HE. Laguta
LOGIC AND LINGUISTICS
(Novosibirsk, 2000)
INTRODUCTION
The course of logic, to our great regret, is now excluded from a number of subjects studied by students of philology at NSU, although the importance of logical science, its laws, techniques and operations in the practical and theoretical work of a linguist can hardly be overestimated. It is possible to recommend textbooks on logic for students specializing in the humanities, but there is no textbook on logic for linguists, although it is linguists who study the reflection of logical categories and logical-objective relations by means of different languages.
Given tutorial has the traditional composition of a textbook on logic and is accompanied by comments of a linguistic nature. The main purpose of this publication is to familiarize students of philology with the basics of logical science and with those terms that are used both in logic and in linguistics, or have received further interpretation in linguistics research.
The connection of linguistics with logic is primordial.
According to the history of its origin and development, European formal logic is especially closely connected with the three sciences - philosophy, grammar and mathematics. Its creator is Aristotle(384 - 322 BC). The very term "logic", introduced by the Stoics (in contrast to them, Aristotle applied the term "analytics" to the laws of thought), denoted the verbal expression of thought ( logos). Thus, it is in ancient philosophy the question of the relationship between thinking and language was identified, and it is from antiquity that we observe the identification of mental, logical and linguistic structures that is still encountered in some works. Language is considered as a flexible tool for expressing thoughts; accordingly, the language system is considered a kind of explication of the mental system. The main principle for most Greek philosophers was the principle of "trust in language" in its discovery of the mind and trust in the mind in its knowledge of the physical world. It was assumed that, just as a name expresses the essence of the object it designates, the structure of speech reflects the structure of thought. Therefore, the theory of judgment was based on the properties of a sentence capable of expressing truth. The earliest terms applied by the Greeks to the language had a syncretic logical-linguistic meaning. term logos and speech, and thought, and judgment, and sentence were designated. Name (Greek) onoma) referred both to the class of words (nouns) and to their role in judgment (subject); verb (gr. rema) meant both the part of speech and the corresponding member of the sentence (predicate). Thus, attention was fixed only on cases of mutual correspondence, harmony of logical and linguistic categories.
In subsequent centuries, philosophers also dealt with formal logic and made a number of new discoveries in this area, but the structure of logic as a science, developed by Aristotle, essentially did not change. This form of logic is also called "traditional logic". Separate significant contributions to the further development of formal logic, made, for example, at the end of the 17th century Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz(1646 - 1717), had practically no effect on its traditional form. Only in the middle of the 19th century did the rapid development of this science begin. In this regard, the most important role was played by Gottlieb Frege(1848 - 1925), who is considered the creator of modern logic, and his works are compared with those of Aristotle.
1. Definition of logic as a science
Logic is most often defined as the philosophical science of the forms in which human thinking proceeds and the laws to which it obeys.
Therefore, to understand this problem, we need to answer three main questions:
a) what is thinking (it is often identified with language, but this is not the same thing);
b) what is the form of thinking;
c) what is the law.
Elucidation of the degree and specific nature of the connection between language and thinking is one of the central problems of theoretical linguistics and philosophy of language from the very beginning of their development. In solving this problem, deep differences are found - from the direct identification of language with thinking (F. Schleiermacher, I.G. Gaman) or their excessive convergence with the exaggeration of the role of language (W. von Humboldt, L. Levy-Bruhl, behaviorists, neo-Humboldtians, neo-positivists , American ethnolinguists, etc.) to denying the direct connection between them (F.E. Beneke, N.Ya. Grot) or, more often, ignoring thinking in the methodology of linguistic research (for example, representatives of the Moscow Fortunatov school or American descriptivists).
2. Thinking, its forms and laws
Our thinking is subject to logical laws and, of course, proceeds in logical forms independently of the science of logic: people think logically without even knowing that their thinking is subject to certain logical laws. Thinking, from the traditional materialistic point of view, is the highest form of active reflection of objective reality, consisting in a purposeful, mediated and generalized cognition the subject of significant connections and relationships between objects and phenomena, in the creative creation of new ideas, in predicting events and actions [Spirkin, 1983]. The science of the nature of knowledge - epistemology. In traditional Western epistemology, knowledge was considered as a certain given, but for modern epistemology its procedural definition is more characteristic, and therefore interest in such problems as the genesis of knowledge, its growth, its progress, its emergence in the process of ontogenesis (the process of development of an individual organism), is great. . The ancestor of one of the areas of epistemology - genetic was a Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget(1896 - 1980): his ideas and developments in the field of studying the processes of formation of the child's thinking formed the basis for explaining the formation of the genesis of human thinking in general. The main guideline in the construction of genetic epistemology was the ideas evolutionary theory development (evolutionary biology). The theory of the ontogeny of the intellect was interpreted by Piaget as the basis of a general theory of cognition, and, accordingly, he considered in detail the question of the growth of the intellect in a child and the development of basic intellectual operations in him: expanding his ideas about the structure of thinking, Piaget used to describe it not only a set of certain categories, but he also singled out the main mental operations (on categories and operations, see in detail paragraph 5 of our publication). According to Piaget, the individual responds to information coming from environment, based on the database that he has. New data is transformed in such a way as to adapt to already existing intellectual schemes. At the same time, these schemas adjust to accommodate the incorporation of new data and gradually transform themselves. On the basis of experimental data, Piaget came to the conclusion that there are three main stages in the cognitive development of a child, which are characterized by a strict sequence of formation: 1) sensorimotor (from the moment the individual is born (and now includes the prenatal period) to mastering the language - 0 - 2 years ), 2) specific operational (7 - 12 years old) and 3) formal operational (12 - 15 years old). The growth of knowledge appears not as an increase and expansion of the number of representations of reality ( empiricism) or unfolding in logical constructions of the so-called innate ideas ( apriorism), but as a process of continuous structuring with the help of certain mental schemes, resulting from the interaction of the organism with the environment. At the same time, sociocultural factors were ignored, and this caused a lot of critical speeches against Piaget's theory of genetic epistemology [Pankrats, 1996a].
Piaget's ideas had a tremendous impact on the development of ontolinguistics (linguistics of children's speech).
The next branch of epistemology is evolutionary- associated with names K. Lorenz(Germany) and D. Campbell(USA). The main task of evolutionary epistemology is the study of the biological premises of human cognition. It is based on the idea that a person has a cognitive apparatus developed in the process of biological evolution, therefore, the explanation of the processes of cognition is carried out on the basis of the modern theory of evolution. The cognitive abilities of man are the achievement of the innate apparatus for reflecting the world. This apparatus was developed in the course of the ancestral history of man and makes it possible to actually approach a non-subjective reality. G. Vollmer(Germany) wrote the following about this: "Our cognitive apparatus is the result of evolution. The subjective structures of cognition correspond to reality, since they were developed in the course of evolutionary adaptation to this real world. They are consistent (partially) with real structures, because only such coordination ensures the possibility of survival." Modern evolutionary epistemology takes into account the results of research in biology, physics, psychology, linguistics and other sciences. The main provisions of evolutionary epistemology include the following: 1) the emergence of life coincides with the formation of structures that have the ability to receive and accumulate information, "life is a process of obtaining information" (Lorentz), cognition is a function of life; 2) any living beings are equipped with a system of innate "a priori" cognitive structures, and the formation of these structures is carried out in accordance with the evolutionary doctrine: as a result of selection, those of them are fixed that are most suitable for environmental conditions and contribute to survival. Criticism of evolutionary epistemology is related to the fact that within the framework of the latter, different types of cognitive abilities are not distinguished, such as: inherited in the course of genetic formation; used in the course of individual development, mainly in childhood; culturally determined, associated, for example, with the typological features of the language.
Naturalized epistemology associated with the work of the American philosopher Willard van Ormen Quine(b. 1908), who argued that epistemology should be considered as part of psychology and, accordingly, as part of natural science. The study of the processes of obtaining knowledge is carried out not directly, but through the observation of a person as a certain physical object. The task of epistemology, from Quine's point of view, is to explain how sensory data obtained through the impact of objects of the external world on the senses contribute to the creation of a theory of the external world [Pankrats, 1996a].
The solution of the main question of philosophy - what is primary, matter or consciousness - allows us to divide the methodological approach to research into idealistic and materialistic. The idealistic concept is considered in detail within the framework of the theme "Ancient linguistic tradition". Here we briefly recall the materialistic view of knowledge.
Traditionally domestic materialistic philosophy 20th century considers cognition as a process of reflection by human consciousness of objective reality that exists outside this consciousness and independently of it. In other words, the external world and its reflection in the human mind are recognized. Cognition begins with the reflection of the surrounding world by the sense organs, which give direct knowledge of reality and are the source of all our knowledge. Sensory cognition proceeds in three main forms - sensations, perceptions, ideas - leading to the emergence of abstract thinking. Feeling- this is a reflection of individual sensually perceived properties of objects of the material world: color, shape, smell, taste, etc. A holistic image of an object that arises as a result of the direct impact of the latter on the senses is called perception. A higher form of sensory knowledge is representation.
Performance- this is a sensual image of an object that was previously perceived in the mind, that is, there is an idea of an object even when there is no effect on the senses (though the question remains: if we are considering an object at a given moment, do we have an idea about him?). But here it should be noted that each person has a different idea of the same subject: it has individual features. Moreover, it is natural for a person to strive to generalize perceptions and ideas, and generalization is impossible without abstract thinking. It is with the help of abstract thinking that a person cognizes (or thinks that he cognizes) phenomena that are inaccessible to sensory cognition (for example, a number). So, the process of cognition includes sensory cognition and abstract thinking. The features of abstract thinking include:
The ability to reflect reality in generalized images;
The ability to reflect reality indirectly (this is an inductive-deductive process: induction- a type of generalization associated with the anticipation of the results of observations and experiments based on past experience, deduction- transition from the general to the particular);
The ability to actively reflect reality (by creating abstractions, a person transforms knowledge about the objects of reality, expressing them not only by means of a natural language, but also by the symbols of a formalized language that plays a huge role in modern science);
- inextricable link between abstract thinking and language. Language has the ability to symbolize, and the problem of symbolization is closely related to the problem of the relationship between language and thinking. French structuralist Emil Benveniste(1902 -1976) in the article "Categories of Thought and Categories of Language" emphasized that mental operations, regardless of whether they are abstract or concrete, always receive expression in language. The content must pass through the language, acquiring a certain framework in it. Otherwise thought, if not reduced to nothing, is reduced to something so indefinite and undifferentiated that we have no possibility of perceiving it as a "content" different from the form that language gives it. The linguistic form is thus not only a condition for the transmission of thought, but above all a condition for its realization. We comprehend the thought already formed by the language framework. Outside the language, there are only vague motives, volitional impulses, resulting in gestures and facial expressions.
With the help of language, people express and consolidate the results of their mental activity and solve all information-accumulative and communicative tasks. There is no direct correspondence between the units of thought and the units of language: in the same language, one thought can be framed by different sentences, words and phrases, and the same words can be used to frame different concepts and ideas. Moreover, auxiliary, deictic, some expressive words and interjections do not name certain concepts, and motivating, interrogative, etc. sentences are designed only to express the will and subjective attitude of the speaker to any facts. At the same time, in the grammatical structure of the language there are a number of formal categories that are correlated with the general categories of thinking [Melnichuk, 1990]. Some of them are shown in the table.
|
Logical (semantic) categories |
Language elements |
|
Subject |
|
|
Predicate |
Predicate |
|
Addition |
|
|
Definition |
|
|
object, event |
Noun |
|
Process (action, state) | |
|
Quality |
Adjective |
|
Quantity | |
|
Communications; relationship | |
|
Units of the functional-temporal field |
The question of the connection between units of thought and units of language is still open. There are different opinions: some researchers believe that those that are expressed in the language in one word should be considered as the simplest mental units, and as complex - phrases and sentences. Others suggest that the simplest mental entities are semes (semantic factors, semantic features, minimal units of meaning), which systematically organize the lexical meanings of the corresponding words and are found only as a result of component analysis. Some scholars believe that the basic mental entities are reflected in the grammar of languages, and it is grammatical categorization that creates that conceptual grid, that framework for the distribution of all conceptual material that is expressed lexically. And, finally, there is a compromise point of view: some of the mental information has a linguistic "binding", i.e., ways of linguistic expression, but some is represented by mental representations of a different type - images, pictures, diagrams, etc. [Kubryakova, 1996a].
The main forms of abstract thinking concept, judgment and inference are traditionally considered.
