Linguistic experiment

Checking the conditions for the functioning of a language element to clarify its characteristic features, limits of possible use, optimal use cases. “Thus, the principle of experiment is introduced into linguistics. Having made any assumption about the meaning of this or that word, this or that form, about this or that rule of word formation or shaping, etc., one should try to see if it is possible to say a number of different phrases (which can be infinitely multiplied), applying this rule ... An affirmative result confirms the correctness of the postulate ... But negative results are especially instructive: they indicate either the incorrectness of the postulated rule, or the need for some of its restrictions, or that the rule no longer exists, but there are only dictionary facts, etc. . P." (L. V. Shcherba). The importance of using a linguistic experiment, especially in the field of stylistics, was noted by L. V. Shcherba, A. M. Peshkovsky, A. N. Gvozdev.

Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. Ed. 2nd. - M .: Education. Rosenthal D.E., Telenkova M.A.. 1976 .

See what a "linguistic experiment" is in other dictionaries:

linguistic experiment- One of the types of linguistic analysis of the text, in which one of the linguistic means is arbitrarily replaced by a synonymous means. At the same time, the stylistic possibilities of each synonym are revealed. In due time, the development of a method ... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

Linguistic associative experiment is one of the methods of psycholinguistics. It originates in the method of free association, one of the first projective methods of psychology. S. Freud and his followers assumed that the uncontrollable ... ... Wikipedia

Linguistics ... Wikipedia

- (1880 1944), Russian linguist, specialist in general linguistics, Russian, Slavic and French. Born February 20 (March 3) 1880 in St. Petersburg. In 1903 he graduated from St. Petersburg University, a student of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. In 1916 1941 ... ... Collier's Encyclopedia

- (1880 1944), linguist, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1943). Head of the St. Petersburg (Leningrad) phonological school. Works on problems of general linguistics, phonology and phonetics, lexicology and lexicography, orthoepy, syntax, Russian studies, romance, ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Theoretical linguistics Phonetics Phonology Morphology Syntax Semantics Lexical semantics Pragmatics ... Wikipedia

Linguistics Theoretical linguistics Phonetics Phonology Morphology Syntax Semantics Lexical semantics Pragmatics ... Wikipedia

Linguistics Theoretical linguistics Phonetics Phonology Morphology Syntax Semantics Lexical semantics Pragmatics ... Wikipedia

James (James Joyce, 1882) is an Anglo-Irish writer, psychoanalyst, master of international (especially American) modernism. Since 1904 in exile, since 1920 in Paris. D. writes slowly, neglects tradition and does not allow publishing houses to soften the severity ... ... Literary encyclopedia

Books

• Russian language. Textbook for grade 4. In 2 parts. Part 1. FSES
• Russian language. Textbook for grade 4. In 2 parts. Part 2. FSES, Natalia Vasilievna Nechaeva, Svetlana Gennadievna Yakovleva. The textbook completes a new teaching and learning method in the Russian language, developed in accordance with the principles of the personality-oriented developmental education system of L. V. Zankova. Based on modern requirements ...

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "SYMBOL OF SCIENCE" No. 11-4 / 2016 ISSN 2410-700X

2. Raikhshtein AD Comparative analysis of German and Russian phraseology. - M .: Higher school, 1980 .-- 143 p.

3. Shevchenko V.D. Fundamentals of the theory of the English language: Textbook. - Samara: SamGAPS, 2004 .-- 72p.

4. Abbyy Lingvo: online dictionary [Electronic resource] - Access mode: http://www.lingvo-online.ru/ru (date of access: 15.02.2016)

5. Duden online: dictionary of the German language [Electronic resource] - Access mode: http://www.duden.de/ (date of access: 15.02.2016)

© Mineeva O.A. , A.A. Pirogova , 2016

Morozova Nadezhda Mikhailovna

Dr. phil. Sci., Professor of the VI Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

Voronezh, RF E-mail: [email protected]

LINGUISTIC EXPERIMENT A.M. PESHKOVSKY AS A METHOD FOR STUDYING THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

annotation

The article discusses the views of A.M. Peshkovsky regarding the use of linguistic experiment in the practice of teaching the Russian language. In addition, specific examples of the use of a linguistic experiment by the scientist himself in works devoted to the study of the Russian language are analyzed. The scientist considered the linguistic experiment as an effective method of developing speech and stylistic skills in students.

Keywords

The method of linguistic experiment, the practice of teaching the Russian language, observation of the language, types of linguistic experiment.

