Linguistic terminology is a set of terms in the science of language. T. l. Is an integral and basic part of the metalanguage of linguistics, that is, a special language, with the help of which properties are described natural language acting as an object language. T. l. reflects the conceptual apparatus of various national scientific traditions, linguistic directions and schools, as well as the linguistic theories of individual authors. Therefore T. l. does not exist as a single semiological system, but as a "system of systems". This is due, in particular, to the so-called. polymorphism of linguistic terms, when the same term can denote different concepts in different scientific directions and national linguistic traditions (for example, a morpheme in Russian tradition is a generic term, and in French functional linguistics it is a specific term, while a moneme is generic) or when one and the same linguistic phenomenon is designated by different terms (compare ablaut in German tradition, apophony in French). Similar terms with similar reference, but referring to different concepts and schools, can be qualified as quasi-synonyms (cf. also topic - topic, rema - comment). In addition, T. l. there are full synonyms, or doublets. They appear as a result of different origins of terms (recursion - indentation, distribution - distribution, linguistics - linguistics, linguistics), morphonological and morphological variation (geminat - geminata, morph - morph, single-root - single-root), syntactic variation (linguistic stylistics - linguistic stylistics, linguistic poetics - linguopoetics). The ambiguous correlation of plans of expression and content is also reflected in T. l. in the form of a polysemy of terms. Its reasons may be a rethinking of old concepts, i.e. a new stage in the study of an object, and other processes associated with the accumulation of knowledge. The so-called often occurs. categorical ambiguity of terms - metonymic transfer of the type "action, process - result" (attraction, borrowing) or "area of ​​knowledge -" - object "(morphology, phonetics, semantics). an adverb as a part of speech, a topic as a term for the actual division of a sentence and a topic as an Indo-European verb base).
T. l. can be described in various aspects(synchronous and historical) can be classified on various grounds. So, there are universal terms denoting general categories that are found in all languages ​​of the world (subject, predicate, sentence, theme, rhema, temporality), and unique, denoting phenomena specific to c. language or group of languages ​​(cf. the term breed for Semitic languages). General scientific terms adjoin universal terms, the number of which in T. l. small (cf. system, structure, law). In T. l. also includes individual terms that belong to a certain author's concept and do not go beyond its limits (for example, kinema and acusma by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay).
In its internal form linguistic terms are divided into motivated ones, where there is a semantic and structural correlation of its constituent morphemes with the morphemes of a given language (cf. anterior lingual, posterior palatine, flat-slit in Russian phonetic terminology), and unmotivated, the latter, in addition to borrowings (see), also include tracing papers ( see), constituting, in particular, the basis of Russian. grammatical terminology (noun, preposition, voice, person, etc.). These terms, being a literal translation of the corresponding Greek. and lat. terms have become completely unmotivated (compare also the unmotivated term directly constituents - a copy of the English immediate constituents). A. V. Isachenko attributed such terms to terms-names, in contrast to motivated terms-descriptions.
On a genetic basis in the composition of the Russian. T. l. the terms originally Russian (linguistics, letter, stress), borrowings (ausla-ut, pidgin, shifter, sandhi, anakoluf) and those created on the basis of Greco-lat are distinguished. term elements (microsociolinguistics, inessive, zoonim, into-nema).
In terms of composition, one-word (monolexemic) terms and phrase-phrases (polylexeme) are distinguished, the number of which in rus. T. l. is approx. 60% (cf. members of the proposal, inconsistent definition, the main type of phoneme). The latter should be distinguished by the addition of terms - a combination of two or more independent terms, cf. monophthongization // ascending diphthong, prototypical properties // of the subject, component analysis // lexical meaning the words. Among the methods of forming one-word terms in the composition of T. l. stand out: semantic - terminology of the word of the common language, often with a metaphorical transfer, cf. field, nest (words), tree (dependencies); here is also the transfer of terms from other sciences, with their full or partial rethinking (compare the differential and integral in A.A. Reformatsky): derivational: suffixation (variance, variability, contextualization), prefixation (subtext, subordination, supra-dialect) , basic structure (word form, sound-type, group phoneme, two-focus). Greco-lat play a special role in the formation of terms.
elements, the combination possibilities of which are practically unlimited. Moreover, the morphemic status of these elements is not always amenable to a clear definition, cf. von-ema, allo-von, mor (fo) -ph o n-o-logic. Various linguistic disciplines and directions prefer different principles education terms. Thus, onomastic terminology is based almost entirely on Greco-Lat. elements (compare topoanthro-understanding, astronomy, theonym). The theory of generative grammars, on the contrary, in its terminology prefers the term-metaphor, which is reflected in Russian. English equivalents. terms (cf. ring, packaging, draining context).
Historical study of rus. T. l. is associated primarily with the development of grammatical terms. The first grammatical terms arose as a result of the transfer of the corresponding Greek and Latin to glory, soil. The translators and creators of the first handwritten grammars (for example, the article "About osmich parts of the word", 14th century; "Donat" by Dmitry Gerasimov, 1522; "Adelphotis", 1591) tried to make the terms motivated and understandable by literal translation (tracing), since Slavic words in morphemic composition did not possess these properties, cf. matrimony - conjugation (tracing Latin conjugatio). In the grammars of L. Zizania (1596) and M. Smotritsky (1619), a number of distinctive terms appear, reflecting the grammatical structure of Church Slavs. language. So, Zizanius introduced the term instrumental case, Smotritsky introduced the trail. terms: interjection (instead of distinction), gerunds; systematized those that already existed: noun (instead of the previous noun), adjective (instead of attached), nominative, genitive (instead of nominal, rbd) and some others. grammatical terminology originates from the "Russian grammar" by M. V. Lomonosov (1755), a cut preceded by the grammars of I. Ludolph (1696) and V.E. Ado-Durov (1731). Half of the 230 terms in Russian grammar still exist.

their status, correlation, interaction

(on the example of the functional-semantic category 'intensity')

In the sphere of topical and debatable issues of modern linguistics, attention is drawn to the problem of considering such a dominant category of language as the category of intensity in relation to quantity and expressiveness.