Individual objects or their combinations are reflected by human thinking in concepts, different in content. Suppose we have a concept A \u003d a + b + c + d, where the concept A is a set of features a, b, c, d related to each other. If we open signs e, f, then we must add them to this sum. In other words, various objects are reflected in a person's thinking in the same way as a certain connection of their essential features, that is, in the form of a concept. Information about the outside world can be constantly updated, but the language is conservative and lags behind in its usual embodiment from fixing the achievements of scientific experience. Thus, it has long been known that there is no substance described by the term ether, - the medium that fills the world space, through which electromagnetic waves propagate - however, the corresponding nomination continues to live in the language, is actively metaphorized and motivates the emergence of such words as television broadcast,radio broadcast.
In the shape of judgments reflects the relationship between objects and their properties. For example, the propositions "A student has the right to listen to a lecture" and "A teacher does not have the right to refuse to take an exam without a good reason" are different in their content, but the way the parts (elements) of this content are connected is the same; this connection is expressed in the form of an affirmation or in the form of a negation: S - P, where S and P are the concepts included in the judgments, and the sign "-" is the designation of the connection between them. Under S and P one can think of any objects and their properties, under the sign "-" - any connection (both affirmative and negative). Thus, a judgment is a certain way of reflecting the relations of objects of reality, expressed in the form of an affirmation or in the form of a denial.
With the help of inference, a new judgment is derived from one or more judgments. It can be established that in inferences of the same kind, the conclusion is obtained in the same way. For example, from the propositions "Philology students of the 491st group go to the university" and "N is a philology student of the 491st group" a new proposition "N goes to the university" follows. The conclusion is obtained because the judgments from which the conclusion is drawn are connected by the general concept of "student-philologist of the 491st group". In a similar way, i.e., thanks to the connection of judgments, one can obtain a conclusion from judgments that have any content. Consequently, we highlight something in common that is present in inferences that are different in content: a way of communication between judgments.
So, the logical form, or the form of thinking, is a way of connecting the elements of thought, its structure, thanks to which the content exists and reflects reality.
Consider what is law of thought. To understand this issue, it is necessary to distinguish truth of thought And logical correctness reasoning. A thought is true if it corresponds to reality; a thought that is not true is false. The truth of thoughts in content is a necessary condition for achieving correct results in the process of reasoning. Another necessary condition is the logical correctness of reasoning. If this condition is not met, then a false result can be obtained from true judgments. This leads to logical errors.
Logic error, or paralogism, may be the result of the speaker's inadvertent violation of the rules of logic in the process of reasoning due to logical carelessness or ignorance. The central point of reasoning is the thesis. No matter how the reasoning is constructed, no matter what facts and events are analyzed, no matter what parallels and analogies are given, the main task should always remain in the center of attention - substantiation of the thesis put forward and refutation antithesis, whether it is a contradictory statement of an explicit or hidden opponent or another judgment that does not coincide with the thesis. Demonstrative reasoning presupposes the observance of two rules regarding the thesis: (1) the certainty of the thesis and (2) the immutability of the thesis. 1. The certainty rule means that the thesis must be formulated linguistically clearly and precisely. The description of the thesis with the help of new terms is quite acceptable, but in this case, their meaning should be clearly identified through the disclosure of the main content of the concepts used. A brief definition makes it possible to understand the exact meaning of the terms, in contrast to their "vague" interpretation. The requirement for certainty, a clear identification of the meaning of the judgments put forward applies equally to both the presentation of one's own thesis and the presentation of the position being criticized - the antithesis. 2. Rule of immutability of the thesis prohibits modifying and deviating from the originally formulated position in the process of this reasoning, because this can lead to the substitution of the thesis, which is expressed either in the form of loss of the thesis, or in the form of its complete or partial substitution.
The complete substitution of the thesis is manifested in the fact that, having put forward a certain position, the proponent (speaker) in the end actually proves something else, close or similar to the thesis position and thereby replaces the main idea with another one. A variation of the complete substitution of the thesis are 1) an error argument for personality(argumentum ad personam): when discussing the specific actions of a certain person or the solutions proposed by him, they imperceptibly proceed to a discussion of the personal qualities of this person; 2) error logical diversion: the speaker switches the listener's attention to a discussion of another statement, possibly important or of interest to the listener, but not directly related to the original thesis. Partial substitution of the thesis occurs when the speaker tries to modify his own thesis, narrowing down the initially too general, exaggerated statement ( some viewers liked the performance vs original all the audience liked the performance) or expanding the semantic boundaries of a too narrow statement ( These are not private mistakes, this is a criminal pattern!). Partial substitution of the thesis motivates the emergence of the stylistic figure of gradation.
There are also clear requirements for argumentation: (1) only such statements, the truth of which has been proven, can act as arguments; (2) arguments are substantiated autonomously, that is, independently of the thesis; (3) arguments must not contradict each other; (4) the arguments must be sufficient for the given thesis. Violation of these requirements results in three errors. One of them - accepting a false argument as true, or using a non-existent fact as an argument, a reference to an event that did not actually take place, etc. - is called basic misconception(error fundamentalis). The conscious use of error fundamentalis motivates the emergence of stylistic figures of exaggeration (for example, hyperbole), as well as works in the style of the grotesque. Another mistake - ground anticipation(peticio principii) - lies in the fact that unsaid, as a rule, arbitrarily taken positions are used as arguments; the speaker refers to rumors, current opinions or assumptions made by someone and passes them off as arguments. The requirement of autonomous justification means that reasons are sought for arguments without recourse to the thesis, otherwise a logical error occurs. circle in proof(circulus in demonstration). The detection and elimination of a logical error in discourse often depends on the communicative competence of the speaker. The identification of paralogisms is required for stylistic editing of the text.
Logic errors include sophistry- the results of a deliberate violation of logical rules by the speaker in order to mislead the listeners or create the appearance of winning the discussion. Formally, sophisms can coincide with paralogisms. In addition, among the sophistical tricks are possible: argument for strength(argumentum ad baculinum) - resorting to physical, economic, administrative, moral-political and other types of influence instead of the rationale for the thesis; argument for ignorance(argumentum ad idnoratiam) - the use of ignorance or ignorance of the listener and the imposition of opinions on him that do not find objective confirmation; argument for profit(argumentum ad cremenam) - agitation for the adoption of the thesis only because it is so beneficial in moral, political or economic terms; common sense argument(argumentum ad silentio) - an appeal to everyday consciousness instead of a real rationale; argument for compassion(argumentum ad misericordiam) - an appeal to pity, philanthropy and compassion instead of a real assessment of a specific misconduct; argument for fidelity(argumentum a tuto) - acceptance of the thesis not on the basis of its justification, but due to loyalty, affection, respect, etc.; argument for authority(argumentum "ipse dixit") - a reference to an authoritative person or collective authority instead of substantiating a specific thesis. The deliberate use of logical errors can be considered as one of the varieties of communicative interference, as well as a violation of the communicative norm.
The law of thinking is a necessary, essential connection of thoughts in the process of reasoning. The simplest connections between thoughts are expressed in the basic logical laws: identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle and sufficient reason. The first three laws were formulated by Aristotle, the fourth law was introduced into logic by G. Leibniz. These laws are called basic because they express important properties of correct thinking: certainty, consistency, consistency and validity.
2.1. LAW OF IDENTITY: every thought is identical to itself (A = A). This means that the concepts used in the process of reasoning should not change their content, should not be replaced and mixed up. Due to the existence of synonymy and polysemy among all significant linguistic units, their wide lexical compatibility and relatively free word order in statements, we encounter a constant violation of this law (cf. speech errors in sentences like With a newspaper story about his wife in his pocket, Zakhar went into battle with the enemy more than once; Now Rosa receives 11-12 kg of milk from each cow, but she is convinced that her possibilities are far from being exhausted; The livestock specialist monthly reweighs all pigs and pays them).
2.2. LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION: two opposing propositions cannot be true at the same time; at least one of them is necessarily false (it is not true that A and not-A are both true). The law of non-contradiction indicates that one of two opposing propositions is necessarily false.
2.3. LAW OF THE EXCLUSIVE THIRD: two contradictory propositions cannot be simultaneously false: one of them is necessarily true, the other is necessarily false, the third is excluded, that is, either A or non-A is true (cf.: "Every science has its own laws" and "Neither science alone has no laws of its own." One of these judgments (the first) is true).
2.4. LAW OF Sufficient Reason: Every true thought has a sufficient reason. Any other already tested by practice, recognized as a true thought can serve as a sufficient basis for any thought. The law of sufficient reason is violated in judgments like I categorically reject that I am a petty hooligan, since I am a person with a higher education, in various signs ( Right eye itches - rejoice, left - cry;Losing a glove is unfortunately;Break a mirror - for worse;Magpie jumps at the patient's house - to recovery).
The significance of the logical correctness of thinking lies in the fact that it is a necessary condition for guaranteed receipt of true results in solving problems that arise in the process of cognition. The fundamental difference between thinking and sensory knowledge that thinking is inextricably linked with language. It is the violation of logical laws that leads, on the one hand, to the emergence of numerous speech lexical and stylistic errors (absurdity of the statement, alogisms, non-distinction between concrete and abstract concepts, inconsistency of the premise with the consequence, speech redundancy (lapalissiads, idle talk, pleonasms, tautologies), expansion or narrowing of the concept , speech insufficiency, etc.) and syntactic stylistic errors (inappropriate amphiboly, anacoluf, independent adverbial turnover, inversion, violation of a homogeneous series, pseudo-scientific presentation, shift in syntactic construction, etc.), on the other hand, serves as the basis for the emergence of stylistic tropes (allegories , allusions, amplifications, anticlimax (descending gradation), antitheses (antimetaboles, chiasm), antiphrase (irony), antonomasia, hypallags, hyperbole, zeugma, catachresis, climax (ascending gradation), lexical repetitions (anadiplosis (epanalepsis)), anaphora, symplocs, epiphora, meiosis, metaphor, metonymy, oxymoron, personification (personification), paradox, periphrase, litotes, antonomasia, euphemisms, pleonasm, synecdoche, tautology, etc.) and stylistic figures (syntactic amplification, amphiboly, pickup, anacoluf (apokinu ), syntactic anaphora, syntactic antiphrasis, aposiopesis (default), hypozeugma, mesozeugma, protozeugma, inversion, pun, syntactic homonymy, parallelism, parcellation, prolepses, prosiopeses, symplokes, ellipses, emphases, syntactic epiphora, etc.) whose study is the subject culture of speech, rhetoric and stylistics.
As noted, logical-linguistic and semiotic models represent the next higher level of models. It is characteristic that for this class of models there are several almost synonymous names:
Logical-linguistic models;
Logical-semantic models;
Logical and semantic models;
semiotic ideas.
This type of models is characterized by a higher degree of formalization. Formalization affects mainly the logical aspect of the existence/functioning of the modeled system. When constructing logical-linguistic models, the symbolic language of logic and the formalism of the theory of graphs and algorithms are widely used. The logical relationships between the individual elements of the model can be displayed using the expressive means of various logical systems ( a brief description of presented earlier in this book). At the same time, the severity of logical relations can vary over a wide range from relations of strict determinism to relations of probabilistic logic. It is possible to build logical-linguistic models based on several formal-logical systems that reflect various aspects of the functioning of the system and knowledge about it.
The most common way to formally represent logical-linguistic models is a graph. A graph is a formal system designed to express relations between elements of an arbitrary nature, operating with model objects of two types: a vertex (point), symbolizing an element, and an edge (arc, connection), symbolizing the relationship between the elements connected by it . In mathematical interpretation, a graph is a formal system described as G=(X, U), where X is a set of vertices, U is a set of edges (arcs). The graph consists of ordered pairs of vertices, and the same pair can be included in the set U any number of times, describing different types of relationships. A classic example of a graph is shown in fig. 2.4.
Figure 2.4 - An example of a transition graph.
There are several types of graphs, among which, if we represent the classification of graphs in the form of a hierarchy, the largest classes (the second layer of model objects in the pyramid from the top) are directed, undirected and mixed graphs. Depending on whether the relationship displayed on the graph is a line, reversible or irreversible, the terms "edge" (undirected, reversible connection - displayed by a regular line) or "arc" (oriented, irreversible connection - displayed by an arrow) can be used to name the line.
As an example of a graph, we can also use the familiar hierarchical classifications in the form of rectangles connected by lines, metro schemes, technological maps, etc. documents.