The modern competence-based approach in the higher education system requires increased attention to the practical mastery of students' skills of oral and written communication in Russian in the course of studying such disciplines as "Russian language and culture of speech", "Russian language in business documentation". Today, special attention is paid to those teaching methods that contribute to the formation of an exemplary linguistic personality of a specialist, whose speech corresponds to the norms of the Russian literary language, a high level of spelling, punctuation and stylistic literacy. Such methods include the method of linguistic experiment, about which the famous Russian scientist-linguist, Professor A.M. Peshkovsky, wrote in his works back in the 30s.

The works of AM Peshkovsky "Russian syntax in scientific coverage", "Our language", "How to teach classes in syntax and stylistics" and today are of great interest to teachers. In them, the scientist constantly emphasizes that observations of language are closely related to experiment. It is with the help of a linguistic experiment that "an intentional change in the actual phenomenon of speech is made for the purpose of learning."

Using simple and vivid examples, the scientist shows how this method can be used to detect the distinguishing features of grammatical concepts and phenomena.

A classic example of the use of a linguistic experiment for scientific purposes can serve, for example, the identification of the essence of isolated members of a sentence by substituting possible synonymous variants of the considered construction: I am surprised that you, with your kindness, do not feel this; I am surprised that you, so kind, do not feel it; I wonder that you being so

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "SYMBOL OF SCIENCE" No. 11-4 / 2016 ISSN 2410-700X_

are kind, do not feel it; I am surprised that you, who are so kind, do not feel it; I am surprised that you, although you are so kind, do not feel it. Compare: I'm surprised you and your wife don't feel it. The experiment carried out allowed the scientist to conclude that "the intonational modifications discovered in the first of these examples are not outwardly, not accidental, but create a really special form of the phrase." The combination with your kindness is intoned as a separate sentence, as if inserted into the sentence that you do not feel it. A. M. Peshkovsky called such a minor member isolated.

With the help of a linguistic experiment, A. M. Peshkovsky also shows the differences between composition and submission in complex sentences. For this, the relations expressed by unions in complex sentences were investigated from the side of their reversibility and irreversibility. The linguistic experiment was carried out with the following sentences:

He didn't go to school and he has a headache.

He didn't go to school because he has a headache.

He has a headache and didn't go to school

He has a headache because he didn't go to school.

The meaning of the rearrangement is to try to tear it off from the union and put it in front of the union, and put another proposal to the union. As a result of the experiment, it turned out that the union and such a break withstood, but the union because it did not. Consequently, the union is because it is more closely related to the proposal that he begins by himself.

Different "behavior" of unions in the considered sentences determines the nature of semantic relations between parts of a complex whole. In the first phrase, the rearrangement of sentences did not change the relationship between them, in the second, the relationship changed: what was the cause became the effect, and what was the effect became the cause. Consequently, the union is because it forms with that sentence one meaningful whole, which it begins with itself. It can move from place to place without any changes in meaning for the whole complex whole (except for purely stylistic ones). And in the union and nothing like that.

“Thus,” Peshkovsky concludes, “therefore, in one case the indicator of the ratio stands between the correlated ones, and in the other - with one of them, that is, in one case we have what is called a composition, and in the other - that, what is called submission. "

Experiments of this kind help to reveal various signs of the grammatical phenomena under consideration.

List of used literature

1. Peshkovsky A. M. Selected Works. - M.: Education, 1959 .-- S. 223.

2. Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. - M.: Education, 1956 .-- p. 415-416, p. 463-464.

© Morozova N.M., 2016

Valentina Nazarkina

undergraduate gr. M-22, KSU, Abakan, RF E-mail: [email protected]

ASSOCIATIVE EXPERIMENT IN THE FORMATION OF INTERCULTURAL

COMPETENCES

annotation

The article reflects the problem of studying intercultural communication, the solution of which is successful

Sections: Russian language

Person-centered approach, differentiated learning - these are key concepts, without which it is impossible to imagine a modern school. The Russian language lesson also requires close attention. If the forms of work with students with low motivation are already clear for many teachers, then what to offer to those who are able to work at a high level of complexity?

