| Preface to the second edition | |||
| From the author | |||
| Chapter I | Theory speech activity | ||
| § one. | Object and subject of linguistic science | ||
| § 2. | Language and speech | ||
| § 3. | The concept of speech activity | ||
| § 4. | Social Functions and Functional Equivalents of Language as a Problem in the Theory of Speech Activity | ||
| § five. | Linguistic sign and the theory of speech activity | ||
| Chapter II. | The study of speech activity and some problems of linguistics | ||
| § one. | Diachrony, history, language development | ||
| § 2. | Some problems of language evolution and culture of speech | ||
| § 3. | To the theory of speech culture | ||
| § 4. | Some questions of the genesis of verbal communication in the light of the theory of activity | ||
| Chapter III. | Psycholinguistics as a science of speech activity | ||
| § one. | From the history of the emergence and development of psycholinguistics | ||
| § 2. | About the subject of psycholinguistics | ||
| § 3. | Psycholinguistic problems of phrase generation | ||
| § 4. | Psycholinguistic problems of semantics | ||
| Chapter IV. | Speech activity and learning problems | ||
| § one. | Speech activity and language learning | ||
| § 2. | On the speech situation and the principle of speech actions | ||
| § 3. | The essence and tasks of "school grammar" | ||
| § 4. | On the question of the place of psycholinguistic analysis in the problems of "school grammar" (parts of speech as a psycholinguistic problem) | ||
| Appendix. From the history of the study of speech activity in our country | |||
| J.A. Baudouin de Courtenay | |||
| L.S. Vygotsky | |||
There is a clip of books, a kind of gentleman's set, which for some reason it is considered necessary to mention in the bibliographic list at the end of any dissertation devoted to language, speech, mastery of a native or non-native language. It so happened that this book has long been included in this clip and remains in it to this day, although it was published more than 30 years ago (however, in a rather large circulation - 31 thousand copies).
When I, the author, think about why it happened, I can not find a clear answer. In essence, this book is a collection of previously published articles (and also includes several previously unpublished texts). Apparently, the reason is that it was the first mass publication on psycholinguistics, specifically targeted at a wide range of linguists and methodologists of the native (and foreign) language. At the same time, this book was perhaps the first generalizing work on what can be called "linguistics of speech" - on the theory of speech activity as part of general linguistics. Therefore, she attracted the reader's attention and, oddly enough, keeps it now.
Of the nineteen sections of the book, six were reprinted from the collective monograph "The Theory of Speech Activity (Problems of Psycholinguistics)" (M.: Nauka, 1968). Nine have been published in various journals and collections, and four are published in this book for the first time. Despite such heterogeneity, the book, according to the reviews of many of its readers, turned out to be quite coherent.
The book as a whole and its individual parts attracted attention abroad. Already two years after the release of the Russian edition, it was completely published in Germany. Chapters from it were also translated into Italian and published in the GDR. The book and chapters from it were the subject of a long discussion in Western, primarily German, linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and linguodidactics.
Of course, the author has come a long way since the book was first published. I will not list all my books that came out after her - I will name only the last four. This is the third edition of "Psychology of Communication" (1999), the book "Language and Speech Activity in General and Pedagogical Psychology. Selected psychological writings" in the series "Psychologists of the Fatherland" (2001), monograph "Active Mind. Activity, sign, personality" (2001) and the third edition of "Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics" (2003). By the way, in the "Active Mind" published full list my publications until 2001.
I would like to hope that "Language, Speech, Speech Activity" may be of interest even now, for a new generation of readers.
A.A.Leontiev
Alexey Alekseevich Leontiev (1936--2004)Outstanding domestic linguist, psychologist, teacher. Recognized founder of psycholinguistics in the USSR and Russia. Professor of the Department of Personality Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University M. V. Lomonosov. Doctor of Philology (1968), Doctor of Psychology (1975), full member Russian Academy education (1992), rector of the Institute of Languages and Cultures. L.N. Tolstoy (1994). Author of hundreds of scientific publications on psychology, linguistics, ethnography, semiotics, criminology, mass communication and pedagogy, including more than 30 scientific and popular science books. The organizer of a series of applied research on the problem of communication in the field of lectures, advertising, cinema, etc. The results of his research are widely used in language teaching methods, in criminalistics and in other areas of practical activity.
A.A. Leontiev
Language,
speech,
speech
activity
EDUCATION
Leontiev A.A.
Language, speech, speech activity. M., Enlightenment, 1969. 214 p.
A. A. Leontiev acquaints readers with the theory of speech activity, with the principles of the study of speech activity, psycholinguistics as a science of speech activity, shows how the analysis of speech activity and the problems of language learning are connected.
Chapter I. THEORY OF SPEECH ACTIVITY 5
§ 1. Object and subject of linguistic science 5
§ 2. Language and speech 6
§ 3. The concept of speech activity 14
§ 4. Public functions and functional equivalents of language as a problem of the theory of speech activity 16
§ 5. Linguistic sign and theory of speech activity 24
Chapter II. STUDY OF SPEECH ACTIVITY AND SOME PROBLEMS OF LINGUISTICS 28
§ 1. Diachrony, history, language development 28
§ 3. To the theory of speech culture 41
§ 4. Some questions of the genesis of verbal communication in the light of the theory of activity 46
Chapter III. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AS A SCIENCE OF SPEECH ACTIVITY 52
§ 1. From the history of the emergence and development of psycholinguistics 52
§ 2. On the subject of psycholinguistics 55
§3. Psychological problems of generating phrase 61
§4. Psycholinguistic problems of semantics 68
Chapter IV. SPEECH ACTIVITY AND PROBLEMS OF LEARNING 74
§ 1. Speech activity and language learning 74
§ 2. On the speech situation and the principle of speech actions 83
§ 3. Essence and tasks of school grammar 88
§ 4. On the question of the place of psycholinguistic analysis in the problems of "school grammar" (parts of speech as a psycholinguistic problem) 91
APPENDIX. FROM THE HISTORY OF STUDYING SPEECH ACTIVITY IN OUR COUNTRY 96
J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay 96
L. S. Vygotsky 109
FROM THE AUTHOR
The general trend observed in modern linguistics is the development of complex, borderline problems, the development of "adjacent" fields, where linguistics works side by side with other sciences, such as sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, psycholinguistics; this is a general tendency in penetrating "beyond" the language, in revealing the essential characteristics of human activity in general, including speech activity; in a word, in learning not so much the language as the speaking person.
