Topical Trends of Modern Linguistics with the Positions of the Systemic Approach. Some Thoughts on the Results of a Scientific Internship at RUDN University “General and Specialized Methodology of Philological Science”, 2019

Cover Page

Abstract


The article describes disputes about current issues of the modern scientific paradigm from the standpoint of systemic linguistics, whose powerful explanatory potential remains beyond the scope of the mass trends of linguistic science, and the formulation of new scientific issues as a result of a fruitful extrapolation of the systemic approach to the fields of philology that are not considered by the founders of systemic linguistics. In the first part of the article we considered differences in understanding the object, subject and method in Russian and foreign cognitive linguistics, leading to the loss of the international nature of linguistics, discussion of extremely painful issues for the Russian “cognitive science” about the cognitive futility of the term “concept” and the application of the “cognitive” approach in the study of discourse and text, violation of the continuity between the highest achievements of Russian and foreign scientific thought and the popular modern areas of linguistic research. Further in the article, the standpoint of a systemic typology is applied to the active processes of modern Russian speech. In the light of the approach taken, the facts that seem disparate from the standpoint of the culture of speech, from the standpoint of the systemic typology of languages, appear interconnected and determined by a general tendency - the deformation of the morphological type of the Russian language in the direction of the destruction of inflectivity. The result of the observed typological changes is the reduction in the possibility transfer highly intellectual meanings. An explanation of the principles of the organization of poetic speech in relation to the systemic typology of languages is an example how successfully S.Yu. Preobrazhensky applied the theory of the founder of modern systemic linguistics in the field which is far from interests of G.P. Melnikov. If the coincidence of the boundaries of the verse with the boundaries of the phrase within the sentence means the prevalence of the natural, that is, characteristic of the type of natural language in which the poem is written, principle of division, then the mismatch of boundaries speaks of a poetic technique that seeks to emphasize that the poetic statement is called upon to perform special communicative tasks leading to reconfiguring poetic syntax to other types of languages. The prospects of updating the systemic approach in modern semantic studies of grammar and vocabulary are discussed in the fourth and final part. The obtained results, which are set out in the article become the evidence base of the high potential for using the achievements of systemic linguistics in modern research practices.


About the authors

Olga I. Valentinova

RUDN University (Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia)

Author for correspondence.
Email: valentinova-ov@rudn.ru
6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

DSc in Philology, Full Professor, Professor

Vladimir N. Denisenko

RUDN University (Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia)

Email: denisenko-vn@rudn.ru
6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

DSc in Philology, Full Professor, the Head of the General and Russian Linguistics Department

Mikhail A. Rybakov

RUDN University (Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia)

Email: rybakov_ma@pfur.ru
6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

PhD in Philology, Associate-Professor

References

  1. Skrebtsova, T.G. (2018). Cognitive linguistics: classical theories, new approaches. Moscow: LRC. (In Russ.).
  2. Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for representing Knowledge. In: The Psychology of Computer Vision, P.H. Winston (ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  3. Lakoff, G. (2004). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Moscow: LRC Publishers. (In Russ.).
  4. Fillmore, Ch. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Cuaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222—253.
  5. Langaker, R. (1986). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  6. Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  7. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2004). Metaphors We Live By. Moscow: URSS. (In Russ.).
  9. Araeva, L.A., Bulgakova, O.A., Kalentieva, L.S., Kereksibesov, U.V., Kreidlin, G.E., Crimea, I.A. et al. (2016) Language picture of the world of teleuts. Kemerovo: KGU. (In Russ.).
  10. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. (1963). Selected works on linguistics. 2. Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishing House. (In Russ.).
  11. Araeva, L.A. & Shumilova, A.A. (2012). Frame modeling of word-formation-propositional synonymy (on material of Russian dialects). Philological regional studies, 2(8), 41—45. (In Russ.).
  12. Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  13. Radbil’, T.B. (2017). Language and the world: Paradoxes of reflection. Moscow: LRC Publishers. (In Russ.).
  14. Chudinov, A.P. (2011). Two Cognitive Linguistics. Political Linguistics, 4(38), 296—299. (In Russ.).
  15. Bicilli, P.M. (1996). Notes on some features of the Russian literary language development. In: Selected works on philology. Moscow: Nasledie. pp. 249—340. (In Russ.).
  16. Preobrazhenskij, S.Ju. (2016). Systemic analysis of the verse. In: Valentinova, O.I., Denisenko, V.N., Preobrazhenskij, S.Ju. & Rybakov, M.A. A systemic view as the basis of philological thought. Moscow. pp. 303—376. (In Russ.).
  17. Mel’nikov, G.P. (1971). On the types of linguistic sign dualism. Philological Sciences. Scientific reports of higher education, 5, 54—69. (In Russ.).
  18. Mel’nikov, G.P. (1969). Language sign, meaning and term. In: Place of terminology in the system of modern sciences. Moscow: Moscow State University. pp. 89—92. (In Russ.).
  19. Mel’nikov, G.P. (1971). Semantics and systemic typology. In: Questions of semantics. Moscow: Nauka. pp. 123—126. (In Russ.).
  20. Mel’nikov, G.P. (2003). Systemic linguistics and semiotic foundations for solving the problems of semantics (Article One). Russian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 5—14. (In Russ.).
  21. Mel’nikov, G.P. (2003). Systemic linguistics and semiotic foundations for solving the problems of semantics (Article Two). Russian Journal of Linguistics, 5, 11—20. (In Russ.).
  22. Trufanova, I.V. (2016). What lexico-grammatical categories does the pronoun “kotoryj”? // Philological science and school: Dialogue and cooperation: According to the materials of the VIII International scientific-practical conference / L.V. Dudova (ed.). Moscow: Flinta: Nauka. pp. 18—28. (In Russ.).
  23. Trufanova, I.V. (2017). Lexicographic portrait of a pronoun “inoj”. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 8(3), 509—518. (In Russ.).
  24. Amosova, T.V. (2018). The evolution of the term “rule of law” in the context of globalization. Linguistic aspect. Public administration and personnel, 4, 36—39. (In Russ.).
  25. Amosova, T.V. (2017). The principle of legal certainty in the mirror of linguistic culture. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Education and teaching, 773, 106—118. (In Russ.).

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 124

PDF (Russian) - 36

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2021 Valentinova O.I., Denisenko V.N., Rybakov M.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies