The definition of a language as systems of systems, with the greatest completeness developed by the Prague school of functional linguistics, is undoubtedly substantiated, but he should not give that absolute nature that we observe in this case. Separate "circles or tiers of the language structure" are at A. A. Reformat as a closed in themselves, which, if they interact with each other (forming a system of systems or a language system), then only as separate and holistic unity. It turns out something like the coalition of the Union Nations, the troops of which are combined common task Military actions against the common enemy, but stand under separate command of their national war commander.

In the life of the language, the situation is, of course, the language and individual "tiers or systems" of the language interact with each other not only frontally, and to a large extent, so to speak, by individual representatives "one on one". So, for example, as a result of the fact that english words During the Scandinavian conquest, the Scandinavian parallels had a splitting of the sound form of some words in their origin. Thus, double-tested forms were created separated by natural processes in the phonetic system of the Old Banking language, which ended to the Scandinavian conquest. These doubles created the basis for differentiating their values.

So, the difference between Skirt - "Skirt" and Shirt (<др.-англ. scirt) — «рубашка», а также такие дублетные пары, как egg — «яйцо» и edge (

The German Rappe - "Raven Horse" and Rabe - "Raven" (both of the average garrows of Garre), Knappe - "Okrug" and Knabe - "Boy" and others; Russian dust - powder, harm - a versal having a genetically general basis. An even more striking example of the natural interaction of elements of different "tiers" is a well-known from the history of Germanic languages, the phonetic process of reduction of finite elements (which in turn is due to the nature and provision in the word of German power stress), which caused extremely important changes in their grammatical system.

It is known that stimulating in English analytical trends and the evasion of this language from the synthetic system is directly related to the fact that the reduced endings were unable to express the grammatical relationships of words with the necessary clarity. So, a purely concrete and purely phonetic process caused new not only morphological, but also syntactic phenomena.

This kind of mutual influence of elements included in different "tiers" or "homogeneous systems" may be multidirectional and go as on ascending (i.e., from the background to elements of morphology and vocabulary) lines and downwards. So, according to J. Vahek, the different fate of paired wicked finite consonants in Czech (as well as Slovak, Russian, etc.), on the one hand, and in English, on the other hand, is due to the needs of higher plans of relevant languages. In Slavic languages, they, by virtue of neutralization, were stunned, and in English opposition p - b, v - f, etc. preserved, although the opposition on the bells was replaced by opposition on tension.

In the Slavic languages \u200b\u200b(Czech et al.) The appearance of new homonymic couples, due to the stunning of the final voiced consonants, did not make any significant difficulties of understanding, since they received a clear grammatical characteristic and a sentence model in these languages \u200b\u200bwas not fully overloaded. . And in English, it is due to the functional overload of the proposal model, the destruction of the opposition of finite consonants and the emergence of this large number of homonyms would lead to significant difficulties of the communication process.

In all such cases, we are dealing with the establishment of connections individually between the elements of different "tiers" - phonetic and lexical.

Pretty relations are established, therefore, not only between homogeneous members of the language system, but also between heterogeneous. This means that the systemic communications of the language elements are formed not only within one "tier" (for example, only between phonemes), but also separately between representatives of different "tiers" (for example, phonetic and lexical units). In other words, the patterns of elements of the language system may be multidirectional, which does not exclude, of course, special forms of systemic relationships of language elements within one "tier".

V.A. Stirytsev. Essays on general linguistics - Moscow, 1962

See also: II. The body is like a holistic system. Age periodization of development. General patterns of growth and development of the body. Physical development ........................................................................................... 2. Automated control systems in healthcare (clinical, cities. Regional, control levels. Administration of the Russian Federation: the concept, the legal basis, the internal structure. Biological theories of the origin of the language. Social theories of the origin of the language. Biological value of pain. Modern idea of \u200b\u200bnociception and central pain mechanisms. Antinocyptive system. Neurochemical antinocyptic mechanisms. The budget of the domain position, the structure of the structure. Sukupnі resources і Sukupnі Prostrati and Lord

Language as system signs. Language is considered as a system of signs. Sign - can be defined as a kind of material unit, creating a language as a phenomenon.

In relation to the language, the term sign can be determined by the following items:

1. The sign must be materialized, that is, it should be accessible to sensual perception, like any thing.

2. The sign does not matter, but is aimed at the value, for this it exists.

The system exists in the form of predigms and epidigms.