This trend is largely responsible for the appearance of this book. Its main idea is the need for present stage development of the human sciences, not to be limited in the study of speech and language within the framework of one science (for example, linguistics), but to operate widely, primarily with such concepts and categories that arise in the course of interdisciplinary research. The ideas reflected in the book were expressed by the author earlier, but here these thoughts are, so to speak, brought together and presented as an integral system. On the pages of this work, the author did not at all seek only to express his own opinion on the issues raised by him. On the contrary, its task is to introduce the reader to some of the problems that concern the linguistic science of today, and to give a more or less general idea of the state of these problems. At the same time, the author tried to make his presentation clear and accessible to the general reader, in particular, not to overload the presentation with references to the literature (our brochure "Psycholinguistics" (L., 1967) is specially devoted to the history of the issue, to which the interested reader should refer). In preparing the book, the author used materials from articles and reports partially published earlier in various publications.
The book consists of four chapters and an appendix. The first chapter deals with the most important theoretical problems of a general nature related to the subject of this book. In the second chapter, the author tries to apply the above theoretical propositions to the solution of some concrete scientific questions. The third chapter is devoted to psycholinguistics as the science of speech activity. The fourth chapter has a practical focus: it analyzes various issues related to teaching language and grammar. Finally, the appendix contains two historical studies - about I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and L.S. Vygotsky. This is done for various reasons. The paragraph about Baudouin was introduced because there were actually no works about this scientist as a psychologist in the broad sense, as a theoretician of speech behavior; available sources give, as a rule, a false picture of this side of his views (as often, however, of other sides). The paragraph on L.S. Vygotsky was introduced because now, when the ideas of Vygotsky’s school are intensively penetrating not only psychology, but also related sciences and are also used in linguistics, it is extremely important for the reader, in our opinion, to be able to get acquainted in a compact form with the essence of Vygotsky's views.
In writing this book, the author enjoyed the help and friendly support of his colleagues at the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Scientific and Methodological Center of the Russian Language. To all of them, in particular to VG Kostomarov, who rendered great and unselfish assistance in the work on the manuscript, we would like to express our most heartfelt thanks.
Chapter I. THEORY OF SPEECH ACTIVITY
§ 1. Object and subject of linguistic science
The paragraph is based on the article “The Object and Subject of Psycholinguistics and its Relation to Other Sciences of Speech Activity” (in the collective monograph “The Theory of Speech Activity (Problems of Psycholinguistics)”, M., 1968).
In recent years, both abroad and in our country, many works have appeared devoted to the so-called logic of science, i.e., the logical structure scientific theory and the process of scientific research (FOOTNOTE: We note from them: "Problems of the logic of scientific knowledge". M., 1964; M. A. Rozov. Scientific abstraction and its types. Novosibirsk, 1965; "Dialectics - the theory of knowledge. Problems of the scientific method." M., 1964; "The logic of scientific research", M., 1965). However, a number of the most important problems in this field of knowledge have not yet received sufficient coverage, and it is advisable to dwell on these problems in our book.
First of all, we are talking about the very concept of the object of science, a concept that is usually taken out of the scope of logic as a science or reduced to "individual objects", as is done in the collection "The Logic of Scientific Research". Only in a few works is a consistent distinction made between this concept and the concept of the subject of science. Let's explain this difference.
It is often said that a number of sciences (linguistics, physiology and psychology of speech, pathology of speech and thinking, logic and poetics) have the same object. This means that they all operate on the same
We will not analyze. Finally, the linguist deals with the organization of speech, so to speak, at the elementary level, at the level of the foundation; only after he finishes his work on the "disassembly" and reverse "assembly" of the object, the logician and the specialist in poetics begin to work, already operating with the results of the work of the linguist.
So, analyzing the totality of mental-speech acts (we emphasize once again: we are talking about this totality only as the very first approximation to the actual object of linguistics!), the linguist identifies in them that common thing that is in the organization of any speech of any person in any situation , searches for those means without which it is generally impossible to characterize internal structure speech flow. There were periods in the history of linguistics when these means were taken, in essence, as a "list", without an explicit attempt to establish their real relationship as elements of the system. Now linguistics has entered a period of systematization and has even become somewhat carried away by the search for consistency, often transferring the results obtained on one material (say, in the analysis of the sound side of speech) to another that is not amenable to such a direct interpretation (say, semantics). The concept of a language system has taken a firm and definitive place in linguistics. It can be said that the system of language is now the subject of linguistic science.
It is clear from what has been said that the subject matter of science is a historically developing category. In other words, one and the same object of one and the same science can be interpreted by it in different ways on different historical stages its development. Consequently, the configuration of the subject of science depends not only on the properties of the object, but also on the point of view of science at the moment. And this point of view, in turn, is determined, on the one hand, by the path that this science has passed, and, on the other hand, by those specific tasks that science faces at the moment.
As already noted, the subject of science is a generalization of the set of possible models of a particular subject area. Let's turn to the concept of a model.
The model is defined in the modern logic of science (FOOTNOTE: See: V.A. Shtoff. Modeling and Philosophy. M.-L., 1966, p. 19. Among other important recent works on models and modeling, see: Yu. A. Zhdanov Modeling in organic chemistry. "Questions of Philosophy", 1963, No. 6; A. A. Zinoviev, I. I. Revisions. Logical model as a means of scientific research. "Questions of Philosophy", 1960, No. 1; I. B. Novik. About modeling complex systems. M., 1965; I. G. Frolov. Essays on the methodology of biological research. M., 1965) as “such a mentally represented or materially realized system that, displaying or reproducing the object of study, is able to replace it in such a way that its study gives us new information about this object.” Below we will everywhere understand the model as V. A. Shtoff understands it, with some additional statements regarding models of speech activity (FOOTNOTE: See in this connection: A. A. Leontiev. Word in speech activity. M., 1965, pp. 41 et seq.).
As noted above, there may be many non-coinciding models of the object of interest to us, defined (for now!) as a set of speech acts (global "speech"). None of them is complete, does not exhaust the object. An exhaustive description of it (and a logical model is, in the general case, any sufficiently correct, i.e., description of an object that satisfies certain requirements for adequacy) is impossible and unnecessary. In the model, each time we isolate some features of the object, leaving others out of our consideration; however, all correct models of a given object that form an abstract system of objects (a system of abstract objects) have invariant characteristics that remain unchanged during the transition from one model to another.