Quantity as a universal conceptual category, being refracted in the sphere of other categories, finds one of its expressions in the linguistic category of intensity through the possibility of representing quantitative modifications of the attribute value. When considering the correlation of the category of intensity with the category of quantitativeness, one can rely on the fundamental ideas of de Courtenay, expressed in the work "Quantity in linguistic thinking". He notes that "... one of the sides of universal existence is a whole complex of quantitative representations, covered, that is, dismembered and united (integrated), by mathematical thinking", and singles out the quantitativeness of intensity as an expression of the quantity (degree) of a feature [Baudouin de Courtenay 1963: 312 -313]. Relevant for modern linguistics is his idea of ​​the correlation in the language of the category of quantity, which is an abstract category of human thinking, with the category of quality: “comparison of different degrees of quality gave, on the one hand, different grammatical degrees, and on the other hand, designation of different degrees of intensity ... ". And finally, his idea that "the meaning of tension and intensity of some elements of linguistic thinking appears most expressively in the field of semantics, both from the intellectual, mental, extrasensory, and, above all, from the sensory side, seems to be important." De Courtenay's concept stimulates the study of qualitative and quantitative relations as such, as well as in their relationship with other types of relations.

A broad interpretation of intensity also goes back to the ideas of Charles Bally, who by the term 'intensity' understands “all differences that come down to the category of quantity, magnitude, value, strength, etc., regardless of whether it is about specific ideas or abstract ideas "and further clarifies that" ... a quantitative difference or difference in intensity is one of those general "categories" into which we introduce any objects of our perception or our thought "[Balli 1961: 203].

The category of intensity is included in the content plan of both the linguistic category of quality and the linguistic category of quantity, therefore, it is associated with the qualitative-quantitative category of measure. However, the category of intensity is not synonymous with the category of measure, since intensity indicates the development of a trait within the measure and does not entail a change in this quality. It follows from this that the category of intensity is private variety categories of quantity, namely "non-discrete, continuous quantity", determined "by means of measurement" [Panfilov 1976: 3].

The category of intensity in the field of conceptual ones, along with the category of the measure of quantity, is also correlated with the category of graduality (E. Sapir, and others). Relevant for modern linguistics is E. Sapir's idea that any graded meaning is not absolute, but relative and contains the idea of ​​comparison. In his work "The Psychology of Graduation", the relationship between the categories of quantity and intensity is also affirmed, and the primacy of the latter is emphasized as expressing an approximate quantity. E. Sapir distinguishes between grading in relation to the norm and in relation to comparability, that is, it was he who established the opposition of graded and point concepts. So, he notes: “the logical norm between them (polar signs - S.S.) is felt by a person not as a true norm, but rather as a blurred zone in which qualities ordered in opposite directions meet” [Sapir 1985: 54].

On the one hand, graduality is subjective in nature, since it depends on the perception of the individual and the characteristics of the speech situation, on the other, it directly depends on the collective understanding of the norm developed in society as a certain neutral manifestation of a qualitative attribute for certain objects of reality.

The term ‘intensity’ in its application to semantics in the last quarter of the XX century received a significant distribution in linguistics, which is associated with the development of functional grammar, expressive stylistics. However, with a relatively large volume of literature, one way or another devoted to the study of the range of problems associated with this term, it has not yet received a generally accepted interpretation. Incomplete representation of the corresponding terminology in linguistic dictionaries also testifies to the poor development of this problem.

Some researchers define intensity as a functional-semantic category: “intensity is a functional-semantic category, since it expresses the meaning high level generalization, characterized by a multilevel means of expression and the field organization of these means ”[Sheigal 1990: 11]. Others - the intensity is associated with the denotative-significative and connotative aspects of the word.

Thus, intensity is closely related to the category of quantitativeness and is in direct connection with the category of emotionality and expressiveness. Although the semantics of amplification has been disclosed in a number of studies on the material of different levels of the language, primarily lexical, nevertheless its status and relationship with related categories remains controversial. In works devoted to the range of these problems, there is an understanding of intensity as an increase in expressiveness, as a dominant component that is systematically realized in affective speech.

It is significant that even Sh. Bally, in connection with the tasks of studying stylistics, considers "emotional intensity", since, in his opinion, stylistics explores "... expressive facts language system from the point of view of their emotional content, that is, the expression in speech of phenomena from the field of feelings and the effect of speech facts on feelings. " His idea of ​​the impossibility of reducing all means of intensification to lexical is also very valuable. In particular, he refers to the means of intensification and the section of linguistics, which he called "affective syntax", and prosody.