For logical-linguistic models, atomic (primitive) or complex statements in natural language or symbols that replace them act as graph vertices. Links can be labeled in various ways in order to most fully characterize the type of link (relationship). In particular, arcs can also display the presence of functional dependencies, operational relationships (input situation - operation - output situation) - in these cases, the arcs are marked in a special way.
One of the types of logical-linguistic models are scenarios or scenario models. Scenario models (scenarios) are a kind of logical-linguistic models designed to display sequences of interrelated states, operations or processes deployed in time . Scenarios can have both a linear and a branching structure, in which conditions for the transition to one or another particular strategy can be set, or possible alternatives can simply be displayed without specifying conditions. The requirement of interconnectedness in relation to scenario models is not strict and is rather conditional, since it is established on the basis of subjective judgments of experts, and is also determined by the specifics of the formulation of activity goals. So, if you, the reader, decide to include in some scenario model reflecting the dynamics of events that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2002, only the United States and Afghanistan are your right, but if you decide to include all oil-producing countries in the list of players, then no one here can judge or dissuade you. Scenarios , as a kind of logical-linguistic models, are widespread in industries related to modeling the socio-political, economic and military situation, the creation of information systems to support management activities, and many others .
It should be noted that in some cases it is difficult to distinguish between a scenario model and an algorithm. However, there is a rather significant difference between the scenario model and the algorithm, and it lies in the fact that an algorithm is a set of instructions, the execution of which should lead to some result , while scenario model - it is not necessarily an algorithm, for example, it may be a protocol of events, the repetition of which in the same sequence does not necessarily lead to the same situation as the previous time . That is, the concept of a scenario model is a broader concept than the concept of an algorithm. The concept of an algorithm is associated with an operational approach to modeling, and an algorithmic approach to the analysis of cause-and-effect relationships has much in common with determinism (however, many algorithms provide procedures for handling various exceptional situations, up to the refusal to make a decision). The scenario model imposes less stringent restrictions on the nature of causal relationships.
Another important variety of logical-linguistic models are logical-semantic (semantic) models. Logical-semantic (semantic) models are a kind of logical-linguistic models that are focused on displaying the phenomenon (problem) under study, the solution being developed or the object being designed by means of a certain set of concepts expressed in natural language, fixing the relationship between concepts and displaying content-semantic relationships between concepts. . Characteristically, using the same apparatus, this kind of logical-linguistic models is focused on a slightly different type of activity - namely, on finding a solution, its synthesis from previous precedents, existing descriptions of the subject area or descriptions of ways to solve a group of problems that are similar in content.
In essence, this modeling method is a method of finding a solution to a certain set of problems based on the analysis of a set of formalized knowledge about a certain complex system. Conventionally, the application of this method can be described as a cyclically repeated sequence of two procedures: the procedure for constructing a system of statements that reflect knowledge about the system, and the procedure for analyzing the obtained body of knowledge using a computer (however, at certain stages of the implementation of the method, the participation of an expert is required).
Knowledge about the system is represented as semantic network, reflecting the totality of elements of information about the system and links, reflecting the semantic proximity of these elements . The method of logical-semantic modeling was developed in our country in the first half of the 1970s as a tool for preparing, analyzing and improving complex decisions made at various levels of sectoral and intersectoral management based on the semantic (semantic) analysis of information. The following two areas of application of logical-semantic modeling are distinguished:
Formation and evaluation of design solutions;
Analysis and optimization of organizational structures.
The elements of the logical-semantic model are statements in natural language (cognitive elements) and the connections that exist between the phenomena and objects that reflect these statements. From the set of cognitive elements and connections, a network is obtained that describes the problem area.
A semantic network is a kind of model that displays a set of concepts and relationships between them, due to the properties of the modeled fragment of the real world. In the general case, the semantic network can be represented as a hypergraph, in which the vertices correspond to concepts, and the arcs correspond to relations. This form of representation makes many-to-many relationships easier to implement than the hierarchical model. Depending on the types of connections, classifying, functional networks and scenarios are distinguished. Classifying semantic networks use structuring relations, functional networks use functional (computable) relations, and scenarios use cause-and-effect (causal) relations. A variation of the semantic network is a frame model that implements the “matryoshka” principle of disclosing the properties of systems, processes, etc.
Logical-semantic models allow one to form thematically coherent descriptions of various aspects of the problem (as well as the problem as a whole) and to carry out a structural analysis of the problem area. Thematically coherent descriptions are obtained by selecting from the total set of cognitive elements of the logical-semantic network some of those that are directly related to a given topic. As a particular example of the application of logical-semantic modeling, one can consider hypertext systems that have become widespread in the global telecommunications network Internet.
Not only knowledge, but also statements of a different nature, for example, descriptions of individual tasks, can act as cognitive elements. In this case, logical-semantic models can be used to solve the problem of identifying and analyzing interrelated sets of tasks, their decomposition and aggregation, to build trees of goals and objectives.
The logical-semantic model is represented as a connected undirected graph, in which the vertices correspond to the statements, and the edges correspond to the semantic links between them. The characteristics of the graph are used to study the logical-semantic network. The use of this representation method allows us to introduce metrics of the semantic proximity of cognitive elements, and to assess their significance. So, for example, the number of links that close on one element (vertex valence) is considered as an expression of the significance of the element, and the length of the path from the element to the element, measured in network nodes, is considered as the semantic proximity of the elements (significance relative to some element).
Based on the analysis of texts formulated by various experts, logical-semantic modeling makes it possible to reveal hidden dependencies between various aspects of the problem, the relationship of which was not indicated in any of the proposed texts, as well as to make an objective ranking of problems and tasks according to their importance. Graph analysis allows you to detect the incompleteness of the model, to localize those places that need to be replenished in the system of connections and elements. This becomes possible due to the construction of an interconnected system of statements about the subject area of the object and automated selection and structuring of statements characterized by semantic similarity.
Thanks to the use of means of accumulating logical-semantic models, knowledge gained in solving similar problems in related fields of activity can be actively used, that is, the principle of historicity in decision-making is implemented. This leads to a gradual decrease in the complexity of the processes of synthesis of new logical and semantic models.
The methods of logical-linguistic modeling are not limited to those listed here. Mention should be made of the methods of logical-linguistic modeling of situations based on the analysis of the message flow, developed by one of the authors of this book, P.Yu. Konotopov, which will be considered further, methods of logical-linguistic modeling of business processes, methods for synthesizing trees of goals and objectives, as well as other methods based on the use of logical-linguistic models and methods. Logical-linguistic models have found wide application in the software development industry, corporate information resource management and many other industries where a certain level of formalization is required, representing the unity of rigor, intuitiveness and high expressiveness of models.
LOGIC MODELS
Logical models represent the next level of formal representation (compared to logical-linguistic ones). In such models, natural language statements are replaced by primitive statements - literals, between which relations are established, prescribed by formal logic.
There are logical models in which various schemes of logical relations are considered: relations of logical consequence, inclusion, and others that replace relations characteristic of traditional formal logic. The last remark is related to the variety of non-classical logical systems in which traditional logic relations are replaced by alternative ones or extended by including relations of varying degrees of severity (for example, relations of non-strict temporal precedence or succession). Here one should refer to a more consistent and complete description of various kinds of logical systems given in special sources.
Speaking of logical models, it is difficult to ignore the terminology of logic. However, in this section we will not give a strict thesaurus of logic, but will give a rather loose interpretation of some commonly used terms. First of all, we introduce the concept of a statement. statement or literal - this is some linguistic expression that makes sense within the framework of some theory, regarding which it can be argued that it is true or false (for classical logic this is so). Boolean operation The operation of constructing a new statement from one or more statements is called. To write logical formulas are used propositional variables (they are replaced by statements), bundles (denoting the type of relationship being established) and metacharacters , which control the process of parsing the formula (brackets of various kinds, etc.). Syllogism is a system of logical formulas, consisting of two initial premises ( antecedents ) and consequences ( consequent ). Such logical systems have been the basis for building traditional logical reasoning since the time of Aristotle. An extension of such a logical system is a system consisting of several syllogisms, called polysyllogism or sorita . In such a system, no restrictions are imposed on the number of initial premises and conclusions, but the ratio of their number (provided that the system of statements does not contain contradictions) is subject to the condition that the number of conclusions cannot exceed the number of initial premises.
In accordance with the last remarks, when considering logical models, two types of models should be distinguished: models solved by a syllogical scheme and models solved by a polysyllogical scheme. The first way to analyze the system of propositions requires rather cumbersome logical calculations, for which it is difficult to implement procedures for reducing enumeration operations, since pairs of propositions must be selected based on the application of semantic criteria (otherwise, a problem composed of propositions like: “in the garden of elderberry = True, and in Kiev - uncle = False "- the conclusions from such a system of premises to build a thankless task). For polysyllogic models, there are methods for reducing calculations, however, insufficient attention is currently paid to the issues of methodological and technological support for solving polysyllogisms. Today, a relatively small number of scientists are engaged in theoretical and applied issues related to the solution of polysyllogical problems, among which are our compatriots B.A. Kulik and A.A. Zenkin. The relevance of methods for solving polysyllogisms is explained by the growing needs associated with the analysis of message flows that potentially contain contradictory statements or provide incomplete argumentation, for the analysis of which it is advisable to use methods for solving polysyllogisms.
It must be said that one of the methods for solving polysyllogisms was proposed by the mathematician and logician C. Dodgson (literary pseudonym - L. Carroll), who abundantly "littered" with sorites in his books "Alice in Wonderland", "The Story with Knots" and others.
For example, consider the following Carroll polysyllogism:
1) "All little children are foolish."
2) "All who tame crocodiles deserve respect."
3) "All foolish people do not deserve respect."
It is necessary to determine what follows from these premises.
Trying to solve such a problem within the framework of Aristotelian syllogistics, we would have to consistently select suitable pairs of judgments, obtain consequences from them until all possibilities are exhausted. With an increase in the number of statements, this would turn out to be an extremely difficult task, the result of which does not always lead to an unambiguous conclusion.
L. Carroll developed an original technique for solving polysyllogisms. The initial stage of solving such problems can be represented as the following sequence of operations (these stages are present both in L. Carroll and in the methodology of B.A. Kulik):
- definition of the main terms that make up the system of premises;
- an introduction for notation system terms;
- selection of a suitable universe (a set covering all the mentioned objects).
In the example above, the main terms of this problem are: "small children" (C), "reasonable people" (S), "those who tame crocodiles" (T) and "those who deserve respect" (R). It is obvious that these basic terms represent some sets in the universe "people". Their negations respectively will be the following terms: "not little children" (~C), "foolish people" (~S), "those who do not tame crocodiles" (~T) and "those who do not deserve respect" (~R ). The universe for this system will be the set of all people (U).
In essence, we have formed a system of elements of a formal description of the subject area, reflected in a polysyllogism. Let's complete the example using B.A. Kulik (to read the symbolic record, it is enough to recall the school years)...
So, (the sign symbolizes the relation of inclusion of sets). “This is what a record of the basic judgments of a sorite will look like. From my school years, I remember that the operation of inverting the signs of both parts of the inequality leads to interesting results (turning the “greater than” sign into a “less than” sign, etc.). In our case, such an analogy is quite appropriate: the negation operation placed before each of the terms will lead to the inversion of the inclusion relation, that is, we get: . That is, "All reasonable people are not small children," etc. Further, we get:
In total, we get: "All small children do not tame crocodiles" and "All who tame crocodiles are not small children." Readers can decipher other statements on their own.
Logical models are widely used to describe knowledge systems in various subject areas, while the level of description formalization in such models is significantly higher than in logical-linguistic ones. It suffices to note that one statement (cognitive element) of the logical-linguistic model, as a rule, corresponds to several statements of the logical model.
Often, along with the classical logical formalism, such models use the formal tools of set theory and graph theory, which serve to expand the possibilities for describing and representing relationships in logical models. Here their similarity with logical-linguistic models can be traced. Just like logical-linguistic models, logical models allow for qualitative analysis , however, being supplemented by formal means and methods of other branches of mathematics (which is done quite easily, since logic is a metalanguage for both natural language and artificial languages ), logical models allow for a rigorous numerical analysis .
Logical models are most widely used in the field of building systems artificial intelligence, where they are used as the basis for the production of a logical conclusion from the system of premises recorded in the knowledge base in response to an external request.
