Lecture
«We exist... in language and by means of language,» writes the twentieth-century German philosopher M. Heidegger (1889—1976). It is precisely for this reason that language is one of the most complex and difficult-to-define phenomena in scholarship.
3.2. Natural human language as the «spiritual energy of a people», the «spirit of a people» (W. von Humboldt) and as a system (F. de Saussure).
Natural language as an object of contemporary philology
«We exist... in language and by means of language,» writes the twentieth-century German philosopher M. Heidegger (1889—1976). It is precisely for this reason that language is one of the most complex and difficult-to-define phenomena in
scholarship.
To disclose the essence of language as an object of philology, let us begin from the understanding of language in linguistics. It is linguistics that, as
Saussure wrote, comprehends language «in general,» i.e. language as one of the
objects of reality in its relation to other objects.
The understanding of language in contemporary linguistics goes back to the ideas of W. von Humboldt (1767—1835) and F. de Saussure (1857—1913),
who created two fundamental conceptions of language.
According to Humboldt, «language is not a product of activity (ergon), but activity itself (energeia)». This proposition means that language is in constant motion: every person, every generation, by using it, acts upon it. Language
is both something stable and, at the same time, something constantly changing.
Language is a continuous creative process. Recognizing this
proposition makes it possible to study language in its use, in its development. (See, in the reading materials given below, excerpts from the book of W. von Humboldt.)
According to Saussure, language is a system of signs. Every sign,
Saussure maintained, has two sides: an external one, i.e. the signifier, and an internal one, i.e. the signified. This unity of the signifier
and the signified is precisely the sign. For example: the word fog as a unity
of a sound or graphic image (the signifier) and a meaning
(the signified). The system determines the internal structure of language:
all elements entering into the system turn out to be connected, and the
system itself forms a whole. Thus, the signs of language stand in relations of synonymy, antonymy, homonymy, and others. Recognizing this
proposition creates the possibility of studying language in a given state, as «linguistic technique».
The complexity of the nature of language lies in the fact that it is both an activity and a system of signs at the same time. Therefore, on the basis of
the ideas of Humboldt and Saussure, language is studied as a sign system in the processes of its «life». Such is the situation in linguistics.
For philology, it is an understanding of language that serves all the philological sciences, not linguistics alone, that is essential.
And yet let us begin with linguistics. It builds a theoretical picture of natural human language, i.e. of Language
in its use (natural human language as such was written with a capital letter: Language). The main elements in the contemporary picture of language are its functions — the communicative
(the function of communication) and others. As fragments of this picture
stand also the characteristics of the languages of imaginative literature, politics, law, and others, as varieties of Language. (See
in the reading materials given below, excerpts from the book of
the mid-twentieth-century French scholar É. Benveniste.)
Let us turn to literary studies. Literary studies sees
in language an instrument of verbal creativity.
«To be an instrument» is a functional characteristic of language. In the philological and other humanities sciences, language
is often qualified as a means of communication (cf. the common
«definition»: language is the most important means of communication). In the notion of an instrument, in contrast to the notion of a means, the moment of activity is
emphasized. The function «to be an instrument» brings forward
in the general characterization of language its active principle. This thought,
in essence, was expressed by Humboldt: «Language is not merely a
means for understanding a people — it is the unified spiritual
energy of the people, wondrously imprinted in certain, in
definite sounds». (In the notion of «spiritual energy» lies
the thought that language is not a collection of words, sentences,
and rules for their use, but an active activity.)
In what does the active principle of language as an instrument
of verbal creativity manifest itself?
We are speaking above all of the fact that a given object
(thing, feature, action, etc.), a situation of reality,
can be designated by different words and different sentences. Synonyms exist in Language. See the example of lexical
synonyms: evenness — smoothness; to get along — to come to terms. See
syntactic constructions denoting one and the same situation: I love you — I love you.
For the language of imaginative literature, especially for the language of poetry, the use of figurative devices is important, whether inherent
in the national language or created by the author himself. See, from
V. Mayakovsky: Mama, your son's heart is on fire; from A. Akhmatova: And the Muse in a threadbare shawl / Sings drawn out and mournful.
The main way in which the activity of the language of imaginative
literature manifests itself is in the ways of combining linguistic means in the text.
Let us give an example. It is well known that, for conveying natural human speech in a text, there exist in language constructions with reported speech — direct, indirect, free indirect, and others. Let us cite excerpts from V.M. Shukshin's story «Vanka Teplyashin»:
And the mother was already standing near this thin man with red eyes,
pleading with him. The red-eyed man did not even listen to her.
— This is for me! — Vanka had already said from a distance. — This is my mother.
— Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, — the red-eyed man droned mechanically.
<...>
...but this red-eyed man held her back (the mother. — A.Ch.).
— Back.
— But she's here for me! — Vanka shouted. — What's wrong with you?
— Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, — again he tapped out three times,
this... watchman, or whatever they're called.