As in the study of S. Bally, E. Sapir's article "The Psychology of Graduation" suggests the interaction of intensity with emotionality, namely, with the "emotional aspect" in terms of expressing the relationship between the participants. communicative act... Considering the graduation in its relationship with the norm and subjective judgments (emotionality), E. Sapir also concerns the category of evaluativeness. At the same time, he points out that “after a person has gained experience in determining what society accepts and what rejects, what it values ​​(emphasized by us - S. S.) as well-known and what, as unknown or unusual, he begins to accept contrasting qualities as having, in general, an absolute, so to speak, nature. "

The last quarter of the 20th and the beginning of the 19th centuries are characterized by a sharply increased interest of linguists in the problem under consideration, which is probably due to the priority position of semantics in linguistics of this period, called the "semantic explosion" (), as well as the anthropocentric approach to language.

One of the controversial issues of modern linguistics is the question of the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of expressiveness. In modern general and private linguistic literature on this issue, the category of intensity is usually included in the category of expressiveness (, etc.). So, he believes that there is a narrow and broad interpretation of the category of expressiveness: “In a broad sense, expressiveness is understood as the expressiveness of speech, which arises on the basis of such semantic properties linguistic units, as emotionality, evaluativeness, imagery ... In a narrow sense, expressiveness is considered as an intensity, as contained in the meaning of the word strength (it is highlighted by us - S. S.) the degree of manifestation of a certain trait ”[Sternin 1983: 123]. Intensity and expressiveness are also understood as a measure and a "measurable property of speech" (, etc.). In particular, he notes that “... if the opposition is relevant to the intellectual function - yes / no, then the opposition is relevant to the expressive function - stronger / weaker, and for the emotional function - good / bad. Thus, expressiveness is measured by intensity, and emotionality is measured by evaluativeness "[Shakhovsky 1975: 17], and indicates that" intensity is a measure of the degree of expressiveness, a measure of imagery, expressiveness, evaluativeness ... The degree of intensity is a measure of expressiveness "[Turansky 1992: 29].

The studies also reflect the idea of ​​the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of expressiveness as a cause and effect (, etc.). Thus, she notes that “... between intensity and expressiveness there are not inclusive, but causal relationships ...” [Livanova 1995: 22]. However, the interpretation of these categories as being in a cause-and-effect relationship, in our opinion, is not correct enough, since cause and effect are ontological categories presented in the form of two situations connected by a logical proposition. Obviously, we can only talk about one or another interconnection and interdependence of categories such as intensity and expressiveness. The similarity of the semantics of expressiveness and intensity is also determined by the fact that “expression is based on a deliberate discrepancy between any language or speech means language standards, that is, the most regular, stable models ”[Kharchenko 1976: 68].

Thus, we understand the intensity as a category associated with such a quantitative qualification of the phenomenon, which demonstrates a deviation from the "zone of normativity" (). At the same time, we consider it necessary to emphasize its dual nature: on the one hand, it has an ontological status as a category that lies within the framework of quantitative relations, that is, it has an extra-linguistic referent, on the other hand, when it receives the character of emphasis, it switches to the connotative level of language and speech, interacting with a category of expressiveness.

Literature

Bally S. French stylistics / S. Bally. - M., 1961 .-- 394s.

Baudouin de Quantity in linguistic thinking / de Courtenay // Selected works on general linguistics. - M., 1963. - T.2. - S. 311-324.

Expressive vocabulary colloquial use /. - Novosibirsk, 1986 .-- 230 p.

Sapir E. Psychology of graduation / E. Sapir // New in foreign linguistics. Issue 16. - M., 1985. - S. 43-78.

Sternin I. A... About three types of expressiveness of the word / // The structure of linguistic stylistics and its main categories. - Perm, 1983 .-- S. 123-127.

Differentiation of evaluativeness, imagery, expression and emotionality in the semantics of the word / // Russian language at school, 1976. - №3. - S. 66-71.

The problem of differentiating expressiveness and emotionality as semantic categories of linguistics / // Problems of semasiology and linguistic stylistics. - Ryazan, 1975. Issue. 2. - S. 3-25.

Gradation in lexical semantics /. - Kuibyshev, 1990 .-- 95 p.

Introduction

The question of the mental basis of linguistic structures and their speech implementations is considered in the modern linguistic paradigm as one of the most important. In this regard, research within the framework of the relatively recently announced conceptual linguistics - the field of linguistics focused on the analysis of the genesis, development and functioning of linguistic structures in terms of their conditioning by the mental substrate, the most important component of which are discrete elements of consciousness - concepts (concepts), becomes especially relevant. which are capable of grouping into complex structures called conceptual categories. The latter have already been the subject of quite numerous studies, but have not received any uniform interpretation. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the history of the issue of conceptual categories and to suggest a possible taxonomy of their essential characteristics and functions.

1. Information from the history of the issue

For the first time the term “conceptual categories” was introduced into scientific use by O. Espersen in his classic work “Philosophy of Grammar”, which was published in 1924. O. Espersen admits that “along with syntactic categories, or in addition to them, or behind these categories , depending on the structure of each language, in the form in which it exists, there are also extra-linguistic categories that do not depend on more or less random facts existing languages... These categories are universal because they apply to all languages, although they are rarely expressed in these languages ​​in a clear and unambiguous way. (…) For lack of a better term, I will refer to these categories as conceptual categories. ” Without excluding the traditional approach to the study of languages ​​- from form to content (semasiological approach), O. Espersen, like his contemporary F. Bruno, considers it important to study language from the inside, from the inside, going from content to form, thus laying , the basics of onomasiology.