The limitations associated with the specifics of the subject area (fuzziness and incompleteness of expert knowledge) led to the fact that in last years in the field of building artificial intelligence systems, quasi-axiomatic logical systems (an approach developed by the Russian scientist D.A. Pospelov) have gained particular popularity. Such logical systems are obviously incomplete and they do not meet the full set of requirements characteristic of classical (axiomatic) systems. Moreover, for the majority of logical statements that form such a system, the domain of definition is set, within which these statements retain their significance, and the entire set of statements on the basis of which the analysis is carried out is divided into generally valid statements (valid for the entire model) and statements that have significance only within the local system of axioms.
The same reasons (incompleteness and fuzziness of expert knowledge) made popular such areas of logic as multi-valued logics (the first works in this area belong to the Polish scientists J. Lukasiewicz and A. Tarski in the 1920s and 30s), probabilistic logics and fuzzy logics (Fuzzy Logic - author of the theory L. Zadeh - 1960s). This class of logics is actively used in the synthesis of logical models for artificial intelligence systems intended for situational analysis.
Since most of the knowledge and concepts used by a person are fuzzy, L. Zadeh proposed the mathematical theory of fuzzy sets to represent such knowledge, which makes it possible to operate with such “interesting” sets as a set of ripe apples or a set of serviceable cars. Fuzzy logic operations were defined on such interesting sets.
Systems that use models based on fuzzy logic are developed specifically for solving poorly defined tasks and tasks using incomplete and unreliable information. The introduction of the apparatus of fuzzy logics in the technology of creating expert systems led to the creation of fuzzy expert systems (Fuzzy Expert Systems).
Fuzzy logic has become especially popular in recent years, when the US Department of Defense began to seriously fund research in this area. Now in the world there is a surge of interest in analytical software products created using fuzzy logic methods and fuzzy logic models. True, it is already difficult to call these models logical - they widely use multivalued probabilistic relations of measure and membership instead of the traditional mathematical apparatus of binary logic. Fuzzy logic allows solving a wide class of problems that are not amenable to strict formalization - fuzzy logic methods are used in control systems for complex technical complexes operating in unpredictable conditions (aircraft, precision weapon guidance systems, etc.).
Many foreign analytical technologies, due to export restrictions, are not supplied to the Russian markets, and tools for independent application development are the know-how of manufacturers - it is more cost-effective to supply ready-made applications than to create an army of competitors (especially in countries with “cheap” "Brains).
In essence, logical models represent the last stage of formalization, at which concepts formulated in the language of human communication can still act as elements of the statement. But as we have seen, elements of formal systems are already actively intervening in logical methods, which will be discussed later.
We will have in mind here the languages specially created by logic as a means of precise analysis of certain procedures of thought and, mainly, the logical deductions of some propositions from others and the proofs of propositions. Before proceeding to the description of special logical languages (the language of propositional logic - PAL and the language of predicate logic - PAL), it is useful to note some of their features compared to ordinary (colloquial, national) languages; in doing so, we will keep in mind the language of predicate logic, as richer in its expressive possibilities in comparison with the language of propositional logic.
1. YLP is an artificial language; it is intended for certain purposes (for example, for the axiomatic construction of theories, for analyzing the content of natural language statements and identifying the logical forms of statements, as well as concepts, relationships between statements and concepts, for describing the rules of reasoning, forms of conclusions and proofs).
If in ordinary (natural) languages there are three semiotic aspects - syntactic, semantic and pragmatic - then in languages that are subject to description, there are only syntactic and semantic aspects. As mentioned earlier, the presence of a pragmatic aspect in natural languages is associated with the uncertainties encountered in them and the absence of certain rules (the semantic ambiguity of some expressions, and mainly the absence of precise rules for constructing their expressions, for example, sentences). There are no uncertainties in LLP, it has exact rules for the formation of analogues of natural language names (terms) and analogues of its declarative sentences (formulas), as well as precise rules that determine the meanings of its expressions. Languages of this kind are called formalized.
In natural language, along with that part of it that is intended to describe extralinguistic reality (the objective part of the language), there are words denoting expressions of the language itself (“word”, “sentence”, “verb”, etc.) and sentences, in which assert something related to the language itself ("Nouns change in cases"). Such languages are called semantically closed. In artificial languages of logic there is only an objective part, more precisely, they contain only means for describing some reality external to it. Everything that is used to characterize the expressions of this language itself and is necessary for its description is separated into a special language. The language being described (in this case, YLP or YLP) is called the object language, and the language used to describe it, analyze it, etc., is called the metalanguage in relation to the given (objective) one.
YLP (as well as YAL) is usually characterized as a symbolic language, because special symbols are used here, primarily to denote logical connections and operations. Special characters are also used as signs to designate objects, properties and relationships. The use of symbolism helps to shorten the recording of statements and makes it easier, especially in difficult situations, to understand the meanings of the corresponding statements.
5. A characteristic feature of YLP and YLP - for systems of the so-called classical symbolic logic - is their extensional character. For YLP, it consists in the fact that the objective values of its terms (analogues of natural language names) depend only on the objective values of their components, and the true values of complex formulas on the truth values of the latter components. The same applies to the YAL. Generally speaking, the extensionality of these languages lies in the fact that the objective meanings of analogues of complex natural language names in them depend only on the objective values, but not on the meanings of their components, and the truth values of analogues of complex natural language statements depend on the truth values (but again not from the meanings) of their constituents. This is expressed, for example, in the fact that the properties and relations between objects in the composition of statements are considered (or at least can be considered) as certain sets of objects - the volumes of the corresponding properties and relations. And also in the fact that it is permissible to replace any part of the complexity of a statement, which in turn is a certain statement, by any other statement with the same truth value.
The most essential thing for these languages is the presence of precise rules for the formation of its expressions and the assignment of meanings to them, and especially the fact that each iconic
the form acquires a certain meaning. In natural In the same language, we have such expressions (sign forms) that, in different cases of their use, have different semantic contents. So, for example, the expression "all books of this library" has a clearly different meaning in usage: "all books of this library are written in Russian" and "all books of this library weigh 2 tons".
An important feature of the LLP is also a direct correspondence between the structures of its symbolic forms (formulas) and the structures of the meanings they express. Correspondence consists in the fact that each essential part of the meaning structure corresponds to a certain part of the sign form. So, in the structure of the meaning of a simple declarative sentence, that is, in the structure of a simple statement, it is necessary to single out, for example, individual objects or classes of objects about which something is stated in the statement
(in sign forms, they correspond to single or common names), as well as properties or relations, the presence of which in the corresponding objects is also affirmed (predicators are used as signs for them in the YLP).
Reasoning carried out in a natural language, taking into account the meanings of linguistic expressions and representing, in essence, operations with precisely these meanings (with mental objective situations), can be represented in a formalized language as operations with sign forms of statements. These operations are carried out according to the rules of a formal nature, "formal" in the sense that for their application it is necessary to take into account only what signs the sign forms are composed of and in what order these signs are arranged. It is clear that such a possibility of abstracting from the meanings of statements when describing the forms of correct reasoning is necessary for the automation of many intellectual processes and is a condition for ensuring maximum accuracy in the construction of scientific conclusions and proofs, which at the same time become always verifiable.
People who are not familiar with modern formal logic often form the opinion that, when dealing with special formalized languages, it studies special forms of reasoning in these languages. However, there are no special forms of this kind. Formalized languages are only a means of highlighting various types of relations between things, which are the logical content of statements and determine the forms of correct reasoning in any cognitive processes.
The language of predicate logic, as we will see below, is the result of a certain reconstruction of natural language, the purpose of which is to bring the logical forms of statements into line with their sign forms: the language forms of this language adequately express the semantic structures of statements, which is by no means always, as already stressed takes place in natural language.
The language of propositional logic is the result of some simplification of LLP due to the fact that it does not take into account the structure of some propositions. This circumstance leads to the emergence of a new semantic category that is absent in natural language, namely, propositions and -
rational signs (symbols, variables): p v p 2 , R at ..,R P , intended to denote certain statements without regard to their internal structure. It is essential that here (in the LSI) the composition of simple statements, their subject-predicate structure, is not revealed, but only the logical forms of complex statements are revealed. Since this language has a simpler structure, it is methodologically more expedient to start considering artificial languages of logic from it.
LOGIC AND LINGUISTICS 2 page
In linguistics, philosophical studies of the concept in the semantic aspect are reflected in the theory of the lexical meaning (LZ) of the word. At the same time, some scientists denied the connection between the concept and the lexical meaning of the word, while others identified them. The relationship between the LZ and the concept is different, since the LZ can be wider than the concept and include an evaluative and a number of other components, or maybe already a concept in the sense that it reflects only some features of objects, and the concepts cover their deeper and more essential signs. In addition, LZ can be correlated with everyday ideas about the surrounding reality, and concepts are associated with scientific ideas about it. The combination of the concept and the LZ is observed only in terms. LZ and concepts are opposed concepts- central objects cognitive linguistics- units of mental or mental resources of our consciousness and the information structure that reflects the knowledge and experience of a person, meaningful units of memory, the whole picture of the world reflected in the human psyche.
cognitive science, an interdisciplinary science, explores the cognition of cognition and reason in all aspects of its existence and "establishes contacts" between mathematics, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence modeling, philosophy and computer science (the analysis of these interscientific correspondences and connections is given in detail in the work). Cognitive linguistics, in its methodological preferences, is in a certain opposition to the so-called Saussurean linguistics. However, without taking into account the results of research in cognitive linguistics, modern work on language modeling, in our opinion, loses all meaning.
According to the theory A. Paivio, the system of mental representations is at rest and does not function until some stimulus - verbal or non-verbal - from the outside activates it. Activation can occur at three levels of signal processing: representational (linguistic signals excite linguistic structures, non-verbal - pictures or images), referential (verbal signals activate non-verbal, non-verbal - verbal) and associative (excitation of any images in response to a word and retrieved from memory the name for receiving signals is also accompanied by the excitation of various kinds of associations and both) [ibid, p. 67 - 70, 121 - 122]. Memory is a semantic "network", the "nodes" of which are both verbal units (logogens) and non-verbal representations (imagens). Each "node" of the network - "connectionist model of the brain" - if necessary, can be activated, i.e. brought into an excited state, and when the brain is activated, errors are not ruled out, i.e. excitation of "wrong" or "wrong" areas, or separate "knots" turn out to be more excited than necessary, and a person is overwhelmed by a stream of unnecessary associations. It is very important to know what types of knowledge are activated in certain cases and what structures of consciousness (from single representations to their combinations such as frames, scenes, scenarios, etc.) they involve in this case.
concept architecture of cognition("architecture of the mind") is associated with the idea of what mechanisms provide the implementation of cognitive functions, i.e. about modeling human mind . Much in modeling is considered innate, that is, it exists as part of the human bioprogram, the rest is the result of the processes of human cognitive development, but what exactly is a continuous debate about this [N. Chomsky, 1972; Tomasello, 1995]. With the spread of the modular theory of J. Fodor and N. Chomsky, the architecture of cognition is described by enumerating individual modules (perception, rational thinking, memory, language, etc.), and it is assumed that a relatively small number of general principles should act in each module and units. The normal operation of the modules is ensured by the mechanisms of induction, deduction, associative linking of units, etc. The model of the mind - the architecture of cognition - is represented by a huge number of interconnected neurons, packages or associations of which are in an excited, activated state during mental activity. Such network models are most justified in the analysis of such a module of the cognition architecture as memory.
One of the central concepts in the cognitive terminological system is also the concept associations- linking two phenomena, two representations, two objects, etc., usually a stimulus and its accompanying reaction [Pankrats, 1996b]. Behaviorists explained all human behavior on the basis of associations: a certain stimulus is associated with a certain response: S ? R. The very ability to associate is considered innate. In cognitive psychology Special attention is given to those processes that establish associations, their nature, their connections with the processes of induction and inference, their relation to causal, causal chains, etc. The establishment of associations between units has come to be considered as general principle the work of those very modules - the simplest systems - that make up the entire infrastructure of the mind. The concept of association is the basis of many network models of the mind, which are essentially chains of units (nodes) connected by relations of associations of different types.