Prodigm - a system, with which you can only transmit only such info, which is initially laid in the iconic code, it is unambiguous (Morse alphabet).

The epidigma is a sign system that is capable of creating an infinite number of signs based on the final foreseeable number of source signs (excess system).

Any system of type of epidigm is open, and the predigma is closed, so only for epidigms are characterized by the concept of invariant (generalization) and invariants.

If the signs of the predigm are symmetrical, then the signs of the epidigms are asymmetric, i.e. The expression plan and content plan may not coincide with their change.

Language level - The subsystem of the general language system, based on relatively homogeneous units, the relationship between which is determined by special rules. Phonetic, phonepamon, morpheme, lexical, syntax levels are distinguished (sometimes the level of text is also allocated).

Language levels:

Text (text)

Syntactic (syntagma)

Lexical (lexeme)

Morphological (Morphem)

Phonological (phoneme)

Differential Signs (DP)

Everything language units - Signs for transmitting off-language information. The whole world in the language is enclosed in the system of signs. For human language - the most important sign system, because Distributed on all individuals at any time and develops, changes along with its resources. For the first time, the carriers as the most important elements of the language system spoke Sosurur. Language science as a sign system is called semiology. This science considers a sign as a social phenomenon. The subject of study of semiology is the language units in their classroom standards, i.e. We consider the concepts of norms, uzus (general use), diachrony. The overall science studying all the language systems is called semiotics. Semantics studies language units. In addition to Sosurira, Pierce was engaged in the problems of semiology (it is he who introduces the concept of semiotics)

In semiotics distinguish 2 types of characters:

Natural (signs signs)

Artificial (conditional) (informants) are designed to form, storing and transmitting information. We need to represent and replace items and reality phenomena, and the substitution function is fundamental to the sign.

Several signs of the sign:

1) Signal - information itself does not contain, it must be interpreted (sound, visual or other associated with sensations)

2) The symbol is free from the situation, wearing a figurative character and is built on associations. The symbol is motivated (flag, coat of arms)

3) a sign, first of all, the language is the main type of communicative or informative sign. Bilateral unit. Expression plan and content plan. Natural Language Signs Primary

4) Substitution (secondary sign) - notice not subject to the subject and concept, and another sign (letter - Sound Substitution, Structural Description of the Offer - Substitution Offer)

in-1, the language is not a simple nomenclature of units. V-2, language is a single whole, something organized, i.e. The IV-3 system, the language has an internal organization, membership, which means it is a structure. There are two structuralistic Systems:

1) b. de Courta: represented by the background, morph, syntagma through the indication of their place in the grid of relations between other language units and studied the language units in Synchron

2) F de Sosurur: studied language units in synchronia as a system of signs. In the future, his theory was developed by Prague Linguistic Circuits Copenhagen School.

The structure is the display of the item, but the display is aimed, interested, this is the model of the subject that is an internal part of it. The structure is always compiled from the elements into a kind of general organization.

The system is the consideration of items in their interconnectedness and interdependence. Mandatory conditions for the existence of the system: integrity, orderliness, discreteness (segment)

Various interpretations of the language system and its components:

1) Inventory-taxonological (the main problem is considered: from which elements there is a language system, ranging from elementary units in their combinatorics and ending with more complex. And it is precisely this direction that considers not only the units of speech, but also a few units - invariants)

2) The functional direction (considers the problem of the function of the language units. Prague linguistic circle, Leningrad Aspectological School. Aims to isolation of the language system from the phenomena of non-language reality. Any private system is part of another high-order jolee system. The concept of environment is introduced as a generalized representation of all linguistic and Speech environments

3) self-structural direction (language system is considered as an impaired, constantly interacting with the medium and mobile. The language is considered as a system of means of expression that serves certain purposes, i.e. as a theological system (focus)

4) stratification (level)

5) Semiological (iconic)

the process of forming the concepts of the system and the structure continues until now. Melnichuk: "The system is a combination of interrelated and interdependent elements that form a more complex unity, considered by the elements. The structure is the composition and internal organization of the United whole, considered by its integrity "

types of relationships in the system:

difference:

a) unorganized (contrast) - not wearing a certain nature. For example, in the word house all sounds sound differently

b) organized (ordered) - units are in opposition relations to each other, i.e. opposed to some one principle: Tom House

a) syntagmatic. Communication of the unit of one level on the horizontal plane. Syntagma - Association on adjacent

syntagmatic relations - combinations of units into a chain according to the principle one after another, i.e. Units grip in linear sequence. Considers different units.