It is with this approach that the essential role that conceptual categories play in the success of linguistic research becomes obvious, and the question of defining their ontology and functions arises.

The term “conceptual categories”, as noted above, belongs to O. Espersen; it would be, however, erroneous to believe that the theory of conceptual categories as a mental substratum of language began to develop only with the works of this researcher. It should be admitted that even before O. Espersen, in the linguistic literature, assumptions were made about the existence of a certain mental entity that preceded language (especially grammatical) constructions and underlies them.

There is reason to believe that W. von Humboldt was the first to substantiate the existence of a “universal component” of a language (or, rather, languages) from a linguistic standpoint in connection with his typological research and the creation of a morphological classification of languages. SDKatsnelson summarizes Humboldt's statements on this topic found in various works in the following way: “Universal categories are, for the most part, thought forms of logical origin. They form a system that is common framework language, but not directly included in the structure of the language. At the same time, they cannot be called properly logical, since, being turned towards grammar, they reveal specific features. They can be said to constitute the domain of "logical grammar" which is essentially neither logic nor grammar; it is an ideal system that does not match the categories of individual languages. In each individual language, the categories of ideal logic are transformed into specific grammatical categories. " Although Humboldt's “universal categories” are still not quite Jespersen’s “conceptual categories” (which is quite natural: Humboldt is mostly a typologist, and Espersen is a grammarist), nevertheless, the coincidence of the essential characteristics of both is striking.

Some time passes, and G. Paul, in his work “Principles of the History of Language”, published in 1880, dwells in sufficient detail on such categories, calling them in accordance with the traditions of his time and in the spirit of the young grammatical teaching “psychological categories”. G. Paul believes that any grammatical category arises on the basis of psychological, and the first is nothing more than an external expression of the second. As soon as the effectiveness of a psychological category begins to be found in linguistic means, this category becomes grammatical. Note that this provision obviously echoes Humboldt's idea of ​​“transforming” the universal categories considered by him into specific grammatical categories. According to Paul, with the creation of a grammatical category, the effectiveness of the psychological is not destroyed. The psychological category is independent of language (cf. the above-quoted statement of O. Espersen about the extra-linguistic nature of conceptual categories and that they do not depend on more or less random facts of existing languages.); existing before the emergence of the grammatical category, it continues to function after its emergence, due to which the harmony that originally existed between both categories can be broken over time. The grammatical category, according to Paul, being associated with a stable tradition, is to a certain extent a “frozen” form of the psychological category. The latter constantly remains something free, alive, taking on a different appearance depending on individual perception. In addition, a change in meaning very often contributes to the fact that the grammatical category does not remain adequate to the psychological category. Paul believes that if a tendency towards alignment subsequently appears, then a shift in the grammatical category occurs, in which a kind of relationship may arise that does not fit into the categories that existed before. Further, the author makes an important methodological conclusion regarding the linguistic value of analyzing the processes of interaction between “psychological” and grammatical categories: “Consideration of these processes, which we can trace in some detail, allows us, at the same time, to judge the initial emergence of grammatical categories that are inaccessible to our observation”.

At about the same time as O. Espersen, the French linguist G. Guillaume develops the theory of the conceptual basis of language. Having not received sufficient attention and deserved appreciation during the life of the author, now the theory of G. Guillaume is the object of close study and analysis. Considering the issues of the method of language analysis, the essence of the linguistic sign, the genesis of the word and its systemic nature, and others, G. Guillaume constantly turns to the conceptual factor, strives to study the mental and linguistic in their close relationship. Before the publication of G. Guillaume's book "Principles of Theoretical Linguistics" in 1992, his concept was known to the Russian-speaking reader primarily due to the works of E.A. Referovskaya and L.M. Skrelin, who devoted a number of works to the analysis of Guillaume's scientific heritage. And although these authors disagree in the interpretation of some provisions of Guillaume's linguistics, both scholars note the most important place in it of the conceptual component.

At present, there is every reason to believe that Guillaume managed to create his own linguistic school, called "vector linguistics", or "psychosystematics". On its principles, descriptions of individual subsystems of the English language (for example, a name and an article, as well as a verb) have already been created. Among the students and followers of G. Guillaume are R.-L. Wagner. P. Imbs, R. Lafon, B. Potier, J. Stephanini, J. Mouigne, M. Molliot, J. Maillard and others. Assessing their linguistic works, L. M. Skrelin considers the main and characteristic feature of these scientists to specific linguistic facts, which comes from G. Guillaume, and the desire to consider them "from the inside", from the side of the signified, starting from conceptual categories when explaining the functioning of elements in speech.

Following O. Espersen, I.I. Meshchaninov raises the question of the nature of conceptual categories. The first work of the scientist, which marked the beginning of his development of the theory of conceptual categories, was published in 1945. It was followed by a whole series of works devoted to this problem. The impetus for these studies was the insufficient development of the issue of the interconnections of language with thinking, especially the fact that “the establishment of a common point of view on the connection between language and thinking was largely hindered by blind and peremptory borrowing from textbooks of logic and psychology, which was reduced to attempts to interpret linguistic facts. from the point of view of the positions developed in them. The facts of the language were illuminated from the outside, instead of getting their explanation inside themselves ”. In addition, the typological studies conducted by I.I. Meshchaninov prompted the scientist to think that the differences between languages ​​are not absolute, but relative in nature and relate mainly to the form of explication of content, while concepts such as objectivity and action, subject, predicate , an object, an attribute with their modal shades, as well as the relationship between words in a sentence are common for all languages. The identification of this universal thinking substrate became in the works of I.I. Meshchaninov a problem related to the analysis of conceptual categories.