Access to information contained in mental lexicon, the reachability of this information in processes generation and understanding of speech implemented in different ways. Access refers to processes processing of language information and to the ability to quickly penetrate to the information necessary in these processes, presented in the human head in the form of certain mental representations language units (words and their constituent morphemes). Since the concept of knowledge of a word includes information about its phonological structure, its morphological structure, its semantics and features of syntactic use, etc., any of this information must come to the speaker's disposal, i.e., his memory must be provided access to each information about the indicated features. Psychological models speech activity should, accordingly, answer the question of how all the indicated information is organized in the mental lexicon [Kubryakova, 1996b], and the main questions are, first of all, questions about whether phonological, morphological and other information about words and their constituent parts are stored in separate subcomponents (modules) of the mental lexicon, or all the information is "recorded" with individual words, as well as what information is stored with each individual word or the occurrence of each individual lexical unit, how can one imagine the mental representation of a single word or a separate attribute of a word, whether access is made during speech activity to words as a whole or to their parts (morphemes), etc. [ibid.].
The concept of access is an important part of lexical information processing models. Access mechanisms are closely related to the form in which the organization of the lexicon and its components, such as mental representations of various kinds, are described in the corresponding models.
Concepts - units of the mental lexicon - arise in the process of constructing information about objects and their properties, and this information can include both information about the real state of affairs in the world, and information about imaginary worlds and the possible state of affairs in these worlds. This is information about what the individual knows, assumes, thinks, imagines about the objects of the world. Sometimes concepts are identified with everyday concepts. There is no doubt that the most important concepts are encoded in the language. It is often argued that the concepts central to the human psyche are reflected in the grammar of languages and that it is grammatical categorization that creates that conceptual grid, that framework for the distribution of all conceptual material that is expressed lexically. Grammar reflects those concepts that are most significant for a given language. For the formation of a conceptual system, it is necessary to assume the existence of some initial, or primary concepts, from which all the others then develop. Concepts as interpreters of meanings are always amenable to further refinement and modification and represent unanalyzed entities only at the beginning of their appearance, but then, being part of the system, they fall under the influence of other concepts and change themselves. (cf.: yellow And rapeseed yellow, vanilla yellow, corn yellow, lemon yellow etc.). The number of concepts and the content of most of them are constantly changing. According to L.V. Barsalau (Germany), people are constantly learning new things in this world, and the world is constantly changing, so human knowledge must have a form that quickly adapts to these changes, and the main unit of transmission and storage of such knowledge - the concept - must also be quite flexible and mobile [Kubryakova, 1996a].
The theory of lexical semantics borrows a lot from logical-philosophical studies and develops in close connection with them. So the LZ of a word is described as a complex structure defined by common properties words as a sign: its semantics, pragmatics, syntactics. At the same time, the LZ is a combination of the conceptual core (significative and denotative components of meaning) and pragmatic connotations. In speech, LZ can denote both the entire class of these objects (the denotative series), and its individual representative (referent). Special cases are the LZ of deictics (pronouns, numerals) and relative words (conjunctions, prepositions).
The original understanding of the concept was proposed by V. V. Kolesov. In the article "The concept of culture: image - concept - symbol" he gives the following scheme of the semantic development of the word of the national language.
Note.
Referent - P (P - subject: what does it mean - meaning), denotation - D (D - objective meaning in a word: what does meaning mean).
The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 denote the corresponding stages in the development of the word of the national language.
According to the author, "the concept is the starting point of the semantic content of the word (0) and at the same time the final limit of the development of the word (4), while the concept is the historical moment of removing the essential characteristic from the images accumulated by consciousness, which is immediately dumped into symbols, in turn, serving to connect, connect between the natural world (images) and the cultural world (concepts).The symbol as an "ideological imagery", as an image that has passed through the concept and focused on typical signs of culture, as a sign of a sign is in the focus of Russian philosophical thought. Ends and beginnings are traditionally important for it, and not at all intermediate points of development, including the development of thought, the increment of meanings in a word, etc. What was the beginning as a result of the development of the meanings of a word as a sign of culture becomes its end - enrichment of the etymon to the concept modern culture. The concept therefore becomes the reality of national speech thought, figuratively given in the word, because it really exists, just as there is a language, phoneme, morpheme and other "noumena" of the content plan identified by science, vital to any culture. A concept is something that is not subject to change in the semantics of a verbal sign, which, on the contrary, dictates to speakers of a given language, determining their choice, directs their thoughts, creating the potential possibilities of language-speech" (see also the works [Radzievskaya, 1991; Frumkina, 1992; Likhachev, 1993; Lukin, 1993; Golikova, 1996; Lisitsyn, 1996; Babushkin, 1996; Cherdakova, 2000]).
3.2.3. PRAGMATIC ASPECT. Pragmatics analyzes the communicative function of the language - emotional, psychological, aesthetic, economic and other practically significant relations of a native speaker to the language itself, and also explores the connections between signs and people who create and perceive them. If we are talking about human language, then special attention is paid to the analysis of the so-called "egocentric" words: I, here, now, already, more, etc. These words seem to be oriented towards the speaker and reflect him in space and on the "time axis ". With these words, we, as it were, turn the objective fact in our direction, make us look at it from our own point of view (Compare: No snow. - There is no more snow. - There is no snow yet). Such an approach is very important when modeling a communicative situation (see paragraph 7. Logical foundations for modeling a language situation). Another problem of pragmatics is the "stratification" of the "I" of the speaker or writer in the flow of speech. Consider an example. A member of our group says: Ten years ago I was not a student. There are at least two 'I's: 'I' and 'I'. "Me1" is the one who says this phrase now, "me2" is the one who was not a student in the past. Space and time are perceived subjectively and therefore are also objects of study of pragmatics. Artistic works such as novels, essays, etc., provide a particularly fertile ground for the study of "pragmatic phenomena." In the field of formal logic, pragmatics plays almost no role, in contrast to such sections of semiotics as semantics and sigmatics. In linguistics, pragmatics is also understood as a field of study in which the functioning of linguistic signs in speech is studied [Arutyunova, 1990].
3.2.4. SIGMATIC ASPECT. Sigma studies the relationship between the sign and the object of reflection. Language signs are names, designations of objects of reflection. The latter are designata of linguistic signs. Semantics and sigmatics are the premise of syntactics, all three are prerequisites of pragmatics.
3.3. NATURAL LANGUAGES. DEFECTS OF NATURAL LANGUAGES. natural languages- these are sound (oral speech), and then graphic (writing) sign systems that have historically developed in society. Natural languages are distinguished by rich expressive possibilities and universal coverage of the most diverse areas of life.
The main disadvantages of natural languages are the following:
1) significant units of natural languages gradually and almost imperceptibly change their meanings;
2) significant units of natural languages are characterized by polysemy, synonymy, homonymy;
3) the meaning of units of natural languages is often vague, amorphous (for example, units of chromatic and expressive vocabulary);
4) finally, the used grammatical rules for constructing natural language expressions are also imperfect in the logical sense. It is not always possible to determine whether a given sentence makes sense or not.
3.4. SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGES. The sciences try to eradicate these shortcomings in their fields. Scientific terminology is a stock of special words, a set of special expressions from the field of a given science, used by representatives of one scientific school. These words arise due to the fact that science is characterized by operating with rigid expressions, definitions that have developed as a result of strictly defined use. The words included in such expressions become terms.
Thus, it is possible to artificially prevent the change in the meanings of words over time, if this is not required by the further development of science. However, terms with a strictly fixed meaning have strict boundaries of use. With the achievement of a new level of understanding of the phenomenon, the old terms are filled with new content, in addition, new terms should arise.
You can avoid the use of synonyms by strictly limiting yourself to one of them. A scientific language is not a language in the literal sense, because it does not exist independently and independently of natural language. It arises from natural language and technical terminology and differs from the latter in terms of vocabulary rather than grammatical rules. The connection between natural languages and scientific ones is continuous, since scientific languages include in their terminology all new words of the natural language. Insufficient attention to these words can lead to misunderstandings and even misdirection in the study. On the other hand, special terms of various sciences (determinologization) are constantly moving into the vocabulary of a natural language.
3.5. ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE. REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGES. DISADVANTAGES OF FORMALIZED LANGUAGES. Constructed languages- these are auxiliary sign systems specially created on the basis of natural languages for accurate and economical transmission of scientific and other information. They are constructed not by their own means, but with the help of another, as a rule, a natural language or a previously constructed artificial language. An artificial formalized language must meet the following requirements:
All main signs are presented explicitly (no ellipsis). Basic signs are simple, non-compound words of a language or simple, non-compound symbols (if we are talking about a symbolic language);
All definition rules are set. These are the rules for introducing new, usually shorter characters with the help of existing ones;
All formula building rules are set. These are the rules for the formation of compound signs from simple ones, for example, the rules for the formation of sentences from words;
All transformation rules or inference rules are given. They refer only to the graphic representation of the signs used (words, sentences, symbols);
All rules of interpretation are given. They provide information about how the meaning of complex signs (for example, words) is formed, and unambiguously determine the relationship between the signs of the language and their meanings.
The symbolic language of formal logic was created specifically to accurately and clearly reproduce the general structures of human thought. Between the general structures of thinking and the structures of the linguistic expression of logic, there is, as they say, a one-to-one relationship, that is, a certain linguistic structure exactly corresponds to each mental structure, and vice versa. This leads to the fact that inside the formal logic, operations with thoughts can be replaced by actions with signs. Thus, formal logic has a formalized language, or formalism. Formalized records are also used in linguistics, for example, in syntactic studies when describing the structural schemes of sentences, etc., in onomasiological works when describing metaphorization models, etc.
A significant disadvantage of formalized languages compared to other languages is that they are not very expressive. The totality of all currently available formalized languages can reproduce only relatively small fragments of reality. It is difficult to predict for which areas of science formalized languages can be created and for which not. Empirical studies, of course, cannot be replaced by them. The collection of scientific languages will never be the collection of formalized languages.
3.6. METALANGUAGE. A language that acts as a means of constructing or learning another language is called metalanguage, and the language being studied object language. In this case, the metalanguage should have richer expressive possibilities compared to the language-object.
The metalanguage has the following properties:
With the help of its linguistic means, one can express everything that is expressible by means of an object language;
With its help, you can designate all the signs, expressions, etc. of the object language, for all of them there are names;
In a metalanguage, one can talk about the properties of an object language expression and the relationships between them;
It is possible to formulate definitions, designations, rules of formation and transformation for object language expressions on it.
The metalanguage, in which the units of the conceptual system (i.e., the ordered set of all concepts that reflect the knowledge and experience of a person) are set and the correspondences for natural language expressions are described, is defined by the term mental language. One of the first attempts to create a mental language was the logico-philosophical metalanguage of Leibniz. Currently, the mental language as a metalanguage of linguistic description is being especially actively developed by an Australian researcher Anna Vezhbitskaya.
3.7. LANGUAGE OF LOGIC OF PREDICATES. Artificial languages of varying degrees of rigor are widely used in modern science and technology: chemistry, mathematics, theoretical physics, etc. An artificial formalized language is also used by logical science for the theoretical analysis of mental structures.
The so-called language of predicate logic is generally accepted in modern logic. Let us briefly consider the principles of construction and structure of this artificial language.
The semantic or semantic characteristics of linguistic expressions are important for identifying the logical form of thoughts in the analysis of natural language. Its main semantic categories are: predicate names, property names, sentences.
3.7.1. PREDICATE NAMES. Predicate names are single words or phrases denoting objects. Names, acting as conditional representatives of objects in the language, have a double meaning. Many items to which given name, constitutes its substantive meaning and is called denotate. The way in which such a set of objects is distinguished by indicating their inherent properties constitutes its semantic meaning and is called concept, or meaning. The composition is distinguished simple names, which do not include other names ("linguistics"), and complex, including other names ("the science of language"). By denotation, names are single And are common. A single name denotes one object and can be represented in the language by a proper name ("Ulashin") or given descriptively ("Polish researcher who first used the term "morphoneme""). The common name denotes a set consisting of more than one item; in a language it can be represented by a common noun ("case") or given descriptively ("a grammatical category of a name that expresses its syntactic relationship to other words of the utterance or to the utterance as a whole"). The aesthetic perception of the names of predicates used in the texts led to the creation of special didactic works on the theory of rhetoric, which described "rhetorical figures". It is no coincidence that the authors of the first rhetoric were also the creators of logic as a science (Aristotle and others). The logical opposition of the names of simple, complex, etc. in the theories of rhetoric, and later also of stylistics, culture of speech, sharpened research interest in the universal classification of semantic and syntactic figures of speech.