These relations identify the laws and rules for the combination of language units, i.e. valenny relationships (possibility or inability to combine elements with each other)

b) paradigmatic. Relationships vertically on B. de Courta, nonlinear and unreasonable speech in the stream. For example, declining paradigm

paradigm is, if possible, the minimum set of units, from where we request such a unit that we want to endow the actual meaning. Paradigmatic objects are associated with other objects of its class relationships and non-accidents. Paradigm is associated with different forms of one unit.

Language is:

• 1. System phonetic, lexical and grammatical funds, A to the instrument of expressions of thoughts, feelings, will and serving the most important means of communication of people. Being inextricably linked to its emergence and development with this human team, the language is a social phenomenon. Language forms organic unity with thinking, since one without another does not exist.
• 2. Everything speech characterized by those or other Stylistic signs. Book tongue. Colloquial. Poetic language. Newspaper. See speech in the 2nd sense. On the issue of the relationship between the concepts of "language" and "speech" revealed in modern linguistics of different points of view. For the first time, the relationship and interaction of both phenomena noted the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Sosurur: "Without a doubt, both of these subjects are closely connected between themselves and each other are mutually involved: the language is necessary that the speech is understood and makes its action; it is in turn necessary for that To set the language; historically the fact of speech is always preceded by the language. " Vvedenskaya L.A., Pavlova L.G., Kashava E.Yu. Russian language and culture of speech. Phoenix, 2002.

Many researchers (V. D. Arakin, V. A. Artemov, O. S. Akhmanova, L. R. Zender, T. P. Lytev, A. I. Smirnitsky, etc.) delimit these concepts, finding enough for this Common-level and linguistic grounds. Language and speech are opposed to different bases: the system of means of communication is the implementation of this system (the actual process of speaking), the system of linguistic units is their sequence in the act of communication, the static phenomenon is a dynamic phenomenon, a set of elements in paradigmatic terms - their totality in syntagmatic terms, essence - phenomenon, general - separate (private), abstract - concrete, substantial - insignificant, necessary - random, systemic - non-systemic, sustainable (invariant) - alternating (variable), uzual - occasional, regulatory - abnormative, social - individual, reproducible - Produced in communication, code - Messaging, Means - Purpose, etc. Separate linguists consistently spend this distinction in relation to correlative units of different levels of language and speech: Phone - Specific Sound, Morphem - Slog, Lexeme - Word, Phrase - Syntagma , offer - phrase, complex syntactic E is superflasional unity. Other scientists (V. M. Zhirmunsky, G. V. Kolzhansky, A. G. Spirkin, A. S. Chikobava) deny the difference between the tongue and speech, identifying these concepts. Third researchers (E. M. Galkina - Fedoruk, V. N. Yartseva), not opposing and not identifying the language and speech, determine them as two sides of one phenomenon characterized by the properties, by their nature complementary and interrelated.

Language and speech

First of all, what is the difference between the same and others?
Language is a communication tool and therefore corresponds to strict laws and rules of grammar, intonational norms and pronunciation standards. Taking advantage of the language, we are in continuous normalizing reflection, fixing deviation from the rules.

In everyday life, we rarely use the native language and do not pay special attention to how correctly we are talking or writing. Children also do not speak tongue - they use the speech, at first, even incense. Speech (from the word "river") there is a flow of speaking, scriptures, reading, hearing, understanding, in which communication and thinking glued, are unsolved, inseparable: we think as we say and speak, as we think. The whimsiness and sniffing of thoughts are fully reflected in the speech stream.

There are only explicit linguistic means in the language, we are full of non-renewableness, shortcoming, inter-detention, implicit agents, hints and hidden quotes. Pleschenko T.P., Fedotova N.V., Chechet R.G. Stylistics and speech culture. Tetracysidems, 2001.

Language exists quite independently from its carriers. Language with non-obvious for us forms our laws and trends and in this sense they are all doubtful for us, although, on the other hand, we ourselves are doubtful about the language, so far, because we do not own them (we own a speech), we do not fully own them And, of course, they do not manage it.

