-Saktsinsky, P. Preradovich, V. Babukich).

Their ideas are embodied in journalism, in fiction, in the visual arts, where the authors seek to reflect the national characteristics of both individual Slavic peoples and the Slavs in general. Universities set up Slavic departments, whose members are actively involved in the collection and analysis of ethnographic, linguistic and cultural materials. A solid scientific foundation has now been laid under Slavic studies, based not on weak feelings of unity, but backed up by specific cultural, linguistic and historical facts.

The first major Slavic philologist who laid the foundations of scientific Slavic studies was the Czech Josef Dobrovsky (1753 - 1829). His works are devoted to the scientific description of the grammar of the Old Church Slavonic language (1822), Czech grammar (1809), the history of the Czech language and literature (1792). In addition, J. Dobrovsky defined the range of problems that faced the Slavic studies of the 19th and 20th centuries and still remain relevant:

1) comparative study Slavic languages;

2) study of the Old Church Slavonic language;

3) studying the grammatical structure of modern Slavic languages;

4) the emergence of Slavic writing and its development (Cyril and Methodius problem).

In Russia, these problems were developed by Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov (1791 - 1864), in Vienna - by Bartholomew Kopitar (1780 - 1844).

In the first half of the 19th century. in Russia there are Slavic circles of Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev (1754-1826) and Alexander Semenovich Shishkov (1753-1841).

Their activities led to the creation (1835) in Russian universities of Slavic departments, which were headed in Moscow by Osip Maksimovich Bodyansky (1808 - 1877), in St. Petersburg - by Pyotr Ivanovich Preis (1810 - 1846), later by Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky (1812 - 1880) ... They believed that the new departments should study various aspects of the life of the Slavs. For this, it was necessary to study well the Slavic languages ​​themselves, literature, culture and history of the Slavs, and above all - the Slavic antiquities. During their long travels across the Slavic countries, scientists discovered many ancient manuscripts, collected the richest dialectological, folklore and cultural material.

If O.M. Bodyansky studied manuscripts in the libraries of Prague, Vienna, Pest, then P.I. Preis was engaged in the study of living Slavic languages. In particular, he came to the conclusion that the Kashubian language is "a branch of the Lehite dialect" and "does not represent the slightest resemblance to Russian," as was previously thought; that the Lithuanian language is an independent non-Slavic language, not mixed, etc.

I.I. During his travels Sreznevsky got acquainted with many Slavic regions, collected a rich linguistic, ethnographic and folklore material. Thanks to the research of these scholars, comparative Slavic studies received a solid scientific foundation.

At that time, Prague was the largest Slavic center abroad. The heirs of J. Dobrowski - Josef Jungman (1773 - 1847; Czech dictionary), Pavel Josef Shafarik (1795 - 1861; History of Slavic Languages ​​and Literatures), Frantisek Ladislav Chelakovsky (1799 - 1852; lectures on comparative Slavic grammar) work here.

In Vienna, Vuk Stefan Karadzic (1787 - 1864) creates a Serbian dictionary and a concise grammar of the Serbian language on a folk basis. He shares the point of view of V. Kopitar about the possibility of creating a literary language it is on the folk, and not on the basis of a book, and makes attempts to implement such a language.

Serious work is being done at this time in Poland as well. Józef Mroziński (1784 - 1839) wrote The First Foundations of the Grammar of the Polish Language (1822), Samuel Bohumil Linde (1771 - 1847) created a six-volume Dictionary of the Polish Language (1807 - 1814), in which he offers examples of comparative Slavic lexicography.

Thus, in the first half of the 19th century, Slavic studies were characterized by attention to ancient manuscripts and the ancient state of the language. The formation of the vocabulary and grammar of national literary languages ​​is of less concern to scientists, although it does not remain outside their scientific interests.

The third stage in the development of Slavic studies

(second half of XIX - early XX century)

At this time, a Slavic department was created in Vienna, headed by the largest representative of comparative historical linguistics, Franz Miklosich (1813 - 1891). He created a fundamental four-volume comparative grammar of Slavic languages ​​(1852 - 1875) and the first etymological dictionary of Slavic languages ​​(1886). This marked the beginning of a long period of comparative historical linguistics, which continues to be relevant to this day. In Prague, the development of this direction is promoted by August Schleicher (1821 - 1868), August Leskin (1840 - 1916), in the Czech Republic - Jan Gebauer (1838 - 1907), Leopold Geitler (1847 - 1885), Antonin Matzenauer (1823 - 1893) and others ...

At the beginning of the XX century. two major representatives of comparative-historical linguistics work in Russia - Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov (1848 -1914) and Aleksey Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov (1864 -1920). Comparison of related languages ​​is used by F.F. Fortunatov not only for the reconstruction of proto-forms, but mainly to clarify the evolution of sounds and forms in the languages ​​being compared. Thanks to his writings, the Old Church Slavonic language becomes a necessary component of the comparative historical Indo-European and Slavic linguistics.

A.A. Shakhmatov in his works pays a lot of attention to the paleographic, historical and textological study of the Russian chronicles. Associated with his name new stage in the development of Russian historical linguistics. A.A. Shakhmatov resorts to comparing the data of the Russian language with other Slavic, Indo-European, resorts to comparing them with the data of dialects. The ultimate goal of his research A.A. Shakhmatov saw creation complete history Russian language. The morphological section was described by him in the book "Historical morphology of the Russian language" (the work was published in 1957, 37 years after the death of the scientist).