Within our object, those of its ontological characteristics that could be combined in the concept of "language" are not given separately as something already formed, given, just as we are not given as something given and the characteristics corresponding to the concept of "speech" or any other a similar concept. The distinction between language and speech does not lie solely in these ontological, essential characteristics as an object; both it and the criterion or criteria underlying such a distinction are historically conditioned by the development of linguistics and another science interested in such a distinction - psychology, as well as by the internal features of these and other sciences that study speech (in the global sense). Let's take a closer look at this distinction.
Superlinguist is electronic science Library dedicated to theoretical and applied issues of linguistics, as well as the study of various languages.
How the site works
The site consists of sections, each of which includes more subsections.
Home. This section provides general information about the site. Here you can also contact the site administration through the "Contacts" item.
Books. This is the largest section of the site. Here are books (textbooks, monographs, dictionaries, encyclopedias, reference books) on various linguistic areas and languages, a complete list of which is presented in the "Books" section.
For a student. This section contains many useful materials for students: abstracts, term papers, graduation theses, lecture notes, answers to exams.
Our library is designed for any circle of readers dealing with linguistics and languages, from a schoolboy who is just approaching this area to a leading linguist working on his next work.
What is the main purpose of the site
The main goal of the project is to increase the scientific and educational level persons interested in linguistics and studying various languages.
What resources are on the site
The site contains textbooks, monographs, dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias, periodicals, abstracts and dissertations in various fields and languages. Materials are presented in .doc (MS Word), .pdf (Acrobat Reader), .djvu (WinDjvu) and txt formats. Each file is archived (WinRAR).
(0 Votes)Leontiev A.A.
Language, speech, speech activity
Leontiev A.A. Language, speech, speech activity.- M.: Enlightenment, 1969. - 214 p. Electronic book. Psycholinguistics. neurolinguistics
Annotation (description)
In the proposed book, the author, an outstanding domestic linguist A.A. Leontiev (1936--2004), introduces readers to the theory of speech activity. The first chapter deals with the most important theoretical problems general- object and subject of linguistic science, the concept of speech activity, language functions. In the second chapter, the author tries to apply the above theoretical propositions to the solution of some specific scientific questions; considers the problems of language evolution and some questions of the genesis of speech communication in the light of the theory of activity. Chapter three is devoted to psycholinguistics as the science of speech activity; the fourth chapter analyzes various issues related to the teaching of language and grammar. The appendix contains two historical studies about the great scientists - the linguist I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and the psychologist L.S. Vygotsky.
The book will be of interest to research scientists - linguists and psychologists, students and graduate students of relevant specialties.
Content (table of contents)
Preface to the second edition
From the author
Chapter I. Theory of speech activity
§ 1. Object and subject of linguistic science
§ 2. Language and speech
§ 3. The concept of speech activity
§ 4. Social functions and functional equivalents of language as a problem in the theory of speech activity
§ 5. Linguistic sign and the theory of speech activity
Chapter II. The study of speech activity and some problems of linguistics
§ 1. Diachrony, history, language development
§ 2. Some problems of language evolution and culture of speech
§ 3. On the theory of speech culture
§ 4. Some questions of the genesis of verbal communication in the light of the theory of activity
Chapter III. Psycholinguistics as a science of speech activity
§ 1. From the history of the emergence and development of psycholinguistics
§ 2. On the subject of psycholinguistics
§ 3. Psycholinguistic problems of phrase generation
§ 4. Psycholinguistic problems of semantics
Chapter IV. Speech activity and learning problems
§ 1. Speech activity and language learning
§ 2. On the speech situation and the principle of speech actions
§ 3. Essence and tasks of "school grammar"
§
4. On the question of the place of psycholinguistic analysis in the problems of "school grammar" (parts of speech as a psycholinguistic problem)
Appendix. From the history of the study of speech activity in our country
J.A. Baudouin de Courtenay
L.S. Vygotsky
Domestic psycholinguistics from the very beginning of its inception took shape and developed as theory of speech activity. Since the mid 1930s. within psychological school L.S. Vygotsky intensively developed an activity approach to the interpretation of the human mental sphere, which is presented in the most complete and complete form in the works of the Academy of Sciences. Leontiev (1974; 1977 and others). The very concept of activity, philosophically dating back to the ideas of G. Hegel, in the history of Russian psychology is associated with the names of I.M. Sechenov, P.P. Blonsky, S.L. Rubinstein. The psychological concept of A.N. Leontiev and his students (137, 8, 50, 98) directly relies on the approach outlined in the works of L.S. Vygotsky and S.L. Rubinstein. According to the concept of AN. Leontiev, “any objective activity meets a need, but always objectified in a motive; its main constituents are the goals and, accordingly, the actions corresponding to them, the means and methods for their implementation, and, finally, those psychophysiological functions that implement the activity, which often constitute its natural prerequisites and impose certain restrictions on its course, are often rebuilt in it and even by it. are generated” (135, p. 9).
The structure of activities (according to AN. Leontiev) includes motive, purpose, actions, operations(as ways of doing things). In addition, it includes personal installations And results(products) of activity.
Different kinds Activities can be classified according to different criteria. The main one is the qualitative originality of activity - on this basis, one can divide labor, play, cognitive activity as independent activities. kinds activities. Another criterion is external(material), or interior, mental nature of the activity. It's different forms activities. External and internal forms of activity are interconnected and pass each other in the processes interiorization and exteriorization(8, 50, 98, etc.). At the same time, an action of one type can be included as a forming element in the activity of another type: a theoretical action can be part of a practical one, for example labor activity, labor action - in the composition of gaming activity, etc.
IN general psychology speech is defined as a form of communication that has historically developed in the process of the material transforming activity of people, mediated by language. Speech includes processes generations and perceptions(reception and analysis) messages for the purposes of communication or (in a particular case) for the purposes of regulation and control of one's own activity (51, 135, 148). Modern psychology considers speech as a universal means of communication, that is, as a complex and specifically organized form of conscious activity in which two subjects participate - the one who forms the speech statement and the one who perceives it (133, 243).
Most domestic psychologists and linguists consider speech as a speech activity, acting either in the form of whole act of activity(if it has a specific motivation that is not implemented by other types of activity), or in the form speech action, included in any non-speech activity (L.S. Rubinshtein (185); A.N. Leontiev (135); A.A. Leontiev (120, 133, etc.); N.I. Zhinkin (81); And .A. Winter (92, 94) and others.