3.7.2. PROPERTY NAMES. Language expressions denoting properties and relations - the names of properties and relations - are called predictors. In sentences, they usually act as a predicate (for example, "be blue", "run", "give", "love", etc.). The number of names to which a given predictor belongs is called its terrain. Predicators expressing the properties inherent in individual objects are called single(for example, "The sky is blue", "The student is talented"). Predicators that express relationships between two or more things are called multi-seat. For example, the predicator "love" refers to two-place ("Mary loves Peter"), and the predicator "to give" - to three-place ("Father gives a book to his son").
Further study of property names - predictors - led to the creation of modern syntactic science with all the variety of approaches to describing the linguistic material within it.
3.7.3. OFFERS. Offers- these are expressions of language, by means of which something is affirmed or denied about the phenomena of reality. Declarative sentences, by their logical meaning, express true or false.
3.7.4. ALPHABET OF THE LANGUAGE OF PREDICATE LOGIC. This alphabet reflects the semantic categories of natural language and includes the following types of signs (symbols):
1) a, b, c, ... - symbols for single names of objects; they are called subject constants (constants);
2) x, y, z, ... - symbols of common names of objects; they are called subject variables;
3) P1 , Q1 , R1 , ...; P2 , Q2 , R2 , ...; Pn, Qn, Rn - symbols for predictors, whose indices express their locality: 1 - single, 2 - double, n - n-seat. They are called predicate variables;
4) p, q, r - symbols for statements that are called expressive, or propositional variables(from lat. propositio- "statement");
5) ", $ - symbols for quantifiers, " - a general quantifier, it symbolizes expressions: all, each, every, always, etc. $ is an existence quantifier, it symbolizes expressions: some, sometimes happens, occurs, exists, etc.;
6) logical links:
L - conjunction (connective "and");
V - disjunction (separating "or");
® - implication ("if..., then...");
є - equivalence (if and only if..., then...");
Ш - negation ("it is not true that...");
7) technical characters: (;) - left and right brackets.
The alphabet of the language of predicate logic does not include other signs besides those listed.
For the literal designations of the types of judgments, vowels are taken from the Latin words AffIrmo - "I affirm" and nEgO - "I deny", the judgments themselves are sometimes written as follows: SaP, SiP, SeP, SoP.
With the help of the given artificial language, a formalized logical system is built, called predicate calculus. A systematic exposition of the logic of predicates is given in textbooks on symbolic logic. Elements of the predicate logic language are used in the presentation of individual fragments of natural language.
4. CONCEPT
4.1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONCEPT. ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE CONCEPT. A sign of an object is that in which objects are similar to each other or how they differ from each other. Any properties, traits, states of an object that one way or another characterize, distinguish it, help to recognize it among other objects, constitute its signs. Signs can be not only properties belonging to the subject; the missing property (feature, state) is also considered as its attribute. Any object has many different features. Some of them characterize a separate object, are single, others belong to a certain group of objects and are general. So, each person has signs, some of which (facial expressions, facial features, gait, etc.) belong only this person; others (profession, nationality, social affiliation) are common to a certain group of people; Finally, there are signs that are common to all people. In addition to single (individual) and general features, logic identifies essential and non-essential features. Signs that necessarily belong to an object, express its inner nature, its essence, are called significant. Features that may or may not belong to the subject and which do not express its essence are called insignificant.
Essential features are crucial for the formation of concepts. The concept reflects objects in essential features, which can be both general and singular. For example, a common essential feature of a person is the ability to create tools. A concept that reflects one subject (for example, "Aristotle"), along with common essential features (a person, ancient Greek philosopher) includes single essential features (the founder of logic, the author of the "Organon"), without which to distinguish Aristotle from other people and philosophers Ancient Greece impossible. Reflecting objects in essential features, the concept is qualitatively different from the forms of sensory cognition: perceptions and ideas that exist in the human mind in the form of visual images of individual objects. The concept is devoid of visibility, it is the result of a generalization of a multitude of homogeneous objects on the basis of their essential features.
So, a concept is a form of thinking that reflects objects in their essential features.
4.2. LOGICAL TECHNIQUES FOR FORMATION OF CONCEPTS. For the formation of concepts, it is necessary to highlight the essential features of the subject. But the essential does not lie on the surface. To reveal it, you need to compare objects with each other, establish what is common to them, separate from the individual, etc. This is achieved using logical methods: comparison, analysis, synthesis, abstraction and generalization.
4.2.1. COMPARISON. A logical device that establishes the similarity or difference of objects of reality is called comparison. Comparing a number of objects, we establish that they have some common features inherent in a separate group of objects.
4.2.2. ANALYSIS. To highlight the features of an object, you need to mentally divide objects into its component parts, elements, sides. The mental division of an object into its component parts is called analysis. Having singled out certain signs, we can study each of them separately.
4.2.3. SYNTHESIS. Having studied the individual details, it is necessary to restore the subject as a whole in thinking. The mental connection of the parts of an object dissected by analysis is called synthesis. Synthesis is the opposite of analysis. At the same time, both approaches imply and complement each other.
4.2.4. ABSTRACTION. Having singled out the features of an object with the help of analysis, we find out that some of these features are of significant importance, while others do not have such a value. By focusing our attention on the essential, we abstract from the non-essential. The mental selection of individual features of an object and abstraction from other features is called abstraction. To consider any feature abstractly means to abstract (abstract) from other features.
4.2.5. GENERALIZATION. We can extend the features of the studied subjects to all similar subjects. This operation is carried out by generalization, i.e., by means of which individual objects, on the basis of their inherent identical properties, are combined into groups of homogeneous objects. Thanks to the generalization, the essential features identified in individual objects are considered as features of all objects to which this concept is applicable.
Thus, establishing the similarity or difference between objects (comparison), highlighting essential features and abstracting from non-essential ones (abstraction), connecting essential features (synthesis) and extending them to all homogeneous objects (generalization), we form one of the main forms of abstract thinking - concept.
The idea of a logical opposition of essential and non-essential features in linguistics was embodied, on the one hand, in the idea of opposing integral (invariant) and differential features of language units, and on the other hand, in the idea of their relevant and irrelevant features (cf.: a relevant phonetic feature is a feature, which is significant in opposing a given sound to another sound: for example, the feature "voicedness" is relevant in opposing a voiced consonant to a deaf one, the feature "hardness" in opposing a hard consonant to a soft one, etc.; an irrelevant phonetic feature is a feature that does not participate in opposing a given sound to another or other sounds, for example, the sign "degree of openness of the mouth" is not important for opposing consonant sounds [Lukyanova, 1999]).
4.3. CONCEPT AND LANGUAGE SIGN. As writes Vladimir Mikhailovich Alpatov, the significance of a word is determined not by proper linguistic, but by psycholinguistic reasons. Indeed, in the process of speaking, a person builds a certain text according to certain rules from certain initial "bricks" and "blocks", and in the process of listening, he divides the perceived text into "bricks" and "blocks", comparing them with standards stored in his brain. Such stored units cannot be too short (then the generation process would be too complicated), nor too long (then the memory would be overloaded), some optimum must be achieved. It is hard to imagine the storage of phonemes or sentences in the brain as the norm (although individual sentences like proverbs or sayings and even entire texts like prayers can be stored). It can be assumed that the norm should be some units of average length, and the analysis of linguistic traditions leads to the hypothesis that words can be such units. At the same time, there is no reason to believe that for a native speaker of any language these units should be exactly the same in properties; these properties may vary depending on the structure of the language, which is shown by linguistic studies. The above speculative assumptions are confirmed by the results of the study of speech disorders - aphasias and data from the study of children's speech. These data indicate that the human speech mechanism consists of separate blocks; with aphasia associated with damage to certain parts of the brain, some blocks are preserved, while others fail, and when a child develops speech, the blocks begin to act at different times. It turns out, in particular, that some areas of the brain are responsible for storing ready-made units, while others are responsible for building other units from them and for generating statements [Alpatov, 1999].
The language is strictly ordered, everything in it is systemic and subject to laws predetermined by human consciousness. Apparently the language has a common unified principle of its organization, to which all its functional and system features are subordinate, and the latter only manifest themselves differently in certain links of its structure. Moreover, this general principle should be maximally simple Otherwise, this complex mechanism would not be able to function. We are amazed at the complexity of the language and think about what kind of abilities and memory you need to have in order to master the language and use it, and yet even those who can neither write nor read (and there are over a billion illiterates on the globe) successfully explain themselves in their own language, although their vocabulary may be limited [Shteling, 1996].
In fact, all research on language modeling is in one way or another focused on the search for this "simple" principle.
Thus, the concept is inextricably linked with the linguistic sign, most often with the word. Words are a kind of material basis for concepts, without which neither their formation nor their operation is possible. However, as we have already noted, the unity of language and thinking, words and concepts does not mean their identity. Unlike concepts, the units of all languages are different: the same concept is expressed differently in different languages. In addition, in one language, as a rule, there is also no identity between the concept and the word. For example, in any language there are synonyms, language variants, homonyms, polysemantics.
The existence of synonymy, homonymy, polysemy at the morphemic, lexical, morphological, syntactic levels often leads to a confusion of concepts, and consequently, to errors in reasoning. Therefore, it is necessary to accurately establish the meanings of specific language units in order to use them in a strictly defined sense.
4.3.1. SYSTEM OF CONCEPTS AND LANGUAGE SYSTEM. The lexical composition of any language and its grammatical system are not a mirror image of the system of concepts used in the human society that speaks this language. Speakers of different languages divide the objective reality in different ways, respectively reflecting in the language different aspects of the described object. If an object is a carrier of attributes a, b, c, d, etc., then there may be nominations that fix these attributes in different variations: a + b or a + c, or a + b + d, etc. ( this, for example, is reflected in the internal form of equivalent words from different languages, cf. the internal form of Rus. tailor from ports"clothes" in German Schneider from Schneiden"to cut", Bulgarian shivach from shia"sew"; in units of chromatic, somatic vocabulary, etc.).
Here we can point to very interesting results obtained in the late XIX - early XX centuries. researchers of the direction called "words and things" (Worter und Sachen), primarily Hugo Schuhardt(1842 - 1927), according to which, the development of the meaning of a word has always had an internal motivation, explained by the relevance of the conditions in which certain meanings of the word were born and fixed. Schuchardt believed that etymology reaches its highest level when it becomes a science not only about words, but also about the realities hidden behind them; truly scientific etymological research should be based on a comprehensive study of realities in their historical and cultural context. Therefore, the history of the word is inconceivable without the history of the people, and etymological research is of paramount importance in solving important historical and ethnogenetic problems [Kolshansky, 1976]. All this leads to the fact that national dictionaries are extremely different from each other, and national language systems of synonyms, variants, antonyms, polysemants and, moreover, homonyms, show bright individualism. This is why conceptual systems are generally universal to human experience, but language systems are profoundly original.
The grammatical system of a language is designed to reflect objectively existing relationships between extralinguistic elements. If we consider extralinguistic reality as a huge open system, then the variety of relationships between its components will be colossal, but even languages with rich morphology and complex syntax have a limited set of rules. This means that some kind of relationship between elements objective reality necessarily fixed by the grammatical system (sometimes repeatedly, cf. grammatical pleonasm in I speak, you speak), even if this information is redundant for the speaker and listener (cf. non-emphatic constructions: I hurt my leg- letters. I broke my (my) leg vm. I broke my leg), while other types of relationships are ignored and information about them is expressed by communicants not with the help of special grammatical means, but with the help of lexical ones. So in Russian in statements I walked yesterday from 8 to 9 o'clock, I walked every day, I walked in this park every morning since I came to this city one species-temporal form is used (I walked With different values, which are updated due to the context, lexical and other concretizers, and in English language to convey the same content, different tense forms are necessarily used, while not conveying information about the speaker's field, which is necessarily, whether the speaker wishes it or not, is present in Russian phrases. Languages differ not in that in one language one can speak about something, but not in another: it has long been known that any thought can be expressed in any language. The situation is different: languages differ from each other in that information that, speaking in each of them, cannot be communicated - in other words, what must be reported in these languages o b a t e l n o (cf .: The doctor comes daily; The doctor came- we cannot convey information without reporting the gender and number, the English counterpart does not convey this information) [Plungyan, 1996].
“Just as physiology shows how life is elevated to the level of an organism and in what respects it is represented, so grammar explains how the ability to express itself in articulate sounds and in the word formed from them develops. The study of this manifestation in man in general is the subject of general grammar; the study of the peculiarities of the gift of speech in any one nation is the subject of private grammar. The first serves as the basis for the second; therefore, the grammar of the Russian language as a science is only possible as a general comparative one" [Davydov, 1852].
