ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКАЯ ПАРАДИГМА КАК ТЕРМИН И КАК КАТЕГОРИЯ ИСТОРИОГРАФИИ НАУКИ О ЯЗЫКЕ
Ли В.С.
Доктор филологических наук, профессор, Казахский национальный университет имени аль-Фараби
ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКАЯ ПАРАДИГМА КАК ТЕРМИН И КАК КАТЕГОРИЯ ИСТОРИОГРАФИИ НАУКИ О ЯЗЫКЕ
Аннотация
В статье рассматриваются проблемы онтологии языка и их трактовка в различных парадигмах научного знания. Анализируются представленные в историографии науки о языке наиболее распространенные интерпретации понятия лингвистической парадигмы. Наибольшей объяснительной силой обладает мировоззренческий подход, так как он позволяет объединить различные понимания парадигмы как научной категории в единую эпистемологическую систему, позволяющую точнее понять и описать природу языка.
Ключевые слова: парадигма знания, методология, историография лингвистики, онтология языка.
Lee V.S.
PhD in Philology, professor, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University
LINGUISTIC PARADIGM AS THE TERM AND AS CATEGORY OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SCIENCE ABOUT LANGUAGE
Abstract
In article problems of ontology of language and their treatment in various paradigms of scientific knowledge are considered. The most widespread interpretations of concept of a linguistic paradigm, presented in historiography of the science of language are analyzed. The world outlook approach poses the greatest explanatory force because it allows to unite various understanding of a paradigm as scientific category in the uniform epistemological system for understanding and describing the nature of language more precisely.
Keywords: knowledge paradigm, methodology, linguistics historiography, language ontology.
It is known that the concept of a scientific paradigm is used as methodological base for the description of a condition of modern linguistics, its main concepts, schools and the directions: "Entered originally by T. Kuhn, repeatedly subsequently modified, rejected by one methodologists of science and still used by others, the concept of a scientific paradigm, or knowledge paradigm, found its place in the linguistic historiography" [1: 19]. However in modern linguistics the concept of a scientific paradigm is not interpreted only ambiguously, but also often is used in relation to different aspects of language and to different components of the science about language. In one case the scientific paradigm is interpreted as one or another direction, in others as is one of aspects of language object, in the third as is a certain branch of linguistics.
The term "paradigm" and in the metodologic-philosophical relation is ambiguously treated: besides Kuhn’s understanding of a paradigm as "models of statement of problems and their decisions in this scientific community" [2: 7], in linguistics its treatment as "a view of language, its ontology", "style of linguistic thinking", "position of a certain linguistic school in the scientific world", "communication of linguistic school with a certain cultural tradition", "language philosophy", "a language epistemologiya", etc. is presented.
Due to such broad and diverse interpretation of scientific concept of a linguistic paradigm arises, naturally, need of establishment of those its aspects which allow to prove after all the acceptability of this term and the concept corresponding to it in relation to a science historiography about language and to its current state.
The concept of a linguistic paradigm is used quite often for the characteristic of various concepts in the certain direction or independent school of modern linguistics. Along with it one of paradigms (descriptive, glossematic, transformational, generating) differ from each other first of all in the research device within uniform "view" to the language, "uniform statement of problems", others (cognitive and communicative) - different "views" of language ontology. Such seeming contradiction is explained by that circumstance that general scientific concepts (and the terms corresponding to them), passing a stage of development, use and judgment, are often used or in very wide value (in this case they start duplicating the existing terms), or in highly specialized, usually reflecting some aspect, new to science, of the studied phenomenon. Therefore similar approach at allocation and qualification of modern linguistic paradigms is quite explainable and methodologically acceptable. At the same time the expert who is engaged in this or that branch of knowledge needs most to be defined accurately, in what value he uses the chosen term, to distinguish the narrow-terminological use and non-terminological, broad understanding of the corresponding word term.
Thus, linguistic paradigms in relation to a current state of science about language are new concepts and theories of language object (1), a special view of language, of its ontologic features (2), new schools of sciences, currents, the directions in linguistics (3), the new methodological principles and new methods of research of language (4) and, at last, new approaches to the solution of these or those linguistic problems (5). The listed parameters making a disciplinary matrix of a paradigm and allowing to outline a circle of distinctive signs by means of which it is possible to explain concept of a modern linguistic paradigm are in the complementarity relation (or crossings), i.e. for example, a certain new concept (1) is connected usually with the change of a view of the nature of language (2) leading to formation of the new methodological principles and scientific methods and receptions of the analysis of language (4) and new approaches to the solution of the posed problems (5) that as a result leads to formation of the new linguistic directions and schools (3). Therefore when they speak, for example, about a cognitive paradigm of language, they mean also the non-conventional branch of science studying language processes and the phenomena as realization of knowledge of the person of the world and their use in mental activity, and a special view of language, and system of research receptions by means of which language is learned as the tool of knowledge and conceptualization of the world, and the corresponding model of statement of problems and their decisions.