Among the other most famous Russian researchers who have contributed to the development of the topic of the mental foundations of language, one should name S.D. Katsnelson. SD Katsnelson develops this topic in relation to three main areas of linguistic research: general grammar and the theory of parts of speech; the problem of generating utterances and speech-thinking processes; typological comparison of languages. Let's consider all three of these directions in somewhat more detail.

Opposing the formal understanding of the parts of speech, based on the allocation of formal features and specific categories in words, which are formed on the basis of inflectional morphology, S.D. Katsnelson, following L.V. Shcherba, as a defining moment when referring a word to one or another categories counts the meaning of a word. Thus, the taxonomy of the elements of language is carried out by him on the onomasiological basis - from meaning to form (compare the above points of view on this issue by O. Espersen and F. Bruno). According to SD Katsnelson, “in the meanings of words, regardless of whether they are formed inflectionally or according to the norms of a different morphology, there are some strong points that allow talking about nouns, adjectives, etc.”. Conceptual and semantic categories serve as such “reference points”.

In the theory of speech production, S.D. Katsnelson adheres to the understanding of the process of speech generation, typical for representatives of generative semantics, in which the initial structure of the generating process and one of the basic concepts of the entire concept is a proposition. The latter is understood as a kind of mental content that expresses a certain "state of affairs", an event, a state as a relationship between logically equal objects. As part of the proposition, the carrier members of the relation and the relational predicate connecting them are distinguished. Moreover, each of the members of the proposition is in itself neither a subject nor a direct object, and as part of the sentences that have arisen on the basis of the proposition, it can appear in any of these syntactic functions. “The proposition contains a moment of imagery and, in this respect, reflects reality more directly than a sentence. Like a painting, it depicts a complete episode, without prescribing the direction and order of consideration of individual details. " Propositions, acting as operational schemes at the initial phase of the speech-generating process, although they are focused on a certain semantic content, by themselves, without filling the “places” they open with certain meanings, are not meaningful enough to serve as a basis for their further transformation into sentences. These structures need special units to complete the propositional functions. These units are concepts. As can be seen from these arguments of the scientist, not only the existence of a certain mental substrate, which has a non-linguistic character and serves as the basis of the speech-generating process, is allowed, but also its heterogeneity, complex structuredness is noted.

As for typological research, then, according to S.D. Katsnelson, the involvement of the content side in the orbit of these studies is necessary due to at least the fact that in the field of content, languages ​​reveal features of both similarities and differences. Emphasizing the fundamental possibility of transition from the semantic system of one language to the semantic system of another language, the scientist focuses on the universal, common human thought processes that underlie speech-creative activity. On the other hand, “the transition from the logical-semantic system to the idiosemantic system of a given language does not present significant difficulties, since, remaining within the same language, we always know when the configuration of conceptual components forms a meaning fixed by the norm and when more than one corresponds to it,” but several values. When we are faced with a new language for us, these boundaries disappear due to a different distribution of conceptual components between meanings in comparison with the one with which we have got used to. It is the conceptual components of meanings that are the sine qua non condition of their typological (interlingual) congruence ”.

It is possible to summarize the views of SD Katsnelson on the importance of the mental pre-linguistic substrate as follows: “Cognitive categories form the basis of the grammatical structure, since with their help the comprehension of sensory data and their transformation into propositions is achieved”.

Research in the mainstream of this issue was further developed in the works of A.V. Bondarko in connection with the development of the category of the functional-semantic field by this author, as well as his analysis of the functional-semantically, semantic / structural categories. The article by AV Bondarko “Conceptual categories and linguistic semantic functions in grammar” should be especially highlighted, which is specially devoted to the consideration of the relationship of these entities and the analysis of the linguistic semantic interpretation of conceptual categories. The article also discusses the issue of the universality of conceptual categories. In general, it should be emphasized that A.V. Bondarko, repeatedly noting the close connection of his theoretical research with the views of O. Espersen and I. I. Meshchaninov, expresses at the same time his own, somewhat different attitude to the problem under consideration. Relying on the theory of conceptual categories, A.V. Bondarko, at the same time, deviates somewhat from it. The direction he chose is determined by the desire to consistently interpret the categories under consideration as linguistic categories that have linguistic content and linguistic expression. Related to this is the scientist's refusal to use the term “conceptual category”, since, as he believes, this term gives reason to think that they mean logical concepts, and not categories of language.

In "Prolegomena to any future metaphysics ..." Kant outlines two ways of studying categories. The first one is focused on finding and organizing really existing in everyday language, concepts (words) that are constantly found in all experimental knowledge.

The second consists in constructing, on the basis of previously developed rules, a complete speculative scheme of rational concepts, independent neither of the historical conditions of human life, nor of the content of the material being processed.

Kant himself chooses the second path, leading ultimately to the cold heights of Hegel's Absolute Spirit. But his main idea that the structures of being depend, even if even on universally universal, but still human definitions, turned out to be more fruitful precisely on the first path. This path led to the development of a linguistic interpretation of categories, which was stimulated by the research of Wilhelm Humboldt.

As already shown, the main function of categories is to introduce a certain order into a kind of undivided or disorganized integrity. This order, one way or another, is expressed (or displayed) in the language.

The lexical composition of the language and the set of categories, in general, coincide, and any word, as it generalizes, acts as category for a certain set of things. Thanks to this coincidence, even a person who is completely unaware of the existence of theoretical schemes of categorical analysis or synthesis, "sees" the world in a certain way ordered only because he uses his native language to describe it.

Language, just like categories, is not deduced by each individual person directly from his individual experience. Language has a pre-experienced (a priori) nature. Each individual receives it as the legacy of a long line of bygone generations. But like any inheritance, language, on the one hand, enriches, and on the other hand, binds a person to and independently of him by established norms and rules. Being, in relation to the knowable, subjective, the norms and rules of the language, in relation to the knower, are objective.

But if thinking can still be represented as absolutely pure (empty) thinking (Hegel and Husserl perfectly demonstrate this), then speech is inconceivable as absolutely "pure speech" devoid of any specific content. Any conversation is a conversation about something. This "something" is the subject of speech, highlighted and fixed in the word. Consequently, in words, as lexical units of language, both the primary dismemberment of being and the primary synthesis of sensory impressions are already taking place.

The history of the language has no clear-cut beginning. No matter how far back in the centuries our research goes, wherever we find people, we find them already speaking. But it is impossible that in the thinking of people who have a word, those initial divisions of being and thought that already exist in language are completely absent. The notion of pure thinking, devoid of any content, "idling" is an abstraction that grows only on the basis of the Cartesian cogito. Real thinking is never pure "thinking about anything," it always has an intentional character, that is, it is always directed towards the object, there is always thinking about something definite.

At first glance, it seems that language, as a sign system, is completely neutral in relation to thought, which can be expressed in any arbitrarily chosen sign system: sound, graphic, color, etc. But in this case, it turns out that thought arises before language and is only expressed in it. Thinking is clothed in sounding speech as a form (more precisely, as one of the possible forms) of the external expression of its already existing content.

The actual relationship between thinking and language is much more complex. This becomes noticeable when the question of their genesis is raised.

Phylogenesis (historical development), as a rule, is reproduced in individual development- ontogenesis. As the studies of J. Piaget have shown, the formation of categories in the mind of a child occurs after he has mastered the corresponding linguistic structures. First, the child masters complex syntactic phrases, such as "because", "where", "after", "despite", "if", etc., which serve to express causal, spatial, temporal, conditional - i.e. .e. categorical relationships.

Categories are not derived from subject experience, but are mastered along with language acquisition and are consolidated, first of all, in the skills of verbal communication. They are realized much later than they begin to be used in language practice. Apparently and order historical development categories was the same. First, unconscious, unconscious use, and only then (much later) comprehension.

There is an organic connection of categories with certain types of very real practical questions, each of which can be formulated with the direct use of the corresponding category: Where? - In which space? When? - In which time? etc. But vice versa, each category can be expressed as a question. " What this? "- category entities; "Where when?" - categories space and time; "Which one? How much?" - quality and quantity; "Why?" - category causes; "Why?" - goals.

We ask being about those aspects, properties and characteristics that make up the sphere of our vital interests. In the linguistic interpretation of the category, there are lines along which the fragments and relations of interest to us are separated from the general mass and appear before us as objects of our close attention... Each category represents a certain perspective in which we see being from a special point of view, and all together they form a kind of functional unity, fixed in the language system. Everyone who speaks the language is involved in this system, but this does not mean that it is intentional and fully conscious of its application. Man, as Sartre notes, "is a being not so much a speaker as a being spoken," and language owns a man, perhaps to a greater extent than a man owns a language.

The culture of each community, like its language, is different from the culture and language of any other community. This gives us every reason to assume that the dividing lines that the language draws on the "body" of being can form worlds with different configurations. This idea was first expressed in the well-known hypothesis of linguistic relativity, named after its authors, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

“We dismember nature,” says Whorf, “in the direction suggested by our native language. We distinguish certain categories and types in the world of phenomena not at all because they (these categories and types) are self-evident ... it into concepts and distribute meanings this way and not otherwise, mainly because we are parties to an agreement that prescribes such a systematization ... It is impossible to define a phenomenon, thing, object, relation, etc., based on nature; definition always implies referring to the categories of a particular language. "

The essence of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity is that the organization of the world of our experience depends on the categorical structure of a particular language, therefore even the same event can look completely different, depending on the language means used. Indeed, the world in which "the Rooster calls the hens with his cry" is different from the world where the "Rooster calls the hens in motion."

Accepting this hypothesis, we transfer categories from the spheres of Aristotelian being, Kantian pure reason or Hegel's Absolute Idea into the sphere of human language and say goodbye to the hope that inspired these thinkers to discover (or create) an absolutely complete and complete system of categories that would be one and only "for all times and peoples ". Placing categories in the structures of language, we recognize that not being as such or consciousness in general is expressed in them, but the concrete life world of a person belonging to a particular culture and historical epoch.

The idea of ​​linking categories with the immediate life world of a person is being developed in modern options phenomenological-existential philosophy. In the traditional sense, categories serve primarily to highlight and designate what is most important and significant for a person. But what appears to be important and significant from the point of view of the whole - the cultural community, for example - may be completely indifferent to an individual, "this one" person. For an individual, the most important thing may be what directly affects him, concerns precisely and only his individual being: his fears and hopes, aspirations and complexes, doubts and fears. So, in the context of philosophical research, completely non-traditional, so-called "existential categories" appear, such as, for example: "death", "fear", "abandonment", "care", etc.