One of the forms of working with gifted children in Russian lessons can be a linguistic experiment. In the dictionary of linguistic terms, the following definition is given: a linguistic experiment is a test of the conditions for the functioning of a linguistic element in order to clarify its characteristic features, the limits of possible use, and optimal use cases. “Thus, the principle of experiment is introduced into linguistics. Having made any assumption about the meaning of this or that word, this or that form, about this or that rule of word formation or shaping, etc., one should try to see if it is possible to say a number of different phrases (which can be infinitely multiplied), applying this rule ... An affirmative result confirms the correctness of the postulate ... But negative results are especially instructive: they indicate either the incorrectness of the postulated rule, or the need for some of its restrictions, or that the rule no longer exists, but there are only dictionary facts, etc. . P." (L. V. Shcherba). The importance of using a linguistic experiment was noted by A. M. Peshkovsky, A. N. Gvozdev.

Finding new knowledge is carried out by the students themselves in the process of analyzing specific, particular phenomena of the language, from which they move to the general, to theoretical conclusions and laws.

So, for example, when studying the topic “Inanimate and inanimate nouns”, the knowledge of students with increased motivation for learning can be deepened with the help of a morphological experiment. Even in elementary school, children learned that animate nouns include those who answer the question: “Who?”, And inanimate nouns, respectively, those who answer the question: “What?”. In order for students to expand their knowledge and assimilate the difference between the scientific interpretation of nouns from the point of view of the category of animateness - inanimateness and the everyday concept of this phenomenon, the following problematic situation can be created: is the word "doll" an animate or inanimate noun?

The linguistic experiment will consist in declining this noun in the plural in cases and comparing it with the forms of nouns that do not raise doubts about belonging to an animate or inanimate noun (for example, "sister", "board").

As a result of independent observations, students will come to the conclusion: for the nouns "doll" and "sister" in the plural, the accusative case coincides with the genitive case: ( no) dolls = (see) dolls(no sisters = I see sisters), R. p. = V. p.

The plural forms of the nouns “doll” and “board” do not coincide with the accusative: no dolls = I see dolls, but no boards = I see boards. Doll formula: R.p. = V.p. Board formula: I.p. = V.p.

The division of nouns into animate and inanimate does not always coincide with the scientific concept of animate and inanimate nature.

In animate plural nouns, the accusative case coincides with the genitive case (in animate masculine nouns of the 2nd declension and in the singular).

In inanimate plural nouns, the accusative case coincides with the nominative case (for masculine nouns of the 2nd declension and in the singular, the accusative case coincides with the nominative case).

The nouns dead and corpse are synonyms, but the noun dead is animate (V.p. = R.p .: I see a dead person - there is no dead person), and the noun corpse is inanimate (V.p. = I.p .: I see a corpse - here there is a corpse).

The same can be observed with the example of the noun microbe. From the point of view of biology, this is a part of living nature, but the noun microbe is inanimate (V.p. = I.p .: I see a microbe - there is a microbe here).

Sometimes fifth graders have difficulty in determining the case of nouns. They mix nominative and accusative, genitive and accusative. To understand in which case nouns of the 2nd and 3rd declensions are, they can be replaced with nouns of the 1st declension, in which the endings of the indicated cases do not coincide: I bought a portfolio, a notebook - I bought a book; invited a friend, mother - invited a sister. The singular form of nouns of the 1st declension, in which the dative case coincides with the prepositional case, can be replaced by the plural form: on the road - on the roads (prepositional case - on the roads).

In working with students with increased motivation, the method of syntactic experiment can be widely used.

Students learn from textbooks that prepositions are not members of a sentence.

But interested children can be introduced to a different point of view on the syntactic role of prepositions. Linguist Yu. T. Dolin believes: “In the process of speech practice, both the lexical and syntactic independence of a number of non-derivative prepositions noticeably increases.” The essence of the experiment will be to compare the use of two prepositions. For observation, take the lines of N. Rubtsov:

I, the young son of the sea trading posts,
I want the storm to sound forever
So that there is a sea for the brave,
And if not, then the pier.

Students will be sure to pay attention to the different uses of the two prepositions.

One preposition is used before the adjective, and the second without the nominal form. In the sentence, the preposition "without" answers the question "How?" and is a circumstance. To confirm the observation, we can offer an example from a poem by E. Yevtushenko:

And this explosion is heard (it happens late),
All life from now on dividing into before and after.

The conclusions of the students will be approximately as follows: the prepositions "before" and "after" answer the questions "what?" and are additions.

When parsing, you can also apply the method of linguistic experiment. In the case when difficulties arise with the definition of a member of the sentence, it is necessary to replace the indistinct syntactic constructions with distinct ones. So in the sentence “Tourists have finally noticed an exit to the surface”, difficulties may arise with the word “surface”. Instead of the sentence “Tourists have finally noticed an exit to the surface”, one can use “Tourists have finally noticed an exit that leads to the surface” or “Tourists have finally noticed an exit that leads to the surface”.