From birth, a person is fluent in at least one language, and he does not need to be taught this - you just need to give the child the opportunity to hear, and he will speak. An adult can also learn some foreign language, but it will turn out worse for him than for a child. It is easy to distinguish a foreigner who speaks Russian from a person for whom Russian is his native language. We do not remember the Russian language and do not know it, only a non-native language can be remembered and known. All cases of aphasia and other speech disorders have a physiological cause - the destruction or blocking of speech centers. A person can forget his name, but he will not forget how to express it: we can forget a word and quite unexpectedly remember it, but we will never forget, for example, the instrumental case, the subjunctive mood or the future tense - language is part of ourselves. In other words, we all know how to speak our own language, but we cannot explain how we do it. Therefore, foreigners baffle us with the simplest questions: why do Russians birdies"sit on the wires" when they " stand", A dishes, against, " are on the table", but not " lie"as it happens with spoons? What is the difference between the words Now And Now, phrases Every day I walk past this tree And Every day I walk past this tree and questions Have you seen this movie? And Have you seen this movie? It will be difficult for a non-philologist to explain why we say this, the philologist's answer about free and connected combinations, about lexical valency, grammatical categories, and so on. will not reveal the mechanism.
It is believed that each person "in the head" has the grammar of his native language - part of the mental-lingual complex (which includes the mental language) - a mechanism that allows us to speak correctly. But grammar is not an organ, and no one knows yet what exactly natural grammar is. Each language has its own grammar, which is why it is so difficult for us to learn a foreign language, we need to remember a lot of words and understand the laws by which these words are formed and connected. These laws are not like those that operate in our native language, and therefore there is such a thing as language interference leading to the generation of numerous errors in speech. For grammarians, such errors are a storehouse of information, because the structural, grammatical and semantic features of the native language of the speaker "overlap" his knowledge of the non-native language and reveal the most interesting phonetic and grammatical features of the native and studied languages. To better understand the grammar of the Russian language, it is necessary to compare its facts with the facts of the grammars of languages of other systems. The task of a linguist is to "pull out" grammar, make it explicit from a secret, identify language units and describe their system. At the same time, it must be remembered that the grammars of all languages have common, universal features. It was noted long ago that “there are some laws common to all languages, which are based not on the will of peoples, but on essential and unchangeable human words qualities, which ... serve to ensure that people of different centuries and countries can understand one another and that natural our language serves as a necessary way to learn any foreign language" [Rizhsky, 1806]. So, the linguistic universals inherent in the grammars of all languages or most of them include the following properties: the expression of relations between the subject and the predicate, signs of possession, evaluation, certainty / indefiniteness, plurality, etc. If there is inflection in the language, then there is also a derivational element ; if the plural is expressed, then there is a non-zero morph expressing it; if there is a case with only a zero allomorph, then for any such case there is a meaning of the subject with an intransitive verb; if in a language both the subject and the object can stand before the verb, then in this language there is a case; if the subject comes after the verb and the object comes after the subject, then the adjective part of the sentence is placed after the noun part of the sentence; if the language has a preposition and no postposition, then the noun in the genitive case is placed after the noun in the nominative case, etc. [Nikolaeva, 1990].
There is also the problem of the correlation of the universal and the national-specific in the linguistic representation of the world.
The universal properties of the picture (model) of the world are due to the fact that any language reflects in the structure and semantics the main parameters of the world (time and space), a person’s perception of reality, non-normative assessment, a person’s position in living space, the spiritual content of the individual, etc. National specificity is already manifested in how, to what extent and proportions the fundamental categories of being are represented in languages (single and special, part and whole, form and content, phenomenon and essence, time and space, quantity and quality, nature and man, life and death, etc.). The Russian language, for example, prefers the spatial aspect of the world over the temporal. The local principle of modeling the most different situations is becoming widespread. Existential sentences containing messages about the world are based on the idea of spatial localization ( There is no happiness in the world, but there is peace and will, Pushkin), fragment of the world ( NSU has a Faculty of Humanities), personal sphere ( I have friends and foes), physical states and properties ( I have headaches), psyche ( The boy has character), signs of objects ( The chair has no legs), specific events ( I had a birthday), abstract concepts ( The theory is inconsistent.), etc. In the existential type, the expression of quantitative, as well as some qualitative values ( We have many books; The girl has beautiful eyes). The principle of modeling the personal sphere distinguishes "languages of being" (be-languages) from "languages of possession" (have-languages); compare: The boy has friends and English. The boy has friends; You have no heart and English. You have no heart; I have a meeting today and English. I have a meeting today. In existential constructions, the name of the person does not take the position of the subject, and in constructions with to have becomes him.
The existential basis of the Russian language is due to a number of its features. First, the prevalence of local means of name determination (cf. The girl has blue eyes And The girl's eyes are blue). Secondly, there is a greater development of inter-subject than inter-event (temporal) relations (cf. the paradigm of names and verbs). Thirdly, the active use of local prepositions, prefixes etymologically close to them, adverbs, case forms of nouns, etc. to express temporary and other meanings (cf .: before angle And before lunch; come in behind corner And stay too long behind midnight; somewhere about two hours, He somewhere interesting person; A here suddenly something strange happened). It should also be noted the development and subtle differentiation of the category of indefiniteness, which is characteristic of existential structures (there are more than 60 indefinite pronouns in the Russian language), and the tendency to displace the names of the person in the nominative case from the position of the subject and form the subject with oblique cases (cf .: He is sad And He is sad), representation of a person as a space (locum), in which mental processes and events are carried out ( Anger boiled in him.; Love ripened in her). In addition, important components of the national-specific picture of the world are the so-called key concepts of culture. In Russian, these include, in particular, the concepts of the spiritual sphere, moral assessments, judgment, spontaneous (spontaneous) states of a person. They are associated with such fundamental words for the Russian language as soul, Truth, justice, conscience, fate (share, destiny, fate), yearning etc. The frequency of their use in Russian is significantly higher than the corresponding words in other languages, for example, in English. For 1 million word usages, lexeme word forms fate occurs 181 times, and English. fate-33, destiny- 22 [Arutyunova, 1997].
With all the variety of lexical and grammatical meanings in specific languages, at the same time, their surprising repetition is revealed. Languages, as it were, rediscover the same elements of meaning, giving them a different design, which allows us to speak, in application to different languages, about certain fixed semantic blocks of the universe of meanings (ultimately predetermined by the properties of a person reflected in thinking and independently of him). existing world objects, events, relationships, etc.): about parts of speech, nominal classes, meanings of number, referential correlation, about causative connection between pairs of events, about typical roles of participants in a communicative situation, about ways to implement a typical event, about time values, causes , conditions, consequences, etc. The universe of meanings is divided in a certain way by each language into standard, typical semantic blocks for this language. Each semantic block is internally complexly organized, i.e., a decomposable semantic object. Semantic blocks, which correspond to relatively integral and independent signifiers, as we have already noted, are called lexical meanings, and semantic blocks, the signifiers of which are devoid of integrity and / or independence, are called grammatical meanings (in the broad sense of the word, their exponents can be service morphemes, special syntactic constructions - phrases and sentences, etc.) [Kibrik, 1987].
Numerous groups of words stored in the memory of a native speaker and forming his personality dictionary are designated by the term thesaurus. The personality dictionary of an average native speaker is 10 - 100 thousand words. Experiments show that vocabulary is stored in memory in the form of ordered structures. These ordered structures are much more complicated than a one-dimensional structure, for example, an alphabetical list - to extract the desired word from this list, you need to go through all the elements of the list sequentially, while the thesaurus is organized and ordered surprisingly expediently. So the offer to a native speaker to remember all the elements of the set causes difficulty, but as soon as you enter any identifiers, a guess immediately arises, thus, the multidimensionality of such an information store (personality dictionary) allows you to extract the desired word without going through all the options, using to find it different access keys (usually with the help of associates). Each word received in the message activates in the listener's memory a certain group of words semantically (or otherwise) associated with this word.
4.4. CONTENT AND VOLUME OF THE CONCEPT. Any concept has content and scope. The content of the concept is called the totality of the essential features of the object, which is conceived in this concept. For example, the content of the concept "case" is a set of essential features of a case: a grammatical category, an expression of relations, etc. The set of objects that is conceived in the concept is called the scope of the concept. The scope of the concept of "case" covers all cases, since they have common essential features. The content and scope of the concept are closely related to each other. This relationship is expressed in the law of the inverse relationship between the volume and content of a concept, which establishes that an increase in the content of a concept leads to the formation of a concept with a smaller volume, and vice versa. So, increasing the content of the concept "meaning" by adding a new attribute "lexical", we move on to the concept " lexical meaning", which has a smaller volume. The law of the inverse relationship between the volume and content of the concept underlies a number of logical operations that will be discussed below.
4.5. CLASS. SUBCLASS CLASS ELEMENT. Logic also operates with the concepts "class" ("set"), "subclass" ("subset of the set") and "class element". class, or many, is called a certain set of objects that have some common features. Such, for example, are classes (sets) of faculties, students, language units, etc. Based on the study of a certain class of subjects, the concept of this class is formed. So, on the basis of studying a class (set) of language units, they form the concept of a language unit. A class (set) may include a subclass, or a subset. For example, a class of students includes a subclass of students in the humanities, a class of faculties - a subclass of humanities faculties. The relationship between a class (set) and a subclass (subset) is expressed using the "=" sign: A = B. This expression reads as follows: A is a subclass of B. So, if A are humanities students, and B are students, then A will be a subclass of class B. Classes (sets) consist of elements. class element is an item that belongs to this class. Thus, the elements of many faculties will be the Faculty of Natural Sciences, the Faculty of Humanities, the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics and other faculties. A distinction is made between the universal class, the singular class, and the null or empty class. The class consisting of all elements of the study area is called generic class(for example, the class of planets of the solar system, the class of Russian phonemes). If the class consists of a single element, then it will be unit class(for example, the planet Jupiter, consonant [B]); finally, a class that does not contain any element is called null (empty) class. An empty class is, for example, the class of Russian articles. The number of elements of the empty class is zero . The establishment of the boundaries of a natural class of objects, i.e., the solution of the question of its identity, is possible as a result of empirical or theoretical research. This is a difficult task, since the elements of extralinguistic reality are closely interconnected and the researcher may encounter difficulties in classifying them. An equally difficult task is to determine the identity of a language unit: almost all classification problems in descriptive linguistics are associated with the possible ambiguity of resolving the issue of the boundaries of a language class.
4.6. TYPES OF CONCEPTS. Traditionally, concepts are usually divided into the following types: (1) singular and general, (2) concrete and abstract, (3) positive and negative, (4) irrelative and correlative.
4.6.1. SINGLE AND GENERAL CONCEPTS. Concepts are divided into singular and general, depending on whether one element or many elements are conceived in them. The concept in which one element is thought is called single(for example, "Novosibirsk", "Novosibirsk State University"). The concept in which a set of elements is conceived is called general(e.g. "city", "university"). They conceive of a set of elements that have common essential features.
single in philosophical science it denotes the relative isolation, discreteness, delimitation from each other in space and time of things and events, as well as their inherent specific, unique features that make up their unique qualitative and quantitative certainty. As a single object, not only a separate object, but also a whole class of objects can be considered if it is taken as something unified, relatively independent, existing within the boundaries of a certain measure. At the same time, the object itself is a certain set of parts, which, in turn, act as single ones. General expresses a certain property or relationship characteristic of a given class of objects, events, as well as the law of existence and development of all individual forms of being of material and spiritual phenomena. As the similarity of the signs of things, the general is accessible to direct perception; being a regularity, it is reflected in the form of concepts and theories. There are no two absolutely identical things in the world, and no two absolutely different things that have nothing in common with each other. The general as a regularity is expressed in the individual and through the individual, and any new regularity initially appears as a single exception from general rule[Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1983].
The possibility of dividing concepts into general and singular turned out to be extremely fruitful, firstly, for Saussurean linguistics as a whole with its methodological dichotomy "speech - language" themselves abstract analogues of units of speech and is a system of objectively existing, socially fixed signs that correlate conceptual content and typical sound; at the same time, speech and language form a single phenomenon of human language and each specific language taken in its certain state), secondly , for an idea models in linguistics in all the diversity of its interpretation; thirdly, to classify concepts into singular and general, concrete and abstract, positive and negative, irrelative and relative - this idea was extrapolated to the actual language material (see, for example, the lexico-grammatical classification of nouns).