The one who is tightly on the hand of the hand is not necessarily knowing the language. Knowledge of the native language for most people more than superficially: even in school plowing goes no more than half a shovel, after the school, the language is forgotten by many, in fact, completely: normal life does not require these knowledge, and the overwhelming majority of people reflexes and Thinking will be pretended, so it's so rare, even among philologists and linguists, knowledge of the language - instead of knowledge, we try to do norms, and the norms do not require reflection, no reflection, they just need to be observed if possible. This is at best. In the worst we replacing the knowledge of the language of the dogma: "Libi, Shi write through and" not knowledge, and dogma, if it does not cost anything, for example, do not cost phonetic knowledge.

Philosophy can be understood and interpreted as a reflection of the language, the reflexion of what is said and thinking. Peoples whose language did not undergo serious influence during a significant historical period of time, have managed to fall into the reflection of his own language and give rise to its own, national, philosophy: Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, British, Germans. Those who did not give the story to such a breather and who lives in the fuss of changes and influences, exist without reflection of their own language, not so much to develop their own philosophy: Russians, Americans. And, all these Rigorists and the Cleanomies of the Purity of the Language, they want, they want to or do not want, they understand it or do not understand, but we are taking advantage and fight for it, finally calm changes and the time of reflexion, time of reflection Over his own language, the time of formation and creating philosophy.

Absence or rudimentaryness of philosophy - The trouble and grief are quite comfortable - but in such languages \u200b\u200bis usually very good and strong literature, since the language is constantly updated and replenished and they are so easily and easily played. There is no special philosophy among the Russians, French, Latin Americans and the Japanese - but what literature!

Speech, devoid of reflection, has something unique in our mind - inner voice, Located with us in a continuous dialogue and - this is where complete freedom from grammatical and any other building! This inner voice is the flow of consciousness, in some way, schizophrenia is inside, since this is not a monologue, but the dialogue within and limits one person. We create yourself and inside our partner, with whom we communicate, calling it the inner "I", then the voice of the soul, then the voice of conscience, then by God.

With all the voluntarism of speech, we, as a rule, are deprived of clear ideas about the language. We, for example, knowing about gradual and consistent reduction of cases in Russian, are not free to determine which one of them will come out of use - it seems to us that they are all strictly necessary: \u200b\u200bthose who are missing in European languages, and the proposed not only are very common, but also Other are aggressively displaced, pan-European cases (nominative, accusative, privacy and genitive) Pleschenko T.P., Fedotova N.V., Chechet R.G. Stylistics and speech culture. Tetrasystem, 2001.

Finally, it acts on consciousness and encourages action, the language is inclined to understand and thinking.

The famous phrase I. Turgenev about the richness of the Russian language, most understood literally, literally and on the most primitive, morphological level.

By the volume of words, Russian is very inferior to EnglishYes, and most other languages. However, due to non-analitics, flexility, abundance of consoles, suffixes and endings, due to freedom in words of words in the proposal (it is only necessary to use this freedom!), Because of the free punctuation (and this freedom should also be able to own!), Russian is definitely much richer than any other European language. To this should also be added: the undoubted wealth of the Russian language is the fact that it is a linguistic cocktail: to the Slavic and Finno roots are heavily noticed by Greek, Tatar, Mongolian, German, French, English, to a lesser extent - Italian (Pasta-Spaghetti ) And Spanish (Cavalry Cavalery) - and not only a cocktail of words, but also a grammar cocktail.

More richer - Russian speech: intonations, idiomatically, alusions, alliterations, some incredible and sophisticated esopheses, but the main wealth of Russian speech is in silence. The people are silent - but as expressive! The country where freedom of speech is a dangerous exotic for more than a thousand years, knows how to be silent so that the current and tormentors of this freedom do not stand and shout on us in hysterics: "Do not be silent, tell me even though!".

In the Soviet linguistics, the provision is made according to which the language is developing in its internal laws. But if you admit that language and speech are different objects that the units of the language and speeches are studied in different sciences, it is necessary to disable the conclusion that the speech must have their own special internal laws of development. If such a conclusion cannot be supported by the observed facts, it should be considered as a certificate of false background. Since there is no empirical base to recognize the special laws of development in the language and in speech, then we are forced to consider language and we are not related to different phenomena, which are objects of different sciences, but as different sides of one phenomenon, which are one subject of one science.

Overcoming look into language and speech as different phenomena is achieved by nominating the category of entity and its manifestation as the basis of opposing language and speech. Such an understanding of the foundation of discusses of the language and speech excludes the possibility of assigning some facts to the language, and others to speech. From this point of view, there can be no such units in speech, which would not have place in the language, and there are no such units in the language that there would be no space in speech. Language and speech vary not on the difference of phenomena, but by difference in the essence and its manifestation.

