1. Antique period of psycholinguistics

In relation to the study of speech processes, this period can be defined as the birth of initial ideas about speech and speech activity, many of which arose within the framework of philosophy and were purely speculative in nature. At the same time, in a number of scientific regions a large amount of empirical material was accumulated, which was theoretically comprehended (for example, rhetorical schools); original experiments were also conducted (for example, by Aristotle and other philosophers).

Speech as a process interested people from ancient times. Thus, the Egyptian Monument of Memphis Theology (IV millennium BC. E.) States that “language repeats what is conceived by the heart,” that is, from modern positions it is stated that language is associated with the psyche, is its product.

In the "theory of naming", which dominated in the ancient period (in the Greek-Latin region), speech was considered as a process of speaking. At the same time, it was argued that speech always causes some (responsive) action or attitude (of things, phenomena or people with each other).

The well-known ancient Greek philosopher and public figure Democritus (V in. BC) believed that language serves for activity and communication and, being a symbolic phenomenon, acts as a means of expressing reality.

The great philosopher of the Ancient World Plato (427–347 BC. E.) Views speech as an activity, a product of human consciousness. For example, in the Kratyl dialogue book, he points out: “But to speak, isn't it one of the actions?” [15] Plato believes that the name (word) is “... an instrument of learning and distribution of entities.” [16 ] The philosopher raises the question of the role of the individual (the “name-maker”, the “legislator” of speech) in the naming process. The purpose of speech, according to Plato, is to transmit the content. “Speech, when it exists,” Plato writes, “must be a speech about something: after all, speech is about anything impossible.” [17] However, in his opinion, “it is not from names (words of notation. Note of the author) that one should study and investigate things, but much more likely from themselves.” [18] Speech is not just a name, but “the achievement of something” in the “intertwining of verbs with names.” [19] Plato is perhaps the first to discuss the relationship between thinking (psyche) and speech, revealing the complex nature of this relationship. He believes that thinking is "the reasoning that the soul leads with itself about what it observes." When she, “having caught something, determines it and does not hesitate any more, then we consider this to be an opinion. So [...] to have an opinion is to argue, and an opinion is a verbal expression, but without voice and addressed not to someone else, but to himself, in silence. ”[20] While thinking with oneself, Plato writes, “our soul resembles ... a kind of book” [...] “A memory aimed at the same sensations and the impressions associated with these sensations seem to me like recording relevant speeches in our soul. And when such an impression is recorded correctly, then this gives us a true opinion and true speeches. ”[21] As we see, Plato not only poses, but also tries to find a solution to the fundamental problems of speech activity, problems that still concern the minds of scientists.

The outstanding philosopher of ancient Greece, the teacher and spiritual mentor of Alexander the Great, Aristotle (384–322 BC. E.) Creates a comprehensive system of ideas about speech, which had a great influence on its research over many subsequent centuries. In his writings, Aristotle emphasizes that speech is a significant phenomenon. Relationship is built in human activity: objects - representations - signs (signs of language). According to Aristotle, what is reflected in the sound combinations is “these are signs of representations in the soul, and the letters are signs of what is in sound combinations.” [22] Aristotle for the first time in the study of speech applied the experiment. He compared the structure and function of sound-forming apparatus in humans and animals. “Every speech,” says Aristotle, “signifies something, but not as a natural instrument, but ... by virtue of an agreement.” [23] The philosopher pays attention to the communicative nature of speech. A person possesses feelings “not for the sake of existence, but for the sake of good ... hearing, that he himself was told something, and speech — to communicate something to others." [24] Speech is intended to express relationships, connections. “From what is said,” emphasizes Aristotle, “one says in connection, the other without connection. One thing in connection, for example: "man runs", "man wins"; another without communication, for example: "man", "bull", "running", "winning". [25] “Saying is saying something about something.” [26] Therefore, the structure of the speech utterance is constituted by the subject and the predicate. Aristotle examines the relationship of the individual and the general in speech and psyche, indicating, in particular, the commonality of ideas among all people, which the authors of the so-called Sc. universal (philosophical, "rational") grammars. “Just as the letters are not the same for all [people],” writes Aristotle, “so the sound combinations are not the same. However, the representations in the soul, the immediate signs of which are the essence of what is in sound combinations, all [people] are the same, the same things are the same, the similarities of which are representations. ”[27] Aristotle establishes 10 categories, which later served as the basis for correlating them with certain parts of speech. On this occasion, he writes: “From what has been said without any connection, each means either essence, or how much, or what, or in relation to something, or where, or when, or “To be in some position”, or “to possess”, or “to act”, or “to undergo”. But each of the above does not in itself contain any statement; affirmation or denial is obtained by combining them. "[28] At the same time, Aristotle spoke of the inconsistency of judgment as a logical category and a sentence as a grammatical category. Understanding speech as an activity, Aristotle emphasized its functional and multi-form character, its connection with the goals of the activity and the situations in which the activity proceeds (“observance of the appropriateness” of the syllable and means of speech). In particular, among the "turns" of speech, he singled out: affirmation, denial, question, order, prayer, story, threat, answer , etc. [29]

The ancient Greek philosopher Chrysippus (3rd century BC) and other Stoics long before the modern scholars postulate the tripartite sign [30] spoke of the necessary connection between the signified, signifying and object.

The Indian scholar Bharthari (I century AD.) Argued that a sentence is the basis of a language, because it expresses a thought; the sentence is indivisible, since it conveys a single thought. The ideas expressed by Bharthari and some other scholars of antiquity and the following epochs about the dominance in speech of "large (linguistic) constructions" have proved to be very fruitful in our time.

The tasks of "grammatical art" - one of the directions in the field of language learning (speech) in schools of rhetoric - included, in particular, the formation of correct (i.e. proper, normative) use of speech and the acquisition of necessary knowledge with it. From the analysis of the systems of "rhetoric" that were very developed in the ancient period, it can be concluded that speech was understood, using modern language, as a bio-psycho-social unity. The main components (concepts) of rhetoric were “ethos”, “logos”, “pathos”. Athos was defined as the ethical, moral position of a person who influences other people. Logos is a concrete, significant thought which from the point of view of the speaker should influence interlocutors (communicators). Paphos - a form of expression that corresponds to the purpose and situation of speaking (communication). These components (ethos, logos, pathos) must be present in the speaker’s speech during the entire process of speech. Rhetorians (teachers of rhetoric) formed speech not as a self-contained phenomenon, but in connection with the tasks of non-speech (primarily public) activity and in different situations of speech communication. At the same time, speech was considered as a holistic and multi-form education (as an interconnected unity, primarily, of oral and kinetic — gestural-pantomimic speech).

In all systems of rhetoric, attention was drawn to the sequence of stages in the construction of a speech utterance. So, classes began with exercises in “mental speech”; in other words, from the point of view of modern psycholinguistic notions, “meanings-meanings” (“semantic components”) of forthcoming statements were formed, their planning was carried out. Then prosodic components of speech were worked out, and above all, melodic (intonational) components, which, as is well known, are closely related to semantic and syntactic ones. Together with them, “articulatory components” (speech breathing, voice, actual articulation) were tested. Classes ended with training of different forms of speech in different forms of activity and in different situations of communication. As we see, already in ancient rhetoric, modern ideas about the main components of the speech process actually manifested themselves.

The processes of speech formation were indirectly investigated and discussed in the analysis of speech pathology. Some ancient scholars have paid attention to the disorder of the mechanisms of speech processes, more precisely, to the causes provoking the breakdown of these mechanisms (Aristotle, Celius Aurelian, Aulus Cornelius Celsus, Hehizi and others).