According to AA. Leontiev, speech activity is a specific type of activity that is not directly correlated with "classical" types of activity, for example, with work or play. Speech activity “in the form of separate speech actions serves all types of activity, being part of the acts of labor, play, and cognitive activity. Speech activity as such takes place only when speech is valuable in itself, when the underlying motive that motivates it cannot be satisfied in any other way than speech” (133, p. 63).
According to the concept of the Moscow psycholinguistic school, speech memory a person is not a passive repository of information about the language. It is a dynamic (mobile) functional system. In addition, there is a constant interaction between the process of acquiring speech experience and its product. In other words, when receiving new information of the speech plan, a person not only processes it, but also rebuilds the entire system of his speech experience. This allows us to consider speech activity as a rather complex self-organizing system. The focus of psycholinguistics is precisely the organization and mechanisms of speech activity and human behavior, as well as the features of their formation and functioning.
"Psycholinguistics. Theory of speech activity"
Such an interpretation of human speech was first given in science by L.S. Vygotsky (1934). In his attempt to create a new approach to the definition of the human psyche, L.S. Vygotsky proceeded simultaneously from two basic propositions. First, from the position that the psyche is a function, a property of a person as a material being; secondly, from the fact that the human psyche is social, that is, its features must be sought in the history of human society. The unity of these two provisions of L.S. Vygotsky expressed in the doctrine of the nature of human activity mediated by social means. The human psyche is formed as a kind of unity of biological (physiological) prerequisites and social means. Only by assimilating these means, “appropriating them”, making them a part of his personality in his activity, does a person become himself. Just as part human activity, as a tool of a mental subject - a person, these means, and above all language, manifest their essence (43, 44).
At the same time, the “word” (speech) arises, according to L.S. Vygotsky, in the process of social practice, and therefore, is a fact of objective reality, independent of the individual consciousness of a person (43, 46).
Speech activity is defined by the leading domestic specialist in psycholinguistics AA Leontiev as the process of using language to communicate during some other human activity(120, pp. 27–28; 133, etc.). According to A.A. Leontiev (which is not shared by all domestic psycholinguists), speech activity is some kind of abstraction that cannot be directly correlated with “classical” types of activity (cognitive, play, educational), which cannot be compared with labor or play. It - in the form of separate speech actions - serves all types of activities, being part of the acts of labor, play, and cognitive activity. Speech activity as such takes place only when speech is valuable in itself, when the underlying motive that motivates it cannot be satisfied in any other way than speech (133, p. 63). Speech actions and even individual speech operations can also be included in other types of activity, primarily in cognitive activity. In this way, speech(RD) is defined as one of the means of non-speech activity, speech (linguistic) process, the process of generation (production) and perception (understanding) of speech, which provides all other types of human activity. This applies to all forms of speech: (1) oral (sound), (2) written (reading and writing), and (3) kinetic (i.e. mimic-gestural) speech.
Distinctive features of speech activity (RD), according to A.A. Leontiev are the following.
The subject matter of the activity. It is determined by the fact that RD, according to the figurative expression of AN. Leontiev, proceeds "eye to eye with the outside world" (135, p. 8). In other words, “in activity there is a kind of opening of the circle of internal mental processes towards the objective objective world, imperiously breaking into this circle, which does not close at all” (ibid., p. 10).
"Psycholinguistics. Theory of speech activity"
purposefulness, which means that any act of activity is characterized by a final, and any action - by an intermediate goal, the achievement of which, as a rule, is planned by the subject in advance.
Motivation RD. It is determined by the fact that in reality the act of any activity is prompted simultaneously by several motives merged into one.
Hierarchical ("vertical") organization of speech activity, including the hierarchical organization of its units. In the works of school psychologists L.S. Vygotsky's concept of the hierarchical organization of RD is interpreted in different ways. So, V.P. Zinchenko introduced into it the concept of a functional block (98); A.A. Leontiev distinguished between the concepts of macro-operations and micro-operations and introduced the concept of three types of systemic activities (120, 122); A.S. Asmolov introduced the concept of the levels of attitudes in activity and, together with V.A. Petrovsky developed the idea of a "dynamic paradigm of activity" (8).
Phase("horizontal") organization of activities (119, 133).
The most complete and methodologically successful definition of speech activity was proposed by a well-known Russian psycholinguist, prof. I.A. Winter. “Speech activity is a process of active, purposeful, language-mediated and communication situation-conditioned interaction of people with each other (with each other). Speech activity may be included in another, broader activity, for example, social production (labor), cognitive. However, it can also be an independent activity; ... each type of RD has its own “professional embodiment”, for example, the RD of speaking determines the professional activity of a lecturer, writing - of a writer ... ”(92, pp. 28–29).
Characterizing speech activity, I.A. Winter indicates that the RD is active, purposeful, motivated, subject (content) process of issuing or receiving a thought formed and formulated through the language, aimed at satisfying the communicative and cognitive needs of a person in the process of communication (95).
It is clear that in these cases, RD is considered both as a proper communicative activity and as a professional activity of people. It acts as an independent, socially “fixed” human activity. Based on this provision, I.A. Zimnyaya makes a very important methodological conclusion, which is most directly related to the methodology of speech development (and, accordingly, to the theory and practice of speech therapy work): training of speech activity should be carried out from the position of forming it as an independent activity that has the fullness of its characteristics.
Any type of activity is aimed at achieving a certain goals, which determines the choice of action, the way of taking into account the conditions in which these actions are carried out. Any activity (as a rule) goes through the stage of orientation and development of an action plan, during the implementation of which control and correction mechanisms are used to compare the result obtained with the planned plan and, if necessary, make some changes.
"Psycholinguistics. Theory of speech activity"
It should be emphasized that any activity includes a stage (or phase) at which the goal is realized and a plan is developed to achieve it. “The entire course of activity must be subordinated to the achievement of the intended result ... and therefore requires planning and control of execution” (S.L. Rubinshtein, 185, p. 572).
A special problem of human psychology and psycholinguistics is the correlation between speech activity and communication activity (AA Leontiev, 132, 133). Communication is defined in psychology as an activity to solve problems of social communication. The activity of communication is general type specific human activity particular manifestations which are all types of human interaction with other people and objects of the surrounding reality.