From this point of view, the units of the language are not only words and their forms, but also free phrases, as well as suggestions. In phrases and suggestions there are not only what happens every time, but also the fact that in any act of communication is reproduced - these are models of proposals.

Language is such an essence , the way to exist and the manifestation of which is speech. Language as an essence finds its manifestation in speech. Language is learned by analyzing, speech - by perception and understanding. In the expression "he reads books" The fact of the use of the word book refers to the manifestation of what can find its manifestation in another word, for example, "he reads magazines." There is a certain identity that is preserved in the first, and in the second sentences and which in them is manifested in different ways. These proposals on the part of their differences relate to speech, and on the part of their identity to the language.

Consider the foundations of opposing the language and speech as different sides of one phenomenon. one . And language and speech have public, social nature. But in the act of communication, the social nature of the language takes the form of individual speech. The language in the act of communication does not exist otherwise, as in the form of individual speaking. For sausure, the language and speech are different phenomena. Language as a social phenomenon is opposed to speech as an individual phenomenon. In his opinion, there is nothing collective in speech, and there is nothing individual in the language. Such an understanding of the relationship between language and speech is possible only if we assume that language and speech are different phenomena representing the items of different sciences. And this understanding is completely excluded if the ratio of the language in speech is considered as the attitude of the entity for its manifestation. Language is socially in nature; The individual form of manifestation of the social nature of the language indicates that the individual form in its essence is also social. Individual is not opposite to social, it is only the form of being social.

Some commentators de Sosuri are interpreted by the ratio of social and individual as the ratio of objective and subjective: but their opinion, the language is objective, and the speech is subjective. The possibility of such interpretation of social and individual follows from the premise, according to which the individual and social is opposite to their essence and represents different phenomena. But if individual is considered as a form of social existence, then it is necessary to conclude that the first is not the opposite of the second that if the language is attributed to an objective nature, then it must be assigned and speech.

Contrasting of the language and speech on this basis implies the need to consider the same units and as units of the language, and as a unity of speech. There can be no units that, belonging to the language, would not be related to speech, and vice versa.

2. Language and speech are opposed to the basis of the general and a single, permanent and variable. But again, the general and a single, permanent and alternative cannot be considered as separate phenomena, existing apart.

General and constant exists in the form of a single and alternating And in every single and variable there is a general and permanent. Let us explain it on the examples. In the sentence, "he looked the picture" We can replace the word picture by the word photo. As a result of this operation, we will get a new offer: "He watched the photo." But in the fact that is in relations between mutual replacement, contains the general, permanent. This is general, the constant manifests itself in certain words with the form of a vinitive case. Language is speech taken from the side of general and permanent. We are a language taken by a single and variable. Any linguistic unit is one side to be tamed, and the other to speech. Each linguistic unit must be considered and from the part of the tongue and from speech. Contrasting of the language and speech under the foundation under consideration eliminates the possibility of attributing some units to the language, while others - to speech. 3. Language and speech vary on the basis of some establishment and process. There is a language as a means of communication and there is a speech as a process of communication using a language. It has a property to be loud or quiet, fast or slow, long or short; To the tongue, this characteristic is not applicable. It may be a monologue, if the interlocutor only listens, and a dialogic, if the interlocutor takes part in communication. Language can not be monologous or dialogic. So that in the speech there are their units other than the units of the language, they must be allocated for the properties that the process has and which does not have an instrument, with the help of which he is performed by Greudin L.K., Shiryaev E.N. Culture of Russian speech. Norm, 2005.

Unlike language as instruments of communication in speech We can allocate moments characterizing the communication process. The speech differences the frequency of the repetition of those or other elements of the language in in those or other conditions of the communication process.

Mathematical statistics studies frequencies in the form of calculation of various kinds of averages. The frequency characterizes not a unit of structure, but its repeatability in the process of communication. Strength characterizes not the background as a unit of language, but the pronunciation of sound in the process of communication. You can use units to measure sound power. Interference is not characterized by units of the language, but the implementation of the communication process. You can use units to measure the degree of interference. Such units can not only be words or their shapes, phrases or suggestions, but even paragraphs.

We will not discuss here whether complex integers are, as well as paragraphs in the units of a language or non-language structure. However, it is clear that they are not units of action, processes; They represent the units of some structures, rather non-language than language.