The great number of the values put in concept of a linguistic paradigm is connected with complexity and inexhaustibility of object of research (human language) and, strangely enough, a maturity of the science studying and describing it. It is obvious also that there is a need for establishment of the initial, most general, invariant property defining other possible, private realization of this concept and its private interpretations. The interpretation of a condition of the modern linguistic theory as "paradigms of paradigms" doesn't remove methodological questions on which decision "the model of statement of problems" depends. Therefore as the most acceptable it is necessary to recognize the "world outlook" treatment considering a linguistic paradigm as system of certain views of language according to which are formed the standard theory, model, a sample of the solution of linguistic problems, style of scientific thinking and, at last, methods of linguistic research. In total this feature set at each school of sciences, in each certain direction of modern linguistics is shown, naturally, differently, as defines an originality of this or that school of sciences. Therefore, the concept of the linguistic direction needs to be distinguished from concept of a linguistic paradigm. Originality of this or that school is shown in features of a linguistic paradigm (or paradigms). In addition some schools within a uniform, general view on language, similar statement of problems, can differ and in a technique of the solution of objectives and in various aspects of the studied material that finally gives the grounds to speak about various directions within one linguistic paradigm. Such difficult interaction between the concepts "linguistic direction" or "linguistic school" and "linguistic paradigm" as model of statement of problems, totality of views on the language leads sometimes to their mixture which, however, has no basic character because it belongs to area of mainly metaphysical or scholastic disputes round a choice of terminological "label" for this or that concept or the phenomenon.
By the end of XX – the beginning of the XXI centuries some conventional and dominating in linguistic community "views" of language were created (naturally, within the corresponding general scientific paradigms). These linguistic paradigms can be characterized as follows. First, a view to the language as system of signs which contents is defined by their relation to each other (system of values). Within this paradigm (immanently), as we know, schools of structuralism reached of the greatest results, many theoretical provisions and which methods of scientific research became general scientific property not only of linguistics, but also in other humanities and branches of knowledge (for example, structural anthropology, semiotics, literary criticism, first of all poetics, research of phenomena of culture, the social, psychological phenomena and processes, etc.) . Secondly, a view to the language as the activity of the speaking subjects which is carrying out in certain conditions of communication and with a certain installation and the purpose (linguistic pragmatic paradigm). Thirdly, a view to the language as the tool, which basic purpose – verbal (verbal and speech) communication (a communicative paradigm). Fourthly, a view to the language as a form of consciousness and thinking in which the system of knowledge of the person of the world speaking and thinking in this or that language (a cognitive paradigm) is realized.
Naturally, the listed paradigms of knowledge in linguistics of the XX-XXI centuries according to "world outlook" approach to a concept "a linguistic paradigm" are stood out at the most general and fragmentary review of a state of affairs in linguistics of the considered period. Here only the most noticeable paradigms about which most often there are disputes and discussions in scientific community and which, so to speak, constantly "very famous" are specified. Any linguist seeking to be aware of the latest scientific developments including a linguistic historiography is obliged to know them.
There are, however, and other lists of "views" to the language as object of linguistics and, respectively, other list of paradigms of knowledge in science of language. So, for example, Yu.S. Stepanov, characterizing the main "images of language", or "views to the language", in the XX century, considers that they can be reduced to the following: "language as the individual's language" (1), "language as the member of the family of languages" (2), "language as structure" (3), "language as system" (4), "language as type and character" (5), "computer approach to language" (6), "language as space of thought and as the house of spirit" [4:19], (see also [5]). Thus the given "images of language", or linguistic paradigms, according to YU.S. Stepanova, don't settle down as historical or chronological change of the scientific eras which are completely denying each other. That is why it is impossible to consider the called main linguistic paradigms (are possible also other versions of the list of paradigms) presented in the XX century as the alternative, mutually excluding each other approaches to language and when they speak about change of paradigms of knowledge, it isn't necessary to understand it that is replacements of one paradigm to another. It, really, not simply "changing of the guard", and new approach to language which, perhaps, became actual owing to action of external or actually linguistic reasons.
It is necessary to speak about coexistence of paradigms (a condition of paradigmatic pluralism) as such difficult phenomenon what language of the person is, can't be described by means of one them even if the most "revolutionary" or "fashionable" paradigm. The general scientific principle of a complementarity assumes coexistence of several interpretation of any multidimensional phenomenon (such the natural language acts) depending on the point of view of the observer on the studied object, language in particular. Besides, in a linguistic historiography also the situation when there was some kind of "self-return" of this or that paradigm to the different periods of history of linguistics is often noted. Therefore there was quite obvious a need for establishment of the most general regularities of science about language throughout a considerable interval of time. It is felt not only by historiographers of linguistics, but also by everything who deals with modern problems of linguistics.
It is also required to define a place of each scientific direction in the general development of science about language, to characterize features of separate linguistic school, its contribution to development of science. These and many other aspects of history of linguistic doctrines and a modern linguistic historiography can be presented without contradictions and with a necessary explanatory force in concepts and terms of the common general scientific and historiographical conception. The theory of a scientific paradigm possesses of the greatest explanatory force among the modern theories of language and in a linguistic historiography of conceptual constructions (about them see [3: 204-205]) first of all because of the concept of a paradigm of knowledge unites various directions and currents in one scientific discipline, promotes their more complete idea by means of the standard initial principles and, at last, helps to resolve a contradiction between thesises: "the modern linguistics - uniform science" and "modern linguistics disintegrates to some independent sciences".
References
- Kubryakova E.S., in search of essence of language. Cognitive researches. – M.: Sign, 2012. - 208 pages.
- Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions/with an introductory essay by I.Hacking. - Fourth ed. - Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2012. – xlvi. - 217 p.
- Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. – M.: Big Russian encyclopedia, 2002. – 685 pages.
- Stepanov Yu.S. Language and method. To modern philosophy of language. M.: Languages of the Russian culture, 1998. – 784 pages.
- Stepanov Yu.S. Myslyashchy reed. The book about "The imagined literature". - M.: Eidos, 2010 – 168 pages.