Chief and universal view interaction between people in human society is speech, speech activity. Thus, the activity of communication and speech activity are considered in general psychology as general and particular, as a whole and a part. Speech in this case can be considered as a form and at the same time a way of communication activity. “Speech activity,” says AA. Leontiev, - there is a specialized use of speech for communication, and in this sense - special case activities of communication” (133, p. 64).
However, it should be taken into account that speech activity is not limited to the framework of communication, communication in human society. It plays a huge role in a person's life; the formation and development of RD is closely connected with the formation and development of the entire personality of a person as a whole. A.A. Leontiev emphasizes that “speech actions and even individual speech operations can also be included in other types of activity, primarily in cognitive activity” (ibid., p. 64). As rightly pointed out by I.A. Winter (95), speech, speech activity is essential integral part personalities man, it is closely connected with his consciousness. Thus, RD is one of essential conditions implementation of intellectual activity (cognition, awareness, analytical and synthetic activity, creativity).
It is important to note that the language, which acts as the main means of speech activity and is its integral part, according to L.S. Vygotsky, there is a unity of communication and generalizations(as a product of intellectual activity) - this is its essence. The correlation and interrelation of RD and communication activity can be reflected in the form of the following rather simple scheme:
From what has been said, it clearly follows that speech activity has two main options for its implementation (otherwise, implementation, implementation). The first is the process of verbal communication (verbal communication), which accounts for approximately two-thirds of the entire "stratum" of speech activity; the second is individual speech and thought activity, realized through inner speech.
"Psycholinguistics. Theory of speech activity"
Chapter I. THEORY OF SPEECH ACTIVITY
§ 1. Object and subject of linguistic science
The paragraph is based on the article “The Object and Subject of Psycholinguistics and its Relation to Other Sciences of Speech Activity” (in the collective monograph “The Theory of Speech Activity (Problems of Psycholinguistics)”, M., 1968).
In recent years, both abroad and in our country, many works have appeared devoted to the so-called logic of science, i.e., the logical structure of scientific theory and the process of scientific research (FOOTNOTE: We note from them: “Problems of the logic of scientific knowledge.” M. , 1964; M. A. Rozov. Scientific abstraction and its types. Novosibirsk, 1965; "Dialectics - the theory of knowledge. Problems of scientific method". M., 1964; "Logic of scientific research". M., 1965). However, a number of the most important problems in this field of knowledge have not yet received sufficient coverage, and it is advisable to dwell on these problems in our book.
First of all, we are talking about the very concept of the object of science, a concept that is usually taken out of the scope of logic as a science or reduced to "individual objects", as is done in the collection "The Logic of Scientific Research". Only in a few works is a consistent distinction made between this concept and the concept of the subject of science. Let's explain this difference.
It is often said that a number of sciences (linguistics, physiology and psychology of speech, pathology of speech and thinking, logic and poetics) have the same object. This means that they all operate on the same<…>
<…>will not be analyzed). Finally, the linguist deals with the organization of speech, so to speak, at the elementary level, at the level of the foundation; only after he finishes his work on the "disassembly" and reverse "assembly" of the object, the logician and the specialist in poetics begin to work, already operating with the results of the work of the linguist.
So, analyzing the totality of mental-speech acts (we emphasize once again: for now we are talking about this totality only as the very first approximation to the actual object of linguistics!), the linguist identifies in them that common thing that is in the organization of any speech of any person in any situation , searches for those means without which it is generally impossible to characterize the internal structure of the speech flow. There were periods in the history of linguistics when these means were taken, in essence, as a "list", without an explicit attempt to establish their real relationship as elements of the system. Now linguistics has entered a period of systematization and has even become somewhat carried away by the search for consistency, often transferring the results obtained on one material (say, in the analysis of the sound side of speech) to another that is not amenable to such a direct interpretation (say, semantics). The concept of a language system has taken a firm and definitive place in linguistics. It can be said that the system of language is now the subject of linguistic science.
It is clear from what has been said that the subject matter of science is a historically developing category. In other words, one and the same object of one and the same science can be interpreted by it in different ways at different historical stages of its development. Consequently, the configuration of the subject of science depends not only on the properties of the object, but also on the point of view of science at the moment. And this point of view, in turn, is determined, on the one hand, by the path that this science has passed, and, on the other hand, by those specific tasks that science faces at the moment.
As already noted, the subject of science is a generalization of the set of possible models of a particular subject area. Let's turn to the concept of a model.
The model is defined in the modern logic of science (FOOTNOTE: See: V.A. Shtoff. Modeling and Philosophy. M.-L., 1966, p. 19. Among other important recent works on models and modeling, see: Yu. A. Zhdanov, Modeling in Organic Chemistry, "Problems of Philosophy", 1963, No. 6; A. A. Zinoviev, I. I. Revisions. Logical Model as a Means of Scientific Research, "Problems of Philosophy", 1960, No. 1; I. B. Novik, On Modeling Complex Systems, M., 1965; I. G. Frolov, Essays on the Methodology of Biological Research, M., 1965) as “such a mentally represented or materially realized system that, reflecting or reproducing the object of study, is able to replace it in such a way that its study gives us new information about this object. Below we will everywhere understand the model as V. A. Shtoff understands it, with some additional statements regarding models of speech activity (FOOTNOTE: See in this connection: A. A. Leontiev. Word in speech activity. M., 1965, pp. 41 et seq.).
As noted above, there may be many non-coinciding models of the object of interest to us, defined (for now!) as a set of speech acts (global "speech"). None of them is complete, does not exhaust the object. An exhaustive description of it (and a logical model is, in the general case, any sufficiently correct, i.e., description of an object that satisfies certain requirements for adequacy) is impossible and unnecessary. In the model, each time we isolate some features of the object, leaving others out of our consideration; however, all correct models of a given object that form an abstract system of objects (a system of abstract objects) have invariant characteristics that remain unchanged during the transition from one model to another.
Within our object, those of its ontological characteristics that could be combined in the concept of "language" are not given separately as something already formed, given, just as we are not given as something given and the characteristics corresponding to the concept of "speech" or any other a similar concept. The distinction between language and speech does not lie solely in these ontological, essential characteristics as an object; both it and the criterion or criteria underlying such a distinction are historically conditioned by the development of linguistics and another science interested in such a distinction - psychology, as well as by the internal features of these and other sciences that study speech (in the global sense). Let's take a closer look at this distinction.
§ 2. Language and speech
The paragraph is based on the article "Language and Speech". On Sat. Fundamentals of Psychology, vol. 1 (in print).