The release of complex integers or paragraphs as units of speech, and not the language also does not relieve on the basis of the opposition of language and speech, as well as the allocation of free phrases or proposals as units.

It seems to us that those linguists are not right, which, recognizing the units of the language not only the words and forms of words, but also of phrases and suggestions, are still considered that we should have our special units that they consider paragraph, a complex integer, phrase and t d.

So, language, speech and communication are not different phenomena, but different sides of one phenomenon. All linguistic units are units of language and speech: by one side they are facing the tongue, the other - to speech Greudina L.K., Shiryaev E.N. Culture of Russian speech. Norm, 2005. .

Language elements are not isolated, but in close connection and oppose each other, i.e. in system. The relationship of the language elements is that the change or loss of one element is usually reflected in other elements of the language (for example, in the phonetic system of the Old Russian language, the drop in reduction caused the restructuring of its entire system of consonantism, the formation of deafness categories / sound and hardness / softness ).

The structural complexity of the system of the language scientists was aware of a long time ago. The systemic nature of the tongue was spoken by V. Humboldt: "There is nothing single in the language, each individual element manifests itself only as part of the whole." However, the deep theoretical understanding of the system's systemicity appeared later, in the works of the Swiss scientist F. de Sosurira. "No one is so clear as Sosurur, did not realize and did not describe the system organization of the language," wrote E. Benvest. The language, by sausure, is "the system, all the elements of which form a whole, and the significance of one element stems only from the simultaneous availability of others." Therefore, - concludes Sosurur, "all parts of this system should be considered in their synchronous interdependence." Each element of the language should be studied from the point of view of its role in the language system. Thus, for example, in Russian, which has lost a dual number, the plural has become a different value than in Slovenian, where the category of the dual number is still preserved.

In linguistics, the term and structure have been used as synonyms for a long time. However, later, their terminological distinction has occurred with the development of structural linguistics. Under the system began to understand the internally organized set of elements in relations and connections with each other (i.e., this definition takes into account the following basic concepts: "Aggregate", "element", "function", "communications"), and under the structure - the inner organization of these elements, the network of their relationship. It is the system that determines the presence and organization of language elements, since each element of the language exists by virtue of its relations to other elements, i.e. The system is a structure-forming factor, because there is no system without structural correlation of elements. Figuratively speaking, the structure of the language can be like a human skeleton, and the system is the aggregate of its organs. In this sense, it is quite legitimate to talk about the structure of the system. In the domestic linguistics, as well as in a number of foreign schools, the distinction between the concepts of the system and the structure of the language often relies on the nature of the relationship of their elements. Elements of the structure are associated with each other syntagmatic relationships (CP. Custom-made in linguistics structure of words , structure of sentence etc.), and the elements of the system are bound by paradigmatic relations (cf. padegery system , glasny system etc.).

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe system of language was developed in different linguistic schools. The Prague Linguistic School in which the language system is characterized primarily as a functional system, i.e. As a system of means of expression used for a specific purpose. In the Prague Linguistic School, the thesis of the language as a system of systems was also nominated. This thesis has received a different interpretation in the future: according to one point of view, the language system is a language level system, each of which is also a system; According to another, the language system is a system of functional styles (subwits), each of which is also a system.

A significant contribution to the development of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe system of language has made and domestic linguistics, which developed the doctrine on the units of the language, their systemic links and functions, demarcation in the language of statics and dynamics, etc.

Modern ideas about the systemic language are associated primarily with the teachings about its levels, their units and relationships, as the language system, like any other, has its own structure, the inner structure of which is determined by the level hierarchy.

Language levels are subsystems (tiers) of the general language system, each of which has a set of its units and rules for their functioning. Traditionally, the following main levels of language are distinguished: phonen, lexical, morphological and syntax. Some scientists also distinguish the morphonological, word-forming and phraseological levels. There are, however, other points of view on the language of language levels. According to one of them, the level organization of the language is more complicated, it consists of such tiers as hyponepene, phonen, morpheme, lexeme, semid, etc. According to others, it is more simple, consisting of only three tiers: phonetic, lexicogrammic and semantic. And when considering a language from the point of view of the "Expression Plan" and "Content Plan" - only of two tiers: phonological (expression plan) and semantic (content plan).