The fourth stage in the development of Slavic studies

(30s of XX century - today)

In the XX century. the comparative historical grammar of the Slavic languages ​​was developed by L.A. Bulakhovsky (1888 - 1961), S.B. Bernstein (1911 - 1997), B.N. Toporov (b. 1928), V.A. Dybo (b. 1931), V.M. Illich-Svitych (1934 - 1966) and others (Russia), Z. Stieber (1903 - 1980; Poland), K. Goralek (Czech Republic), S. Ivsic, R. Boskovich (1907 - 1983; Yugoslavia), V. Georgiev (1908 - 1986), I. Lekov (1904 - 1978; Bulgaria), G. Birnbaum (b. 1925), H.G. Lant (b. 1918; USA) and others.

The classical direction is also developing in Slavic studies. Thus, the activities of the Croatian scientist I.V. Yagic (1838 - 1923) are closely connected with Russian academic organizations. F.I. Buslaev (1818 - 1897), A.S. Budilovich (1846 - 1908), A.I. Sobolevsky (1856/57 - 1929), Bulgarians B. Tsonev (1863 - 1926), L. Miletic (1863 - 1937), Slovenes K. Strekel (1859 - 1912), V. Oblak (1864 - 1896), Croats and Serbs T. Maretich (1854 - 1938), P. Budmani (1835 - 1914), S. Novakovich (1842 - 1915), Poles A. Brückner (1856 -1939), J.L. Elk (1860 - 1928), T. Lehr-Splavinsky (1891 - 1965).

Synchronous descriptive linguistics, which emerged at the end of the 19th century. (I.A.Baudouin de Courtenay (1845 - 1929), N.V. Krushevsky (1851 - 1887)), received the greatest development in the 30-40s of the XX century. (Prague linguistic school: N.S. Trubetskoy (1890 - 1938), R.O. Jakobson (1896 -1982), S.O. Kartsevsky (1884 - 1955), V. Matesius (1882 - 1945)).

Components of Slavic studies and Slavic philology in the XX - XXI centuries. are Russian studies (studying the language and culture of the Russian people), Ukrainian studies (studying the language and culture of the Ukrainian people), Belarusian studies (studying the language and culture of the Belarusian people), Polonistics (studying the language and culture of the Polish people), Bohemians (studying the language and culture of the Czech people) , Slovak Studies (studying the language and culture of the Slovak people), Sorabistics (studying the language and culture of the Lusatian peoples), Bulgaria (studying the language and culture of the Bulgarian people), Macedonistics (studying the language and culture of the Macedonian people), Serbo-statistics, or Serbistics and Croatistics (studying the language and the culture of the Serbian and Croatian peoples), Slovenian studies (the study of the language and culture of the Slovenian people).

In 1955, at the International Conference of Slavists in Belgrade, the International Committee of Slavists (ISS) was founded. The ISS unites 28 national committees. He directs the preparation and organization of international congresses of Slavists, which usually meet every five years in one of the Slavic states. The first International Congress of Slavists was held in 1929 in Prague, Brno and Bratislava; the second - in Warsaw (1934); the third - in Belgrade (1939). The congresses of Slavists resumed only in 1955 (Belgrade). During this time, they were held in Moscow (1958), Sofia (1963, 1988), Prague (1968), Warsaw (1973), Zagreb (1978), Kiev (1983), Bratislava (1993), Krakow (1998), Ljubljana ( 2003). In 2008, the XIV Congress of Slavists was held in Ohrid (Republic of Macedonia).

Questions and tasks:

1. What are the subject and object of Slavic studies and Slavic philology? Is it possible to put an equal sign between these sciences? Why?

2. With what sciences does Slavic philology intersect? How is their relationship manifested?

3. List the stages of studying Slavic philology.

4. How can you define the tasks of studying Slavic philology at different stages of its development?

5. What tasks, in your opinion, should Slavic philology solve at the present stage?

6. Analyze the components of Slavic studies. To what extent do they reflect the tasks of modern Slavic studies?

Literature:

1. Berezin F.M. History of linguistic teachings. - M., 1975.

2. Berezin F.M. History of Russian linguistics. - M., 1979.

3. Berezin F.M. Russian linguistics of the late XIX-XX centuries. - M., 1976.

4. Budagov R.A. Portraits of linguists of the XIX-XX centuries. - M., 1988.

5. Bulakhov M.G. East Slavic Linguists: A Biobibliographic Dictionary. T. 1-3. - Minsk, 1976 -1978.

6. Bulakhov M.G. The main stages of the development of Slavic linguistics (until 1917) // Methodological problems of the history of Slavic studies. - M., 1978.

7. Vinogradov V.V. History of Russian linguistic teachings. - M., 1978.

8. Istrin V.A. 1100 years of the Slavic alphabet. - M., 1963.

9. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. - M., 1990.

10. Russian language: Encyclopedia / Ch. ed. F.P. Owl. - M., 1979.

11. Dictionary of ethnolinguistic concepts and terms. - M., 2002.

12. Smirnov S.V. Domestic philologists-Slavists of the middle of the 18th - beginning of the 20th centuries: Reference manual. - M., 2001.