The possibility of replacing the prepositional-nominal combination “on the surface” with a participial turnover and a subordinate attributive proves that we are dealing with a definition.

The "dumb" dictation can also be attributed to a linguistic experiment. On a sheet of paper, a number is written in number, an object is drawn next to it. It is necessary to put the number and noun in a certain case. For example, no 97 (figure), to 132 (figure).

A linguistic experiment can take place in a group form. Each group receives an assignment in which a question is formulated, didactic material is presented and an experiment program is proposed to obtain a certain result. The results of the experiment can be assessed both by the teacher himself and by a group of expert students, consisting of the most prepared students.

A linguistic experiment helps students understand many difficult facts of the language, serves as a means to make sure that these facts are interpreted correctly.

1. It is known that in the XX century. in various fields of science and art (in mathematics, biology, philosophy, philology, painting, architecture, etc.), many valuable ideas and initiatives of Russian scientists and cultural figures died out in the stifling atmosphere of Soviet totalitarianism, but received recognition and development in the West and decades later they return to Russia.

To a large extent, this also applies to the method of linguistic experiment, the enormous role of which was insistently emphasized in the 1920s by A. M. Peshkovsky and especially L. V. Shcherba. “Having made any assumption about the meaning of this or that word, this or that form, about this or that rule of word formation or shaping, etc., one should try to see if a number of different phrases can be said (which can be infinitely multiplied) by applying this the rule (...) In the possibility of using the experiment lies a huge advantage - from a theoretical point of view - the study of living languages ​​”[Shcherba 1974: 32].

In words, the need for experimentation in synchronous research is recognized, apparently, by all Russian linguists, in fact, however, the possibilities of this method are still insufficiently used. Foreign research on grammar, semantics, pragmatics is, as a rule, a series of experiments on several, carefully selected examples and the interpretation of the results obtained. In Russia, work on modern language in this respect does not differ much from work on the history of language: in both, large lists of examples from the examined texts are given, and the size of the list itself is regarded as proof of the correctness of the position being developed. At the same time, the fact that in real texts the analyzed phenomenon is often distorted by the influence of additional factors is ignored. We forget the warning of A. M. Peshkovsky, who noted that it would be a mistake to see, for example, in the union and the exponent of propagating, cause-and-effect, conditional-effect, adversarial, etc. relations; this would mean that “everything that can be extracted from the material content of the sentences combined by it simply falls into the meaning of the union” [Peshkovsky 1956: 142]. The language researcher finds himself in the position of a chemist who would take pieces for the chemical analysis of some metal its ores of different mineral composition and ascribed the observed spills to the metal itself. Obviously, the chemist will take for his experiment pure metal, free from impurities. We also have to operate with carefully selected "examples, excluding, if possible, the influence of additional factors ^, and experiment with these examples (for example, replace a word with its synonym, change the type of speech act, expand a phrase due to a diagnostic context, etc.).

2. The above does not mean at all that the author is opposed to collecting textual material. In research on diachrony, stylistics, etc., it is necessary. Even when learning a modern language, text examples are a useful starting point and valuable illustrative material. However, collecting textual material should not become an end in itself. This not unpleasant occupation does not give so much: according to Mayakovsky, "a gram of production, a year of work."

When learning a living language, the emphasis should be on linguistic experimentation. We will save time and achieve better results. Yu. D. Apresyan said well about this: “You can collect facts for decades and never notice the semantic secret of a word, which it instantly gives away under the conditions of an acute experiment” [Apresyan 1971: 34].

3. An important type of experiment is observation of "negative linguistic material" - anomalies (statements that contradict linguistic intuition). T.V.Bulygina and A; D. Shmelev note (with reference to T. Kuhn) that in science often a discovery begins with the realization of an anomaly [Bulygina - Shmelev 1997: 438]. “... the game in violation of semantic and pragmatic canons has as its goal to penetrate into the nature of the canon itself, and through it into the nature of things” [Arutyunova 1988: 303]. Of course, care must be taken when interpreting the results. The results, which sharply contradict the existing ideas (“they don’t climb into any gate”), require careful verification. It is possible that we are dealing with an experimental error. As E. Dahl noted, “if my thermometer shows that I have a temperature of 43 * C, then I conclude from this not that the previous theories regarding possible fluctuations in the temperature of the human body are not true, but that I should buy a new thermometer” ( quoted from [Bulygina - Shmelev 1997: 437]).