The explicit opposition of language and speech is usually attributed to the Genevan linguist F. de Saussure, who developed his concept in university courses in general linguistics. Already after the death of de Saussure, in 1916, two of his closest students - C. Bally and A. Sechet, based on student notes and other materials, compiled a consolidated text and published it (FOOTNOTE: F. de Saussure. Cours de linguistique generale. Paris. 1916 The second edition (1922) became the most widespread (and first came to the USSR), the last edition was the 5th (1955), the book was translated into Russian (M., 1933), German, Polish and Spanish). It is this text that is usually referred to when speaking about certain ideas of de Saussure.
The interpretation of the very concept of "language" by this time was very different in psychology and linguistics. A typical example of the psychological interpretation of language is the views of G. Steinthal (FOOTNOTE: “They consider a certain imaginary being, personifying the whole of humanity, to be the bearer of the variance of the language, and explore the facts related to it, abstracting from the social communication of people” (J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay. Phonetic laws." Selected writings on General Linguistics, vol. 2. M., 1963, p. 206.)) and W. Wundt. This is what language is, according to Steinthal: “He is not a resting entity, but an ongoing activity. We must regard it essentially not as a tool at hand to be used, but which has its own being (Dasein) even when it is not used; it acts as a property (Kraft) or ability ... Language is not something that exists, like gunpowder, but a process (Ereignip), like an explosion ... ". Similarly, Wundt understands language as a system of non-substantial psycho-physiological processes, i.e., procedurally.
Meanwhile, in linguistics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially in the so-called neo-grammatical and sociological schools, language is considered primarily as a frozen system taken in abstraction from real speech activity. Another question is that for neogrammarists it is a system of psychophysiological skills in the head of each individual individual, while for sociologists it is “an ideal linguistic form that gravitates over all individuals of a given social group” and realized in each of these individuals in the form of passive “imprints” - the same individual systems of speech skills. Along with the language understood in this way, it appears in different forms way to implement it. For neogrammarists, for example, G. Paul (FOOTNOTE: G. Paul. Principles of the history of language. M., 1960), this is “usus”, the use of language.
In a word, a kind of historical delimitation of the subject of research has formed between psychology and linguistics: psychology studies the processes of speaking, speech, and only deals with language in so far as its ontology is somehow manifested in these processes; linguistics studies language as a system, either interpreting it in a material aspect (a system of speech skills), or in an ideal one, but not being interested in the implementation of this system! It is indicative that, despite the numerous (beginning with the "Course ..." by de Saussure) declarations of linguists about the need to create a "linguistics of speech", nothing of the kind exists yet. This kind of traditional delimitation is still held in some psychological works.C. L. Rubinshtein, for example, categorically states that “only speech has a psychological aspect. Psychological approach it is not applicable to language as such: it is fundamentally erroneous psychologism, i.e., an unlawful psychologization of linguistic phenomena ”(FOOTNOTE: S. L. Rubinshtein. Being and Consciousness. M., 1958, p. 165). I. M. Solovieva in her article “Linguistics and Psychology” directly writes: “The differences that exist between speech (a psychological phenomenon) and language (a social phenomenon) ...” (FOOTNOTE: “ Foreign languages at school”, 1955, No. 2, p. 32). It comes to the fact that the same problem is called by psychologists "Thinking and Speech", and by linguists - "Language and Thinking".
This demarcation served as the basis for de Saussure's distinction between language and speech.
In order to understand the essence of the problem of "Language and Speech", we will first have to turn to how this problem was interpreted by de Saussure himself, however, not in the canonical text of his "Course ...", but in the notes and materials published today, which are laid down in its basis. (As it turned out thanks to the works of R. Godel, Bally and Sechet distorted the thoughts of de Saussure, relegating them to the level of ordinary "sociological" understanding).
It turns out that de Saussure does not have the disjunction "language - speech" in the proper sense. Particularly characteristic from this point of view is the system of concepts set forth in the second and third courses, where de Saussure contrasts language (langue) as an abstract supra-individual system and language ability (faculte du langage) as a function of the individual. Both of these categories are united by the term langage; langage (speech activity) is opposed in turn to parole - speech, which is an individual act that realizes the language ability through the language as social system. Language and Language ability are contrasted as social and individual; speech activity (language + language ability) is opposed to speech as potency and realization. There are two coordinate systems.
In the canonical text of the "Course ..." the category of language ability is completely absent, and in place of the system of three categories (language - language ability - speech) there is a system of two categories, and in place of two coordinate systems - one, in which the potential is equated with the social, and the real to the individual. This one-sided interpretation is quite understandable. First, it follows logically from the orthodox "sociological" interpretation. Secondly, it goes well with the passive nature of speech processes, repeatedly emphasized on the pages of the canonical text, and the idea of an “individual speech system” as a kind of cast of a language objectively existing outside its system: “Language is not a function of a speaking subject, it is a product of , passively registered by the individual ”(FOOTNOTE: F. de Saussure. Course of General Linguistics. M., 1933, p. 38).
The inconsistency of the argumentation and the well-known inconsistency of the canonical text of the "Course ..." led to the fact that there were a lot of attempts to give a stricter justification to the distinction between language and speech. K. Buhler reasonably noted that "there has not been ... since the time of de Saussure not a single linguist who would not have expressed a number of thoughts about la parole and la langue" (FOOTNOTE: K. Buhler. Theory of language. In the collection: "History Linguistics of the 19th-20th centuries in essays and extracts, part I, ed. 3. M., 1965, p. 27). However, almost all of these authors remained within the understanding proposed by de Saussure and revealed by R. Godel, realizing only certain aspects of this understanding (FOOTNOTE: Saussure's system of two coordinates can be found earlier - in I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay). So, for L. Elmslev, A. I. Smirnitsky, G. V. Kolshansky, language relates to speech as potential to real, for O. Jespersen and A. A. Reformatsky - as social to individual. There is even an attempt (A. Gardiner) to consider both categories at the level of the text as its elements of varying degrees of abstraction. There is no need to analyze the statements of these authors in detail.