Summing up the results of our analysis, we can say the following. Regardless of the context of their interpretation, philosophical categories represent extremely broad generic definitions being. As extremely general genera, they themselves do not have a superior genus standing above them and, therefore, cannot, like concepts, be defined through assignment to a higher genus, indicating a specific difference. They are determined not through higher genera, but through the establishment of relationships with other categories. The concepts that are included in the semantic field of each category are subordinate to it and express certain aspects, shades and specific forms of manifestation. The relationship between categories and concepts can be illustrated as follows.

Any concept has a certain subject area or scope, which includes many items covered by this concept. So, for example, the scope of the concept "table" is the set of all possible tables, and the concept of "house" - of all possible houses. It is clear that, since we mean not only actually existing, but also all possible tables or houses, the volume of each of these concepts is infinite, so we cannot say which of these concepts has a greater volume and which is smaller. However, there are concepts, the relationship between which is such that it is possible to unambiguously determine which of the two compared infinities is greater. So, for example, an infinite set of birches is clearly less than an infinite number of trees, and an infinity of trees is less than an infinity of plants. We get a hierarchical series of concepts, in which each subsequent one includes the previous one, as its own component part: birch - tree - plant - Live nature- nature is being. Completing this series is the concept that exhausts the possibility of further expansion of the volume. This is a philosophical category, which acts as the broadest generalization, the absolute limit for further expansion of the subject area.

The concepts of the lower levels of generality outline the boundaries of the subject areas of specific sciences, and act as categories of a particular science, since they perform (within the area limited by them) the same role of limiting generalizations. So, for example, if the subject of philosophy is being, then nature is a subject of natural science in general, Live nature- subject of biology, plant- botany and probably some science is being studied at the forestry academy, the subject of which is only trees.

So, we found out that the role of philosophical and scientific categories in cognition is extremely important. However, there is no single universal system of categories. On different stages historical development, they become dominant in practical and spiritual activity Various types categories or, what is the same, different principles of structuring being and thinking. In general, each categorically conceptual system can be likened to a net that we throw into the ocean of being, in the hope of catching Goldfish Absolute knowledge. But this net each time brings to the surface only that which is captured by our own woven cells.

In this article, we will consider the main linguistic categories and give examples. You will learn that in linguistics, various associations are distinguished, according to which certain units can be classified.

What is a category

The very concept of "category" was first developed by Aristotle. In particular, he identified 10 categories. Let's list them: suffering, action, state, position, time, place, attitude, quality, quantity, essence. In many ways, their identification influenced the subsequent inventory of various predicates, predicates, sentence members and parts of speech.

Conceptual category

Before considering linguistic categories and problems of linguistic categorization, it is necessary to clarify this term as well. It is usually understood as a kind of closed system of meanings of a semantic universal attribute or the specific meaning of a given attribute outside the relation to the mode of expression ("explicit" or "hidden") and the degree of their grammaticalization in this language... For example, we can talk about the presence of the following conceptual categories: alienation / inalienability, activity / inactivity, reason, place, purpose, etc. In linguistics, there are lexico-semantic linguistic categories. They mean classes such as the names of states, professions, living beings, etc. If a categorizing seme receives a derivational formal expression, the linguistic categories are called derivational. Examples are as follows: diminutive names (pancake-chik, smoke-ok, dom-ik), names of the doer (run-un, car-chik, teacher).

Linguistic categories in the broad and narrow sense

Language categories are associations that can be considered both broadly and narrowly. In the first case, these are any groups of elements that are distinguished based on a common property. In the narrow sense, linguistic categories are certain parameters (features) that underlie the division of homogeneous units into a certain number of non-overlapping classes. Their members are characterized by some value of this or that attribute. Examples: category of species, case, animate / inanimate, deafness / voiced, etc. However, this term often denotes one of the values ​​of this parameter (feature). Examples: the category of inanimate, accusative, condition, deafness, perfect form.

Types of categories for various reasons

Different types of categories can be distinguished depending on the nature of the corresponding feature and the set allocated for it, as well as on its relation to the classes of division. A set can include phonemes that are homogeneous units. In this case, various phonological linguistic categories are distinguished. This is, for example, a deafness / voiced distinction. Another example is the category of occlusive consonants. In this case, classification is made according to the differential phonetic criterion.

A set divisible into categories can include double-sided units. Usually they are sentences, phrases and words. In this case, word-formation, lexical-semantic, syntactic, grammatical and other categories are distinguished. Classification is carried out according to a certain semantic or syntactic attribute. It can be either syntactic, semantic or general category (this word is often understood as "referring to parts of speech").

Classifying and modifying signs

Other signs stand out as well. In relation to the classes of splitting, they are divided into classifying (selective, integral) and modifying (flexion, differential). A feature for some object is modifying when it corresponds to an element of some other class of division, which differs from it only in the value of this feature. This conformity is referred to as opposition. If this is not observed, the attribute is classifying for the corresponding element. In what case can we talk about the varieties of some more general unit, changing according to a given attribute? Let's answer this question too. Then, when the elements differ from each other only in the values ​​of one or another modifying attribute. As for the classifier, its value is constant, fixed for a given unit.