Y.D Apresyan proposed a single six-digit experimental scale for measuring the degree of language incorrectness: correct - (+), acceptable - (-), doubtful - (?), Very doubtful - (??), incorrect - (*), grossly incorrect ( **). The language game (LI) is usually located in the upper part of the scale, these are usually small deviations from the norm or even just some unusualness, for example, "condensation", oversaturation with some not too frequent language feature, such as Edible, put on underwear and went at night (cf. [Norman 1987]). Strong deviations from the norm and gross irregularities in artistic speech are rare, and in the author's speech they are extremely rare. There is, however, one exception - parody.

4. J Kitchin sees in the parody "the reaction of the carriers of common ideas ... In social issues, it is the defender of respectability, in literature - the established forms" (cited in [Novikov 1989: 134]).

I put on Akhmatova's lines on my right hand / In a wonderful (unfortunately, never published) course of lectures on the language of Russian poetry, M.V. Panov called the glove on the left hand the "tuning fork" of the poetics of Acmeism. But how greedily, not disdaining repetitions, parodists, accustomed to the abstract poetics of the Symbolists, pounced on these lines! Here are just a few of the parodies:

She just shuddered, "- Darling! Darling!

Oh my lord, you help me!

Ina's right hand pulled the Galosha of her spruce leg (S. Malakhov).

I'm cold in a silent smile.

Dream or reality? Christ help!

On the right leg by mistake,

She put on slippers with a spruce foot (V. Sorgenfrey).

But now, yielding to male violence,

I grieve deeply !.

~ I put a mantilla on my pale legs,

And on the shoulders, tights- (Don Aminado).

It should be added: parody is also a defender of established linguistic forms. The parodist often starts from some linguistic (intentional or unintentional) anomaly or unusualness in the parodied text, reinforcing it, often to the point of gross incorrectness. It turns out "anomaly squared." Thus, parodies are very interesting in the linguistic study of the lower part of the anomalous scale, the one that Y.D Apresyan denotes by the signs (*) and (**).

5. The experiment should become for a linguist studying modern language as common a working technique as it is, for example, for a chemist. However, the fact that it occupies a modest place in linguistic research is by no means accidental. The experiment requires certain skills and a lot of effort. Therefore, it seems to us, it is especially important to use the experimental material that is already available, “lies under our feet”. We mean the language game.

Paradoxical fact: the linguistic experiment is much wider than linguists, they have been using (for many centuries, if not millennia) by the speakers themselves, when they play with the form of speech.

As an example, we can cite a series of experiments by O. Man- * deliitam with the pronoun such, indicating a high degree of quality (for example, he is so strong). Here are lines from a youthful poem of 1909:

I was given a body - what should I do with it,

So one and so mine.

Here, the combination of such a pronoun with the adjective single, and especially with the pronoun mine, is somewhat unusual. The combination of such mine seems to be acceptable, since in its meaning it is close to "quite normal" combinations of the type so familiar. However, Mandelstam himself clearly felt the unusualness of this combination and repeatedly used it in humorous verses, in a kind of auto parody:

I was given a stomach, what should I do with it,

So hungry and so mine? (1917)

[The comic effect is created by narrowing and lowering the topic itself, reducing it to stomach problems.]

Or: Cheer up,

Get on the tram

So empty

Such an eighth. (c. 1915)

The comic effect is caused by the combination of the pronoun such with the number eighth, which is difficult to comprehend as a qualitative adjective. The phrase such as the eighth is abnormal, but not meaningless: as a result of the game, a new meaning arises. The fact is that, unlike the first, "prestigious", singled out numerals (cf. the first beauty, the first guy in the village, first of all), the eighth number is unselected, "ordinary", and thus the combination of such an eighth takes on meaning ' so ordinary, ordinary. '

But here, as a matter of fact, a new series of linguistic experiments by O. Mandelstam begins - experiments with numbers, dividing them into "prestigious" and "non-prestigious". Here is his joke, using the image of a "traveler", naive and not familiar with the latest achievements of science, such as electricity (Shileiko mentioned by him is a famous Assyrologist, Anna Akhmatova's husband, who temporarily settled in someone else's luxurious apartment):

Traveler, where are you coming from? I was visiting Shileika.

A man lives wonderfully, you look, you don’t believe your eyes.

Sitting in a velvet armchair, eating a goose at dinner.

He touches the button with his hand - the light itself turns on.

If such people live on the Fourth Christmas,

Traveler, I pray, tell me, who lives on the Second?