Along with various interpretations of the disjunction "language - speech" in modern science there are other conceptions that do away with this disjunction altogether. Almost all the concepts of language associated with American behavioral psychology (the descriptive direction and authors close to it) are like this: they draw a distinction not between speech and language, but between the text and its interpretation by the linguist. Much more interesting in this regard are the schemes of L. V. Shcherba and K. L. Paik. Noting that “the dictionary and grammar, i.e., the language system of a given language, were usually identified with the psychophysiological organization of a person, which was considered as a system of potential linguistic representations,” Shcherba expresses the idea that “this speech organization of a person cannot simply equal the sum of speech experience (I mean by this both speaking and understanding) of a given individual, but should be some kind of peculiar processing of this experience. This speech organization of a person can only be ... psycho-physiological ... This psycho-physiological speech organization of an individual, together with the speech activity conditioned by it, is a social product. Speech organization is, according to Shcherba, the first aspect of language. Its second aspect is a conclusion that is made “on the basis of all (in theory) acts of speaking and understanding that took place in a certain era in the life of a particular social group.” Such a “language system” revealed as a result of the inference is the second aspect of language. Ideally, the system and the organization may coincide, but "in practice, the organizations of individuals may differ in some way from it and from each other." These differences or the absence of these differences are associated with the unity or difference of the "content of the life of a given social group", i.e., factors of a social, social nature that determine the process of communication. Linguistic material, which Shcherba also calls speech activity, is the third aspect of language (FOOTNOTE: See: L.V. Shcherba. On the triple aspect of linguistic phenomena and on the experiment in linguistics. In: “History of Linguistics of the 19th-20th centuries. in essays and extracts, part 2).
Thus, L. V. Shcherba, in essence, reproduced the scheme proposed by de Saussure in the second course. A similar system is proposed by K. L. Pike, who opposes language as “particles”, as “waves” and as “field” (FOOTNOTE: K-L. Pike. Language as particle, wave and field. “The Texas Quarterly” , v. 11, No. 2, 1959).
This concept of Shcherba is developed in their works by L. R. Zinder and N. D. Andreev. They offer a system not of three, but of four categories: language, speech, speech act and speech material. Speech material is a concrete realization of the language system. A speech act is a process, the product of which is speech material. Speech is a system of combinations of linguistic elements in a text (FOOTNOTE: See for example: N. D. Andreev and L. R. Zinder. On the concepts of a speech act, speech, speech probability and language. “Issues of Linguistics”, 1963, No. 3) . This system very clearly reflected some of the general shortcomings of all works on the topic of language and speech, and it is worth dwelling on it.
The most important of these shortcomings is a simplified understanding, so to speak, of the “primary element” of research, that closest object with which the researcher of language or speech is dealing. Such a “primary element” for the authors is speech material, i.e. a text or a set of texts. They do not take into account the fact that the "text" is not a direct given that is presented to the researcher. Moreover, if the speech material is only a "sequence of materialized signs", then how is it possible to abstract from it in the form of speech or language? Of course, this is not only such a sequence, but first of all and mainly - a sign model, the material "body" of which this sequence is. The text does not exist outside of its creation or perception (for example, reading). The sign model in question reflects some characteristics of the modeled object, leaving aside those that are not significant in this case. It is characteristic that a linguist often unconsciously “prepares” speech material for himself with a certain degree of completeness of characteristics (for example, he reproduces the text under study sometimes in a detailed transcription, sometimes in a conditional, even orthographic notation). Thus, Zinder and Andreev have missed<…>
<…>build your building immediately from the first floor.
The second drawback of the Zinder-Andreev system is that the “dynamic” link of the entire system, i.e., the speech act, is understood as a process, and not as an activity; he translates the characteristics of speech material from a potential to an actual form, but that's all. Such an idea of the speech act and, in general, of the essence of speech is, in essence, generally accepted both in modern linguistics and in most psychological trends. It is assumed, explicitly or implicitly, that in the human brain there is a system of language in the form of some code. Speech is only the process of encoding some extralinguistic message with the help of this system (FOOTNOTE: See in this connection, for example, the ideas of S. Bally about speech as the actualization of language). Some researchers, such as R. Jacobson, simply identify both pairs of categories (Language - speech and code - message). According to this understanding, speech simply cannot contain any essential characteristics that would not exist in the language, with the exception of characteristics related to the patterns of combination of linguistic elements. As for the language itself, there is a lack of distinction between the “individual language system”, the language ability and the objective system of language, familiar to us from pre-Sassurean views and reflected in the canonical text of his work. It is interesting that Zinder and Andreev do not have a category corresponding to language ability at all.
So far, we have analyzed the statements of linguists on the question of the relationship between language and speech. The views of psychologists, as a rule, do not differ in any fundamental way (FOOTNOTE: GA de Laguna. Speech: its function and development, 2nd ed., Bloomington, 1953, p. IX). contrasts "language as a social phenomenon" and "speaking" (art of speaking), including both of these components in "speech" or "speech activity" (activity of speech). Karl Buhler proposes a four-term system organized by means of two coordinates - “correlation with the subject” and “formalization stage” (that is, in essence, again social-individual and virtual-real): speech activity, speech acts, language means and linguistic structures (FOOTNOTE: I quote from the Russian translation: K. Buhler. Theory of Language, p. 28). F. Kainz also proposes a four-term system - “language as an idea”, “language as a system”, “speech activity” (Sprechhandlimg) and “the result of speech activity” (FOOTNOTE: F. Kainz. Psychologie der Sprache, Bd. I. Stuttgart, 1941, S. 22). A. Delacroix speaks of "speech activity" (langage) as a function, "language" - as a system, "speaking" (parler) - as a speech product and "speech" - as a speech mechanism (FOOTNOTE: H. Delacroix. Le langage et la pensee, Paris, 1930, p. 3); here, as T. Slama-Cazacu correctly notes (FOOTNOTE: T. Slama-Cazacu. Langage et contexte. S-Gravennage, 1961, p. 20), the distinction between speech activity and speech is artificial and insufficiently substantiated. Slama-Cossack herself comes very close to de Saussure's ideas, distinguishing between "speech activity" (langage), analogous to Saussure's "linguistic ability", "language" as a system, and "speech" as a manifestation of language.
In essence, only one psychological work emerges from this "vicious circle" and explicitly formulates the only point of view acceptable at the present level of science. These are the "Mechanisms of Speech" by N. I. Zhinkin (M., 1958) (FOOTNOTE: However, in the chapter "Speech" of the collective textbook on psychology, N. I. Zhinkin carries out the traditional concept: "Speech is the use of language in the process of communication").