Modifying and classifying categories

In a number of cases, for most of the elements of the set, the modifying feature. Then the category as a whole is also called modifying. For example, these are inflectional (inflectional) categories. These include the case and number of a noun, case, number, gender of an adjective, mood, tense, person, number, gender of a verb. If for a sufficient number of elements the categorical feature is classifying, then the category as a whole will be the same. For example, these are lexico-semantic categories. Examples: animateness, gender and parts of speech of a noun, transitivity / intransitivity, noun classes of a verb, etc.

"Rules" and "exceptions"

Which type should be attributed to this or that category depends on what classification was originally, as well as on what is the "rule" for a particular class, and what can be called "exception". For example, we can assume that in the Russian language for some classes of the type it is inflectional (modifying), and for its other classes - derivational (classifying). Or you can make one of these decisions for a whole class of verb tokens. Note that they are all presented in Russian studies.

Offer categories

Studying the paradigmatic relations existing in syntax, many researchers use the concepts of "communicative-grammatical categories" or "sentence categories". They mean semantic differential features of certain sentences (syntactic modality, affirmation / negation, goal-setting of a statement). Less commonly, we can talk about individual values ​​of these characteristics (for example, the category of negation). A number of researchers, in particular N. Yu. Shvedova, offer a different concept. They talk about phrase-changing categories. There are other concepts as well.

Grammar categories

Grammatical linguistic categories and their types are among the most studied and most important. Their characteristic features are the modifying type of the attribute taken as a basis, its involvement in the syntax, the presence of a regular way in which it is expressed, and also the "obligatory" choice for (word) forms belonging to a given set of one of its meanings. Grammar categories are closed systems values ​​that are mutually exclusive. They define a partition into disjoint classes of a vast collection of word forms. For example, grammatical meanings such as plural or singular, form in their totality the category of number.

Text concept

Before considering the linguistic categories of the text, let's define the key concept. The text is an object of a multidimensional study in linguistics, however, in the special literature, this concept is still interpreted in different ways. There is also no generally accepted definition of it. Therefore, consider the one that is most common.

The text in general is characterized as a product of the specific activity of people (speech-thinking). The latter can arise both in the process of mediated and direct communication, and in the process of a person's cognition of the surrounding reality.

Text as a linguistic category

Its units are formed by the components ( structural elements), being expanded into a separate sentence or their groups. A sentence (text, phrase, utterance) is the main element of the text. It is recognized and perceived as being associated with other sentences. That is, it is a component of the text, part of the whole. A sentence is its smallest communicative unit.

SSTS (SFE)

At the same time, proposals are sometimes combined into groups, which have received different names from different researchers. V. A. Bukhbinder, for example, calls them phrasal ensembles and phrasal unities. N.S. Pospelov, A.P. Peshkovsky, S.G. Ilyenko, L.M. Loseva consider them complex syntactic wholes (SSC) (SFE) call them T. M. Nikolaeva, O. I. Moskalskaya, I. R. Galperin. To denote a group of related sentences, SFU and SSTS are most often used. These are very complex structural unities, which consist of at least two independent sentences that have semantic integrity in the context of coherent speech, and also act as part of complete communication.

Free and strong offers

Note that in the structure of the text, not all sentences are combined into groups. There are also free ones that are not included in them, but are connected semantic relations with this or that group. They contain comments, author's deviations. Such proposals are made connecting link between SSC, are the means by which a new micro-theme is designated.

Some researchers also highlight strong sentences in the text. They can be understood even without knowing the content of others. Such proposals are not included in the CCS.

Communication units and larger associations

What other language categories of text can be distinguished? Groups of proposals are combined into blocks of even larger parts. They are called in various studies either fragments or predicative-relational complexes. Another common name is communication blocks.

There are even larger associations. They are associated with the following chunks of text: chapter, part, paragraph, paragraph.

So, sentences and their groups are the main communicative elements of the text. All others perform, as a rule, a text-forming function. They are usually the means of interphase communication. Let us define this concept as well.

Interphase communication

It represents the connection between the STS, sentences, chapters, paragraphs and other parts of the text, which organizes its structural and semantic unity. In this case, the semantic connection between individual sentences is provided with the help of lexical and grammatical means. This is most often about parallel or chain communication. The latter is realized by repeating a member of the previous sentence in one form or another, expanding in the subsequent part of its structure. In parallel, sentences are not linked, but matched. In this, constructions allow for opposition or juxtaposition, depending on the corresponding lexical content.

Means of realization of various types of communication

With the help of the language means, each of parallel communication, for its implementation parallelism is appropriate in the construction of sentences. It is expressed in the use of verbs that have a common temporal plane, anaphoric elements, the same word order, etc.

Linguistic categories of creolized texts

They are characterized by the same categories as the so-called classical verbal homogeneous texts. It is necessary to clarify the concept of "creolization". This is a combination of various means of sign systems in a complex that meets the condition of texturality. Visual components refer to the means by which the creolization of verbal texts is carried out. They have a significant impact on their interpretation and on all technical issues related to the design of the text that affect their meaning. The following stand out among them: background, color and font of the text, means of punctuation, spelling, word formation, graphic design (in a column, in the form of a figure), printed (ideograms, pictograms), etc.

The text, therefore, is a certain structure, where parts and individual sentences are interconnected. Linguistic and logical categories are a topic that can be developed for a very long time. We tried to highlight the most important thing that every philologist needs to know.