OUR ARCHIVE

A.M. Shakhnarovich

LINGUISTIC EXPERIMENT AS A METHOD OF LINGUISTIC AND PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH

The article was first published in the collective monograph "Fundamentals of the Theory of Speech Activity" (Moscow: Nauka, 1974) - the first generalizing work created by Russian psycholinguists. The author examines various types of scientific experiments in linguistics. Insufficient understanding that any appeal to "linguistic consciousness" is a kind of linguistic experiment leads to underestimation of the place of experiment in the system of methods of "classical" linguistics and, accordingly, underestimation of the place of psycholinguistics in the system of disciplines of modern linguistics.

Key words: experiment, psycholinguistics, method, research

The article was published for the first time in collaborative monograph "The bases of the theory of speech activity" (Moscow, Publishing house "Nauka", 1974) which is the first summarizing work created by Russian psycholinguists. The author describes different kinds of scientific experiments in psycholinguistics. Insufficient understanding that each access to language consciousness is a kind of linguistic experiment leads to underestimation of the place of an experiment in the system of classical linguistics methods and correspondently to underestimation of psycholinguistics "place in the system of modern linguistics disciplines.

Key words: experiment, psycholinguistics, method, research.

The purpose of a scientific experiment is to artificially induce a phenomenon to be studied, so that, observing this phenomenon, we can more deeply and fully cognize it. The experiment should provide opportunities for more detailed observation of the object of study, sometimes under conditions as close to natural as possible. An experiment in the formulation of a scientific theory is not only a method of verification, verification of the constructed model and the basis for its creation, but also allows one to generalize a particular case of research. Experimenting with individual phenomena, the researcher must be aware of each phenomenon as a particular case of the general, the way of existence of the latter.

The experiment is empirical

the basis of scientific theory and, therefore, affects its heuristic value. The foregoing fully applies to a linguistic experiment.

The linguistic experiment is most widely used in two fields of science: in linguistics and language teaching (respectively, it is called linguistic and pedagogical).

A linguistic experiment serves as a way to verify the model built by a linguist. With the help of an experiment, the linguist determines the heuristic value of the model and, ultimately, the epistemological value of the whole theory. We understand the language model (logical model) as “any sufficiently correct, that is, satisfying certain requirements for adequacy, description

language ”[Leontiev 1965, 44].

A pedagogical experiment is carried out with the aim of clarifying the comparative effectiveness of certain methods and techniques of language teaching. It is carried out in the usual conditions of educational work. In addition, a pedagogical experiment can mean "testing in practice some new pedagogical idea - the possibility of its implementation, its effectiveness" [Ramul 1963]. In this case, the pedagogical idea acts as a model for the student's cognition of new material. In this case, an experiment acts as a way to verify the model.

With regard to language teaching, a pedagogical experiment should help answer the question, "the function of which arguments is the result of our learning" [Leontiev 1969]. The latter presupposes that a psychological experiment should precede a pedagogical experiment.

Empirical (in our context, this is the same as experimental, due to the coincidence of these concepts in the practice of linguistic research) language learning is based on obtaining data on the functioning of the living language system in the individual speech activity of its bearer. What distinguishes such an experiment from an experiment in general is that linguistics deals with the facts, processes, aspects of the language system, but not with their displayed characteristics. In other words, a linguistic experiment always deals with the study of directly displayed properties of phenomena.

The heuristic significance of a linguistic experiment is determined by how correctly it identifies the measure of the adequacy of the linguistic model.

The linguistic experiment has found wide application in the practice of dialectological research. Dialectologists

are faced with the task of modeling the "microsystem" of the language, going from special cases noted in live speech to the construction of a certain model of this dialect. The model is verified in the situation of a thought experiment, when the linguist identifies himself with the native speaker of the language (dialect). See below for the specifics of a mental linguistic experiment.

There are a number of methods of experimental dialectological research, which it would be more correct to call not methods, but methods of research. As a rule, a dialectologist deals with native speakers of the dialect and in various ways receives information from them about different aspects of the language1. However, the dialectologist's observations are very complicated by the fact that they are practically impossible to repeat. Having received some empirical material, having built a model of any dialect, the dialectologist is often deprived of the opportunity to verify the absolute correctness of his model. This is explained by the fact that oral speech “is accessible to observation only at the moment of utterance, when the act of speech is carried out” [Avanesov 1949, 263]. This, in particular, distinguishes experiments on living languages ​​from experiments on dead languages.