<...>
— Ba-ack, — the man said, somehow even with disgust.
<...>
— Stigneev! Lizaveta Sergeevna!.. — he shouted. — Come here!
There's lawlessness going on here! — And he, spreading his arms as if he had to
catch someone violently insane, went at Vanka. <...> He looked around and
shouted again: — Stigneev!
<...>
— Come here! — the red-eyed man shouted. And, spreading his arms,
began falling upon Vanka.
Here is given the whole speech part of the red-eyed man. Taken
separately, each of the constructions with direct speech merely conveys «without changes» the person's utterance. In the text of the story
these «commanding» utterances are given densely, compactly, bound together with the description of the character's actions, with the designation of the character («red-eyed»: who in Russia has red eyes?!). In this
way an image is created of a man of power (= power, according to M. Foucault,
is a multiplicity of relations of force), for whom people are
not people.
It turns out that language creates the possibility of constructing
in an artistic text a certain «possible world» — one that is both «similar» to actual reality, and not at all «similar» to
it. Note the fragments just cited
from V.M. Shukshin's story: the story told by the writer is
both readily recognizable and, at the same time, represents an authorial
invention. This story, even if it did take place in life,
is «torn out» of the situation of actual reality and appears
generalized.
Finally, let us say a word about another quality of the language of imaginative literature. Let us use for this the formula of A.A. Potebnya
(1835—1891): «To speak does not mean to convey one's thought to another, but only to arouse in the other his own thoughts»2
.
Above all thanks to language, a work of imaginative literature becomes, as M.M. Bakhtin noted,
a totality of factors of «artistic impression», i.e. it
creates and organizes the sphere of a person's sensory (aesthetic) perception of reality.
The mid-twentieth-century Russian philologist B.V. Tomashevsky wrote: «We know that a genuine writer is, in his creative work, never indifferent to the forms of language <...>.
Through language the writer's thought and his attitude toward reality are expressed; by means of language he not only
communicates his design to the reader, but also acts upon his feelings and imagination, makes him become agitated, sympathize, love and hate, live through with the characters their joys and sorrows, condemn
or justify their conduct, and by this the writer achieves his
goal: to convince the reader, to make him believe in the truth of what is
78 79
depicted, to enrich his life experience, and to prepare him for
creative activity»3
.
Thus, in fulfilling its task of «being an instrument», language succeeds in the most complex (the most «subtle», properly human)
sphere — the sphere of verbal creativity. Let us recall Humboldt:
language is not ergon, but energeia. Let us recall Saussure as well: within the system of language lie the necessary means and rules. Here converge
the positions of the two directions we have examined in the study of language in
linguistics. Therefore, grounds arise for posing the
general question: what in language is essential for all the philological sciences? The answer to this question follows: the functional nature of language.
For the contemporary philological sciences, a functional (Lat. functio — performance, execution) understanding of language is fruitful.
In investigating the purpose of language, the greatest twentieth-century linguist,
N. Chomsky (b. 1928, USA), remarked: «Language participates in a decisive way
in thought, action, and social relations»4
. In other words,
language underlies practically all spheres of human life:
without language, neither communication nor consciousness is possible. Therefore, in the science of
language, two basic functions of language are named: the communicative
(Lat. communicatio) — the function of communication; the cognitive (Lat. cognitio) — the function of forming thought.
In order for language to be able to fulfill its purposes, it
turns out to be thoroughly functional: it is both structured and operates functionally.
On the structure of language. In language as a system of signs there are
two basic units: the word and the sentence.
The word designates an object, feature, action, and the like, singling them out of the world of reality as distinct entities. See:
the most frequent content words of the Russian language: to say, to speak, to know, year, big, time, new, most, person, people. The word creates a semantic space around itself,
it is the center of all semantic «currents», the impulse behind the semantic development of a text.
According to the observation of N.A. Kozhevnikova (see: Russian Language Today. Moscow, 2000. Issue 1. Pp. 530—539), some of the stories
of A.P. Chekhov are built on the basis of figurative parallels: life —
a path, world — theater, world — prison, life — a dream. In this respect
the story «Ward No. 6» turns out to be intricately constructed, where the words prison and hospital stand side by side, and the motif hospital — prison
runs throughout.
Another example is a brand in one of the advertisements: Paris dresses
the women of the whole world. Under the «spell» of the name Paris fall both the advertised product, the firm, and the conditions of purchasing the product: such is the power of the effect of the name of a symbol-city. (See in the
reading materials given below, excerpts from R. Barthes's article «Preface to the Hachette Dictionary».)
The sentence designates a situation (a complex sentence — a «bundle» of situations) as a certain complex of objects,
actions, etc. See: English Here were books on the table; Russian On
the table lay books (1); English I gave my mother a spoon; Russian
I gave my mother a spoon (2); Russian Midnight; German Mitternacht (3). These
are the situations: (1) the sentence denotes the existence of an object; (2) — denotes an action; (3) — a state.