First and main thesis N. I. Zhinkin is that speech is not a simple manifestation of language. It is not the end, but the beginning of the chain, the object of study, and not the result of study. “Linguistics in all aspects ..., physiology in terms of the problems associated with the activity of the second signal system, physics in the section of acoustics, logic and, finally, psychology - each of these areas of knowledge, going its own ways and roads and solving its own special special tasks, has in mind the same speech process common to all these disciplines ... The real object of study remains common ... ”(FOOTNOTE: N. I. Zhinkin, Mechanisms of Speech. M., 1958, p. 13). Recently, this thesis has taken the form of distinguishing between the object and subject of the "speech" sciences, including psychology and linguistics (FOOTNOTE: See, for example: V. I. Kodukhov. Methodology of science and methods of linguistic research. In the collection: "General Questions Linguistics", L., 1967, p. 139; V. N. Peretrukhin. Introduction to Linguistics. Belgorod, 1968, p. 3).
Let us dwell in more detail on speech as an object.
From this point of view, speech (speech activity) can be interpreted in two ways. The first of them is the presentation of speech activity as a "flow of speech", a kind of space-time continuum of speaking, formed by the intersection and overlapping of the fields of speech activity of speaking individuals. It is known, for example, that for Humboldt language was just such a "holistic unity of speaking" (Totalitat des Sprechens). The second is its interpretation as one of the types of activity, understanding by activity “a complex set of processes united by a common focus on achieving a certain result, which is at the same time an objective stimulus of this activity, i.e., what this or that need is specified in subject "(Footnote: See: A. N. Leontiev and D. Yu. Panov. Psychology of man and technical progress. In: "Philosophical questions of higher physiology nervous activity and psychology". M., 1963, p. 415. (See also: A. N. Leontiev. Problems of the development of the psyche, ed. 2. M., 1965, pp. 261-337)). This interpretation differs from the first in two respects. Firstly, it involves the inclusion of speech activity in the general system of human activity. This changes the very fundamental approach to the problem. If, under the “continuum” interpretation, speech activity is considered only as an activity for expressing the mental content behind the speech, then with the interpretation of the “activity” one, we “capture” much deeper. Speech activity is taken here taking into account all the objective and subjective factors that determine the behavior of a native speaker, in its entirety determining its connections and relations of the subject of activity to reality. The real process that takes place in communication is not the establishment of a correspondence between speech and the outside world, but the establishment of a correspondence between specific situation, the activity to be designated, i.e., between the content, motive and form of this activity, on the one hand, and between the structure and elements of a speech statement, on the other. A speech act is always an act of establishing a correspondence between two activities, more precisely, an act of including speech activity in a wider system of activity as one of the necessary and interdependent components of this latter. In this respect, the "activity" psychology of speech partly merges with behavioral psychology. Below we will dwell on the concept of speech activity in detail.
With an "activity" interpretation of speech, a completely different interpretation of thinking suggests itself. The "continuum" approach is associated with the idea of thinking exclusively as a set of mental processes occurring "in the subject". This - traditional - interpretation of thinking is well characterized by E. V. Ilyenkov: carried out by the individual, one of the forms of consciousness. At the same time, thinking is identified with reflection, with reflection, that is, with mental activity, during which a person is fully and clearly aware of what and how he does, that is, he is aware of those schemes and rules in accordance with which he acts. . ... Hegel was the first who resolutely rejected the prejudice, ... as if thinking, as an object of study of logic, is expressed (fixed, objectified) only in the form of speech ... ". Naturally, the problem of "Thinking - speech" is brought to the fore, but a cardinal mistake is made: in this case, we are dealing not with forms of thinking, but with forms of knowledge, forms of representation of the external world.
The "activity" approach implies a different interpretation of thinking. According to this interpretation, thinking "finds itself not only in speech, ... but also in the real purposeful actions of people, ... in the acts of creating things, and therefore, in the forms of things created by them, in the forms of tools, machines , cities, states with their political and legal structures, etc., in short, it is expressed in the form of the whole world of culture created by the purposeful activity of people ... ”(FOOTNOTE: E. V. Ilyenkov. On the history of the question of the subject of logic as sciences, p. 33). Forms of thinking and forms of knowledge are clearly opposed to each other, and the problem of thinking and speech appears to a large extent as a pseudo-problem, giving way to the question of the relationship between speech and the content of activity, which is immeasurably more important from the philosophical, logical and psychological side.
The second difference between the "activity" interpretation of speech behavior and the "continuum" one is closely connected with the first and, to a certain extent, is conditioned by it. This is a difference in understanding the internal structure of activity, its real structure. From “analysis by elements”, according to the constituent parts of the whole, as a result of which “there are ... elements that do not contain the properties inherent in the whole as such, and have a number of new properties that this whole could never discover” ( FOOTNOTE: L. S. Vygodsky Thinking and speech "Selected psychological research". M., 1956, p. 46), analysis, in this case acting in the form of the methodological principle of parallelism of the form and content of linguistic thinking, we move on to analysis “by units”, understanding by unity “such a product of analysis that ... possesses all basic properties of the whole. Under this condition, we must inevitably come from the analysis of speech material, text, i.e., activity objectified, materialized in frozen speech formations, to this activity itself, to its structure, completely refusing to present this structure as a kind of mirror image (at least and in a distorted mirror) language systems.
Having taken this principle as the basis of the study, we are faced with a number of difficulties. The most important of them is that we are confronted with the fact of the existence of, as it were, two independent objects - speech activity and language. The "objectivity" of the first necessarily follows from our entire comprehension of activity. The "objectivity" of the second is usually assumed a priori (because it seems absolutely indisputable that, being by its nature social, language cannot have any other existence than as an objective system).
There are two different problems here. The first is the problem of objectivity, the reality of language, as well as other similar formations. Of course, there is and cannot be any doubt about it: language is not a system of speech skills, on the one hand, and not a pure “construct” that exists in the head of a linguist, on the other. The second is the problem of materiality, the "substantiality" of language (in the everyday, not the philosophical sense of the word). Oddly enough, there are still convinced supporters of just such an interpretation of it, who clearly take reality for materiality, functional independence for substantive and, as the Soviet linguist P. G. Strelkov wrote in the 30s on a similar occasion, “they see idealism everywhere where there is no direct mention of matter” (FOOTNOTE: P. G. Strelkov. To the question of the phoneme. “Collection of historical, philosophical and social sciences at Perm University”, 1929, issue 3, p. 227). The majority, not being explicitly aware of the formulation of this problem, nevertheless, in the process of research…