The main techniques used by dialectologists are conversation and questioning. In the course of a live conversation with the speakers of the dialect or in observing their conversation, the researcher receives phonetic and morphological material. When collecting material on vocabulary, a survey can be used. In the course of the survey, the names of a number of household items, etc. are found out. The questions are posed: "What is this?" and "What is it called?" It is not recommended to ask questions like "Do you pronounce it this way?" Such questions, in addition to the fact that they lead to stereotyped answers, and not always correct ones, also create a certain attitude among the speaker of the dialect. From-

1 We do not consider the case when a dialectologist deals with texts (records, folklore).

The negative side of such questions is that they appeal to the "linguistic instinct" of native speakers and the answer contains a subjective assessment that is not taken into account (so the questions themselves are not suitable, but their use and interpretation of answers).

The so-called "field linguistics" is also close to dialectological research in its methods of observation and appointment. In a broad sense, this name unites a set of techniques and methods of working with informants in the study of unwritten languages. It is assumed that as a result of "field" experiments, some model of a living language can be drawn up (see in this connection).

L.V. Shcherba, almost for the first time posing the problem of a linguistic experiment, wrote that a researcher of living languages, "having built some abstract system from the facts of this material," must "check it on new facts, that is, see if the facts of reality. Thus, the principle of experiment is introduced into linguistics ”[Shcherba 1965, 368]. As follows from these words of L.V. Shcherba, the methods of linguistic experiment are closely related to models. When experimenting in dialectological research, the linguist deals, as a rule, with genetic models, and this determines the experimental techniques. In “field linguistics,” not only genetic models, but also axiomatic ones can be verified.

L.V. Shcherba distinguishes two types of experiment - a positive experiment and a negative experiment. With a positive experiment, “having made any assumption about the meaning of a word, this or that form, about this or that rule of word formation or shaping, etc., one should try to see if a number of different phrases can be said (which can be infinitely multiplied ) by applying this rule. An affirmative result will confirm

the correctness of the postulate ... ”[ibid.].

If in a positive experiment a correct form, utterance, etc. is constructed, then in a negative experiment, a deliberately incorrect statement is constructed, and the informant is required to note the incorrectness and make the necessary corrections. A negative experiment in its structure is the same positive one, and between them “there is no fundamental difference and they often complement each other” [Leont'ev 1965, 67].

The third type of linguistic experiment was identified by A.A. Leontiev. This is an alternative experiment, during which the informant determines the identity / non-identity of the proposed segments. In this regard, it is important to objectify as much as possible the data received from the informant. To do this, Harris invites the informant to repeat what he has already said, or asks another informant the question "Would you say the same?" ... However, this variant of objectification is not very successful. A more successful option seems to be when the informant is asked a standard question - about the identity or non-identity of the proposed segments of speech, which can be answered unambiguously - "yes" or "no". However, this version of the experiment directly appeals to the linguistic consciousness of the informant. The most natural would be the data obtained indirectly - in the most natural conditions of a lively casual conversation (filmed by a kind of "hidden camera"). In the course of such a conversation, the exteriorization of the psychologically real elements of the language system takes place, they acquire functional definiteness. In addition, the feedback that is established during communication allows the received data to be objectified by the reaction of the interlocutor. During the conversation, the informant freely operates with syllables, words, sentences - real "quanta" of the flow of speech. The psycholinguistic reality of these "quanta" is always the same (in contrast to the reality in the consciousness of informa-

manta phonemes, morphemes, etc.) does not depend on the level of development of speech skills and on the conditions for teaching the informant his native language.

A curious variant is offered by A. Healy. He describes an experiment using two informants placed back to back. In front of one is a series of objects, and the other is silently shown any object of the same series. The informant names the subject, and his partner must choose a similar one. Thus, the constructed experiment “includes” not only the generation system, but also the system of perception. The question of identity / non-identity of segments of speech is objectified, and it becomes possible (after a series of experiments) to assess the correctness of the statement [Healey 1964].

The task of the researcher is also to reveal and actualize all the potentialities of the language. Only if this condition is met, the description of the language will be sufficiently adequate. In a “field” experiment, conducted by traditional methods of working with informants, it is often impossible to discover “potential generative capabilities of the language, which, for one reason or another, are not widely used in the speech of speakers” [Kibrik 1970, 160-161]. Live conversation in this sense is very useful: in direct communication, the "turnover" of the potential of the language is much wider.