General concepts can be registering and non-registering. registering are called concepts in which the set of elements conceivable in them can be taken into account, registered (at least in principle). For example, "genitive case ending", "Novosibirsk district", "planet solar system". Registering concepts have a finite scope. A general concept referring to an indefinite number of objects is called non-registrative. For example, the concepts of "number", "word". Non-registering concepts have an infinite scope. In a special group are collective concepts, in which the signs of a set of elements that make up a single whole are thought, for example, "collective", "group", "constellation". These concepts, as well as general ones, reflect many elements (members of the team, students of the group, stars), however, as in single concepts, this set is conceived as a single whole. The content of a collective concept cannot be attributed to each individual element included in its scope, it refers to the entire set of elements. In the process of reasoning, general concepts can be used in a divisive and collective sense. If the statement refers to each element of the class, then such a use of the concept will be divisive, but if the statement refers to all the elements taken in unity and is not applicable to each element separately, then such a use of the concept is collective. talking The students of our group study logic, we use the concept of "students of our group" in a divisive sense, since this statement applies to each student of our group. In a statement The students of our group held a conference The statement applies to all students in our group as a whole. Here the term "students of our group" is used in a collective sense. Word every inapplicable to this judgment - it is impossible to say Each student of our group held a conference.
4.6.2. CONCRETE AND ABSTRACT CONCEPTS. Concepts are divided into concrete and abstract depending on what they reflect: an object (class of objects) or its property (relationship between objects). The concept in which an object or a set of objects is conceived as something independently existing is called concrete; a concept in which a property of an object or a relationship between objects is conceived is called abstract. Thus, the concepts of "book", "witness", "state" are concrete, the concepts of "whiteness", "courage", "responsibility" are abstract. Since ancient times, there has been a dispute about the reality of the existence of concrete and abstract concepts between nominalists And realists. Nominalism denies the ontological (existential) meaning of universals ( general concepts). Nominalists believe that universals do not exist in reality, but only in thinking. So Cynic Antisthenes, the Stoics criticized Plato's theory of ideas: ideas, they believed, have no real existence and are only in the mind. In linguistics, this dispute was indirectly reflected in the choice of a single criterion for classifying nouns according to their lexical and grammatical categories.
4.6.3. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONCEPTS. Concepts are divided into positive and negative, depending on whether their content consists of properties inherent in the object, or properties that are absent from it. Concepts, the content of which is the properties inherent in the subject, are called positive. Concepts, the content of which indicates the absence of certain properties of an object, are called negative. So, the concepts of "literate", "order", "believer" are positive; the concepts of "illiterate", "disorder", "unbeliever" - negative. One should not confuse the logical characterization of the concepts of positive and negative with the political, moral, legal assessment of the phenomena they reflect. Thus, "crime" is a positive concept, and "unselfishness" is a negative one. In Russian, negative concepts are expressed by words with negative prefixes Not-, without-, A-, de-, in- and etc.
the predominance of a functional (meaningful) approach to the allocation, definition and systematization of language categories;
During the period of the dominance of the philosophical doctrine of rationalism (17th - 1st half of the 19th centuries), the idea of universal ("universal") grammars was revived, based on the belief in the absolute correspondence of speech to the natural logic of thinking. S. Sh. Dumarset wrote that "in all the languages of the world there is only one necessary way of forming meaning with the help of words." In 1660, in the monastery of Port-Royal, the learned monks A. Arno and C. Lanslo created the so-called "Grammar of Port-Royal" ( "Grammaire generale et raisonnée de Port-Royal"), which became a model of this kind of compositions (see Universal Grammars). First of all, logical and philosophical significance was attached to these grammars (philosophers J. Locke, D. Diderot, Dumarset, G. V. Leibniz and others participated in the development of problems related to language). The categories of language were interpreted as corresponding to certain operations of the mind: its ability to represent, judge, and infer. The division of grammar sometimes received epistemological understanding. So, K. S. Aksakov divided grammar into 3 parts: part I - the name, it reflects the awareness of objects, being at rest; part II - a verb, it reflects the awareness of action, being in motion; part III - speech (i.e. syntax), it reflects the awareness of life in its entirety. General grammars were not usually consistently logical, such as in the description of form formation. This was influenced by the experience of linguistic research proper, begun by Roman scientists (Priscian, Elius Donatus and others). However, a universal model was taken as a basis, made up of grammatical categories identified in Latin. The influence of logical thought (in the version of Aristotelian formal logic) was great in the interpretation of the categories of syntax. In I. I. Davydov’s definition, syntax “explores either the logical relations of concepts and their expression, or the logical relations of thoughts and their expression.” The definitions of word classes indicated not their formal features, but their ability to perform some syntactic function. So, nouns were defined as "subject words"; words adapted to perform the function of a predicate were singled out as a special group (L. G. Yakob). The sentences were analyzed according to the judgment model (S is P).
Already within the logical direction of the 19th century. the possibility of non-coincidence of the categories of logic with the categories of grammar was pointed out, which makes the description of specific languages according to the logical model inadequate, and attempts were made to modify the logical principles, removing their contradiction with the language data. F. I. Buslaev refused to single out the copula as an obligatory component of the sentence structure. At the same time, he introduced minor members of the sentence into syntactic analysis - additions and circumstances that have no analogues in the composition of the judgment. A consistent revision of the logical foundations of grammar was initiated by the psychological direction of the second half of the 19th century. His subject was K. F. Becker's The Organism of Language, popular in European linguistics (cf. his criticism by H. Steinthal and A. A. Potebnia).
Criticism of the logical principles of analysis, made from different (formal-grammatical, psychological, typological, etc.) positions, was based on the following provisions:
far from all categories of logic have linguistic correspondence (languages do not reflect gender-species relations important for logic, the difference between true and false statements, etc.);
not all forms of language have a logical content (for example, not all sentences express a judgment);
the number of logical and grammatical members of the sentence does not match, as a result of which the volume of the logical and grammatical subject and predicate is different (logically, the sentence is divided into a subject and a predicate, while grammar distinguishes in the group of the subject definition, and in the group of the predicate - additions and circumstances);
the logical and grammatical characteristics of the members of a sentence can not only diverge, but also be inverted; the predicate can receive the function of a logical subject, and the subject can receive the function of a predicate (see Actual division of a sentence);
analysis of sentences based on a single logical model does not allow one to describe real syntactic structures in all their diversity (especially non-Indo-European languages), obscuring the typological differences existing between different languages and the individual characteristics of specific languages;
logistic descriptions leave unidentified psychological (emotional, evaluative, volitional) and communicative aspects of speech;
logic cannot provide a reliable principle for the classification of linguistic forms.
Criticism of the logical foundations of grammar led to a clearer delimitation of the proper language categories from the categories of logic, which developed the technique of formal grammatical analysis and brought morphology to the fore. Interest in holistic, complete units of speech (sentence, period) was replaced by attention to minimal units of language (morpheme, differential features, seme). Logical principles and methods of analysis have given way to psychological, formal grammatical, and structural ones.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. in a number of logical and philosophical schools (mainly within the framework of neopositivism and empiricism), the study of the logical aspect of natural languages began. Representatives of analytical philosophy, or the philosophy of analysis (G. Frege, B. Russell, L. Wittgenstein, R. Karnap, H. Reichenbach and others), undertook a logical analysis of the language of science in order to determine the boundaries of true knowledge. Based on the principle of "distrust of language" as a way of expressing thought and knowledge, representatives of this school resorted to a universal symbolic notation to discover the true logical structure of a sentence. The representation of a sentence as a propositional function (see Proposition) corresponding to a predicate from a certain number of arguments corresponding to the nominal components of the sentence was most widely used. The logical language included a set of constants: logical connectives (∧ - conjunction, "and"; ∨ - disjunction, "or"; → or ⊃ - implication, "if...then..."; ≡ or ∼ equivalence, etc. ), operators, including quantifiers, indication of their scope, etc.
The application of the artificial language of logic revealed the ambiguity of many sentences in natural languages. In the 60-80s. 20th century the problem of ambiguity has become widely discussed in linguistics.
The philosophy of analysis developed a number of problems of logical semantics, the main concepts of which were the concept of signification (intension, meaning) and the concept of denotation (extension, referent). In connection with the concept of signification - the actual linguistic, virtual meaning of words and expressions - such problems as synonymy (identity of meaning), significance (or presence of meaning), analyticity of sentences (truth due to meaning, for example, in tautological statements), the role of meaning were discussed. subjective expression in the formation of the meaning of a sentence, etc. In connection with the concept of denotation and denotation, the problems of the nature of naming, types of reference and its mechanisms were studied. Important for logical semantics was the concept of descriptions introduced by Russell - common nouns and nominal expressions that acquire the ability to refer only in the context of a sentence. Descriptions were opposed by Russell to logical proper names, which retain their relation to the object they name even outside the context of speech. In analytical philosophy, the development of types of contexts (W. O. Quine) was initiated - intensional, created by the verbs of thinking, opinion, knowledge, modal expressions, and extensional, independent of the subjective mode.
Studying primarily the language of science, analytical philosophy did not take into account the communicative aspect of speech, the pragmatic conditions of communication (see Pragmatics) and the subjective factor associated with them. At the end of the 40s. 20th century some representatives of this trend (the first - Wittgenstein) pointed out the insufficiency of a theory that limits the functions of a sentence to the assertion of the truth of a judgment. Wittgenstein, whose concept formed the basis of the views of linguistic philosophy (G. Ryle, P. Geach, P. F. Strawson, J. Austin and others), turned to the logical analysis of ordinary language observed in its everyday functioning.
The influence of logical and philosophical trends was reflected in the development of theoretical linguistics in the 60-80s, adding to the range of problems under study, the methodology of analysis, the system of concepts used and the metalanguage. In linguistics, directions have been defined, one of which gravitates towards the proper logical analysis of natural language, the other studies the logical aspect of the use of language, communication, etc. This latter approached sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics and practically united with the philosophy of ordinary language, which evolved towards linguistic problems.
- Jacob L.-G., Inscription of a universal grammar, St. Petersburg, 1812;
- Davydov I.I., Experience of general comparative grammar of the Russian language, St. Petersburg, 1852;
- Aksakov K. S., Experience of Russian grammar, M., 1860;
- Balli Sh., General linguistics and questions of the French language, trans. from French, Moscow, 1955;
- Russell B., History of Western Philosophy, trans. from English, M., 1959;
- his own, Human knowledge, [transl. from English], M., 1957;
- Wittgenstein L., Logico-philosophical treatise, trans. from German, M., 1958;
- Buslaev F.I., Historical grammar of the Russian language, M., 1959;
- carnap R., Meaning and necessity, trans. from German., M., 1959;
- Panfilov V. Z., Grammar and logic, M.-L., 1963;
- Stepanov Yu. S., Modern connections of linguistics and logic, "Problems of Linguistics", 1973, No. 4;
- his own, Names. Predicates. Suggestions, M., 1981;
- Popov P.S., Styazhkin N.I., Development of logical ideas from antiquity to the Renaissance, M., 1974;
- Paducheva E. V., On the semantics of syntax, M.,;
- her own, Statement and its correlation with reality, M., 1985;
- Arutyunova N.D., Logical theories of meaning, in the book: Principles and methods of semantic research, M., 1976;
- Frege G., Meaning and denotation, trans. from German, "Semiotics and Informatics", 1977, c. 8;
- Petrov V. V., The problem of indication in the language of science, Novosibirsk, 1977;
- History of linguistic doctrines. Ancient world, L., 1980;
- NZL, in. 13, Logic and linguistics, M., 1982;
- History of linguistic doctrines. Medieval Europe, L., 1985;
- Stepanov Yu. S., In the three-dimensional space of language, M., 1985;
- NZL, in. 18, Logical analysis of natural language, M., 1986;
- Du Marsais C.Ch., Logique et principes de grammaire, P., 1879;
- Robins R. H., Ancient and Mediaeval grammatical theory in Europe..., L., 1951;
- Pinborg J., Die Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter, Kph., ;
- Bursil Hall G. L., Speculative grammars of the Middle Ages. The doctrine of partes orationis of the Modistae, The Hague - P., 1971;
- Ashworth E. J., Language and logic in the post-medieval period, Dordrecht, 1974;
- La grammaire générale (des modistes aux idéologues), 1977;
- Hunt R. W., The history of grammar in the Middle Ages, Amst., 1980;
- coxito A., Logica, semântica e conhecimento, Coimbra, 1981.