Each of the levels of the language has its own, qualitatively excellent units having a different purpose, structure, combination and place in the language system. In accordance with the law of the structural ratio of language levels, the unit of the overlying level is based on the sub-level units (cf. morphemes from the background), and the unit of the underlying level implements its functions in the units of the overlying level (cf. morphemes in words).

In most languages \u200b\u200bof the world, the following languages \u200b\u200bare allocated: phoneme, morpheme, word, phrase and offer. In addition to these major units, in each of the levels (tiers) there is a number of units that differ in the degree of abstraction, complexity, for example, on a phonetic tier - phonetic syllable, phonetic word, speech tacts, phonetic phrases, etc. Sound units are one-sided, insignificant. These are the shortest units of the language obtained as a result of the linear membership of the speech flow. Their function is to form and distinguishing audio shells of bilateral units. All other units of language tiers are bilateral, meaningful: all of them have a plan of expression and a plan of content.

In structural linguistics, the classification of units of the language is based on the sign of the divisibility / indivisibility, and therefore allocated the limit (hereinafter indivisible) units of the language (for example, the phonemon, morphem) and unforeseen (for example, groups, analytical forms of words, complex proposals).

Specific representatives of the same language are among themselves in paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. Paradigmatic relations- This is a relationship in the inventory, they allow you to distinguish one unit of this type from all others, since the same unit of the language exists in the form of a set of options (cf. phonemp / allo-background; morphem / morph / alleomorf, etc.). Syntagmatic relationships -these are combined relationships, installed between the same type of units in the speech chain (for example, the flow of speech from a phonetic point of view consists of phrase phrases, phonetic phrases - from speech clocks, speech tacts - from phonetic words, phonetic words - from syllables, syllables - from sounds; The sequence of words in the speech chain illustrates their syntagmatics, and the combination of words into various groups - synonymic, antonymic, lexico-semantic - is an example of paradigmatic relations).

Depending on its purpose, the function in the language system units are divided into nominative, communicative and system. Nominative units of language(Word, phrase) serve to designate objects, concepts, ideas. Communicative units of language(Offer) are used to report anything, with the help of these units, there is a design and expression of thoughts, feelings, willingness, people are communicated. Building units(Phone, morphemes) serve as a means of building and designing nominative, and through them and communicative units.

The units of the language are interconnected by various types of relations, among which there are most often paradigmatic, syntagmatic and hierarchical. Moreover, the relationship between units of one tier and different tiers is radically different from each other. In paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, units belonging to one tier of the tier, for example, the phonons form classes of functionally identical sounds, morphemes - classes of functionally identical morphs, etc., i.e. This is the type of paradigmatic variant invariant relationships. At the same time, in the linear sequence of the phone, they are combined with phonemes, morphs with morphs. In modern linguistics, syntagmatic relationships are often compared with the logical relationship of conjunction (relationships and ~ and), and paradigmatic - with logical relationships of disjunction (relationships or ~ or). In hierarchical relations (like "consists of" or "enters") there are units of different language levels, Wed: Phonons are included in the sound shells of morpheme, morphemes - in word, the word - in the offer and, on the contrary, proposals consist of words, words - from morpheme, morphemes - from the background, etc.

Language levels are not isolated tiers, on the contrary, they are closely related to each other and define the device of the language system (cf., for example, the connection of all levels of the language in such a unit, as a word: with different sides, it belongs simultaneously by phonen, morphem, lexical and syntactic levels ). Sometimes in one sound form can coincide units of different levels. A classic example illustrating this position was the example of A. A. Reformatsky from Latin language: two Romans argued who would say in short phrase; One said: "EO RUS" 'I'm going to the village', and the other answered: "1" 'go'. In this Latin i. The proposal, the word, morphem and the phoneme, i.e. It includes all levels of language.

Language I system is a constantly evolving system, although its different levels develop with a different speed (the morphological level of the language, for example, is generally more conservative than the lexical, which quickly responds to changes in the life of society), therefore the center is allocated in the language system ( Morphology) and peripherals (vocabulary).

Language Language Subsystems

V.V. Vinogradov, considering the history of the Russian language, noted the processes on the processes of differentiation and integration. Dialectic speech as it was certainly gradually losing its differences, since together with the development of literacy and literary education, the population moves to universal use of the Russian literary language. Dialectic differences are preserved only in the environment of a small, mainly rural population. Old Slavonic language is isolated as the language of canonical literature and liturgy.