In the cited work, L.V. Shcherby distinguishes three aspects of linguistic phenomena. “The processes of speaking and understanding” constitute “speech activity”. Dictionaries and grammars of languages ​​constitute the second aspect - the "language system". “The totality of everything that is said and understood in a certain concrete setting, in a particular epoch in the life of a given social

This group is the third aspect of linguistic phenomena - "linguistic material" 2.

This implies the need to include in the modeling of the language ("language system") two other aspects - "speech activity" and "speech organization". If these three aspects find their expression in the model, then in the course of the linguistic experiment the linguistic phenomena should be verified in the unity of these three aspects. (In other words, a linguist must learn the language the speaker uses.)

A traditionally conducted linguistic experiment focuses on only one aspect of linguistic phenomena. The model is verified on the "individual speech system" as a specific manifestation of the language system, without taking into account those internal factors that ultimately determine the "individual speech system" itself.

The study of the trinity of linguistic phenomena must necessarily presuppose, in addition to the "linguistic system" and "linguistic material", also the elucidation of "individual speech activity". In other words, it is necessary to find ways and means of actualizing the potential capabilities of the language for their functioning in the mind of the speaker. At the same time, the actual linguistic data may not always coincide with those that are obtained as a result of the psychological (more precisely, psycholinguistic) "turn" of the experiment. In confirmation of the above, one can cite the experiments conducted by L. V. Sakharny in Perm to study the psychological reality of word-formation models. These experiments have shown that the selection of semantically generalized classes of words, traditional in linguistics, does not fully correspond to specific semantic type characteristics for grouping.

2 Wed A.A. Leont'ev, respectively: "language ability", "language process", "language standard" [Leontiev 1965].

their alignment in the mind of the speaker [Sakharny 1970]. As you can see, with such a "turn" of the experiment, linguistics also wins, because the picture of the "language system" is supplemented and refined. Thus, “... linguistics ... cannot be closed within the framework of the language standard. She must study the linguistic standard, correlating it both with the linguistic process and with linguistic ability ”[Leont'ev 1965, 58].

The above is especially important in relation to a thought experiment, which is understood as such a type of linguistic experiment when the experimenter and the subject are one person. L.V. Shcherba, describing this type of experiment, used the well-known psychological term "self-observation" and wrote that "the individual speech system is only a specific manifestation of the language system, and therefore the study of the first for the cognition of the second is quite legitimate" [Shcherba 1931, 123]. However, the individual speech system is influenced by

internal and external factors, under the influence of which it is not reduced to a simple actualization of the language system. These factors can be eliminated (or taken into account) only by preparing some conditions, formulating a hypothesis and introducing a model to be verified (see [Polivanov 1928]). The more attention is paid to the process ("speaking", formation, organization) of the statement during the thought experiment, the higher is the measure of the adequacy of the linguistic experiment. Insufficient understanding of the important fact that any appeal to "linguistic consciousness", linguistic "introspection" is a kind of linguistic experiment and that this experiment should be organized according to general rules, often leads to an underestimation of the place of experiment in the system of methods of "classical" linguistics and, accordingly , underestimation of the place of psycholinguistics in the system of disciplines of modern linguistics.

Bibliography

Avanesov R.I. Essays on Russian dialectology. T. I. - M., 1949.

Kibrik A.E. Psycholinguistic experiment in field linguistics // Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Psycholinguistics. - M., 1970.

A.A. Leontiev Word in speech activity. - M., 1965.

A.A. Leontiev Psycholinguistic units and the generation of speech utterance. - M., 1969.

Polivanov E.D. Introduction to Linguistics for Oriental Studies. - L., 1928.

Ramul K.A. Introduction to the methods of experimental psychology. - Tartu, 1963.

L.V. Sakharny To the problem of the psychological reality of the word-formation model // Materials of the 3rd Symposium on Psycholinguistics. - M., 1970.

L.V. Shcherba On the threefold aspect of linguistic phenomena and on experiment in linguistics // Izvestiya AN SSSR - ser. 7. - 1931. - No. 1.

L.V. Shcherba On the threefold aspect of linguistic phenomena and on the experiment in linguistics // In the book: V.A. Zvegintsev. History of linguistics of the 19th-20th centuries in sketches and extracts. Part II. -M., 1965.

Gudschinsky S.C. How to learn an unwritten language. - Santa Ana, 1965.

Harris Z.S. Structural linguistics. - Chicago, 1960.

Healey A. Handling unsophisticated linguistic informants. - Canberra, 1964.

Samarin W. Field linguistics. - New York, 1965.