A situation may be denoted briefly or expansively, incompletely
or over-completely. Compare the description of situations in two texts:
l in A.S. Pushkin's tale «The Captain's Daughter»: I looked out of the kibitka: everything was murk and whirlwind. The wind howled with such fierce expressiveness that it seemed animate; snow covered
me and Savelich; the horses walked at a pace — and soon stopped;
l in S. Sokolov's tale «A School for Fools»: To the pond
led, in fact, all the paths and little roads, all in our locality. From the most distant dachas, situated at the edge of the forest, led
thin, faint, almost unreal paths.
Conduct a thought experiment: try to exclude
from the text even one word denoting a component of the situation. From Pushkin's text this most likely cannot be done: in
it only the «load-bearing» components of the situation are represented, without
which it would collapse. From Sokolov's text such exclusion is possible: as a result the situation does not collapse, but its representation and perception are greatly impoverished. What has been said demonstrates
not the advantages of one author or the other, but a way of presenting situations in texts: full and over-full. Out of sentences conveying situations, a text is created. What significance this
fact has for the text as a whole, from the point of view of the artistic impression
produced by the text, is another question. We invite the reader to ponder the question posed at leisure.
Language in action represents a mechanism that produces an utterance about a person, objects, phenomena, events, etc.
Unlike the word and the sentence, which exist in
language as a system and are «given» to every speaker (writer) and listener (reader) by the system of language, the utterance is created by the speaker (writer) for the sake of the listener (reader) anew each time, each time in a new situation.
This happens even when the speaker and the listener physically coincide («Where is this damned electricity?!» — says
one of V. Kataev's characters to himself, having failed to find the switch). This also happens when the listener (reader) perceives (= listens to, reads) a text: reading (listening) is, in the final analysis, the creation of one's own text — as
the result of the perception of someone else's text. It is no accident, for example, that retellings of one and the same text, written by different authors
(say, by pupils at school), differ from one another.
What is the production of an utterance? We shall obtain an answer to this question by examining one example.
Suppose that, in the course of a conversation with some person, we
need to find out what time it is. The production of an utterance passes through several stages. The first is the stage of forming the motive: the utterance is created in accordance with a need.
For example, this may be the necessity of ending the conversation in time and moving on to another matter — to a conversation with another person, of managing to get
to a class, to a date, and so on. This need can be satisfied by means of certain actions directed toward
achieving the goal. The goal — to find out what time it is.
What are these actions? Above all, this is the forming of the sense of the utterance and the choice of the form (genre) of the utterance by which the goal will be achieved. This can be a question: What
time is it? / How much time is it? / What's the time? or a request: Tell me,
what time it is.
There then follows a series of complex actions connected with «putting sense into speech»: a syntactic construction, vocabulary,
and other linguistic means are chosen, they are «joined together», intonationally
shaped: the utterance is pronounced (written down) and
thereby becomes accessible to the listener (reader).
In the process of «putting sense into speech», both the sense itself and the utterance
may be corrected (recall how, sometimes when communicating in a
chat or on «Skype», one has to delete individual words, and sometimes whole, almost finished utterances).
Let us return to our example. Depending on the specific
situation (who is speaking with whom, about what, in what setting the communication takes place, for what purpose), the utterance takes on this
or that particular form.
The decisive feature of an utterance, in contrast, for example, to
a sentence, consists in the fact that the utterance, as M.M. Bakhtin
emphasized, pertains to the speaker (writer) and
the listener (reader) themselves. This relation is already manifested in
which one, out of a possible series, the speaker creates: What time is it?
How much time is it? / What's the time? or Tell me what time it is; and so
on; toward which listener (reader) the utterance is oriented — for example, toward a friend, a girlfriend, a person significantly differing from the speaker in age, social
status, toward a chance stranger, and so on.
Thus, the production of an utterance represents a process in the course of which, in a given specific situation, within
a particular generic form, a verbal unity is created that is oriented toward the participants in the speech interaction. (See
in the reading materials given below, excerpts from the book of
M.M. Bakhtin «Author and Hero. Toward the Philosophical Foundations of the Human Sciences». These excerpts disclose the characteristics of
the utterance.)
Why are two classes of basic units of language distinguished?
To answer this question let us return to the beginning of the chapter. In examining the essence of language in linguistics, it was noted that
both understandings of language — Humboldt's and Saussure's — stand in
relations of complementarity, since each of them discloses only one facet of language as an object of reality.
82 83
Therefore language as a system has its own basic units (the word
and the sentence), and language in action has its own (the utterance).
Finally, let us distinguish the utterance and the text. The English
linguist of the second half of the twentieth century M.A.K. Halliday remarked:
«Text is language in action». If this is so, then text and utterance are «one and the same». However, differences between them
do exist. They are determined by which system the
object is studied in. If the text is examined from the point of view of its production, then it is studied as an utterance.
Comments