In Russian literary language, on the contrary, differentiation increases. This differentiation allows you to allocate special terminological languages \u200b\u200bin the literature and writing and the oral speech in the sphere of science and technology. The language of fiction, which differs from the terminological language with a different attitude towards authorship, allowing to talk about the individualization of copyrights within the language of fiction. In the urban spaciousness, the preservation of the so-called social dialects of the city and the rural dialects are distinguished and differentiated and the rural dialects are distinguished.

Along with this differentiation of peripheral language regions, the basis of the literary language is strengthened, present in speech and writing of literary people educated, especially in the field of education. Graphically, this can be submitted:

Picture of language

This language language reflects, according to Vinogradov, two reality: social and psychological. Social reality is that the language in its peripheral areas decomposes into certain areas of communication related to the division in areas of life, differentiation of classes and literary and writing practices. Psychological reality is that the language changes are reflected in the language of consciousness of its carriers, i.e. There is a change in the rating of the facts of the language speaking and writing in this language. Thus, a literary educated person appreciates and distinguishes the facts of a language related to the outstanding language, from the facts of the author's literary and artistic language, and the facts of these two births are from scientific and technical terminology (jargon), dialects and spaciousness.

Social differentiation of the language is reflected in the language of consciousness, of course, is not the same. This or another language fact can be estimated by differently educated and different sensitive people in its own way. The unity of the linguistic consciousness consists not in the same assessment of the facts of speech by different people, but in the same principal criteria for the assessment inherent in the language consciousness of speaking and writing in this language, especially people of literary educated.

The peculiarity of the picture of the language shown by Vinogradov is that the whole full of language facts is considered as moving and in three-dimensional space. That is why it can be called the planetary model of the language. The movement occurs in three projections: in the projection of the constant exchange between the core of the literary language and its peripheral regions; in the projection of stylistic innovations, substitutions, obsolesses and degenerations of language elements in each of the five communities; In the projection of differentiation and integration occurring in different spheres of communication. Local and social dialects tend to integrate, while the terminological languages \u200b\u200band the language of fiction have a tendency to differentiation. In addition, there is an expansion of the spheres of communication located around the nucleus (such as the language of the media and computer science).

The planetary model of the language was intended to identify the amount of facts characterizing the completion, the integrity of the language system. The history of the language in the image of Chessham and the current state of the language in the image of Vinogradov suggests that the language is a "system system". This means that the systematization of the language itself is conducted in two criteria. On the one hand, the language as the amount of facts distinguished in speech disintegrates relatively independent areas, on the other hand, in each area consisting of its amount of facts, one and the same linguistic systematization can be continued. At the same time, all the integer has a certain amount of common units with their connections connecting the large system - "system system" - one.

Analysis of the unity and separation of the "System System" will depend on what aspect is the observation of this dissected unity. So, it is undoubted that the number of common morphemes in different spheres of communication prevails over the number of optional morphemes, characteristic not for all spheres of communication, while the number of general words connecting all spheres of communication is significantly less than the number of words presented in one or more spheres of communication.

Systematization of communications spheres, building a picture of a language as a "system system" depends on the history of the language. So, in Hindi "System System" will be different in comparison with English, in English - not like in Spanish, in Chinese - more than in all named languages, etc.

The history of the language as a special discipline is built only for some languages \u200b\u200bwith a large literary and cultural tradition (for example, for all major national languages \u200b\u200bof Europe, Greek and Latin languages, for Chinese, Egyptian and some other languages). This discipline was released in the linguistics at the beginning of the XX century. Building it depends on a number of other scientific disciplines. First of all, the clarification of the history of the language by means of a comparative method and dialectological studies is necessary, further, the development of the history of written and literary languages, as well as the history of the philology of these languages. The combination of this data allows you to create a picture of the language as a "System Systems" based on the history of the language.

Consequently, the picture of the language as "systems systems" is usually built using literaryly certified adjacent linguistic disciplines. Of course, it is impossible not to attract original facts from texts. Original facts usually belong to areas characterizing the subsystem inside the system. This is the discrepancy between the same units by a value that distinguishes synonymous means of expression. Both of these types of differences are established against the background of other units identical to the value and form that combine subsystems in the "System System". For the proof, it is necessary to attract the following data, which characterize the awareness of the divisibility of the language on the subsystems in the folk consciousness. Since the popular consciousness of the past is unobservable, you have to rely on indirect evidence. These include the facts recorded by philology in the study language, especially in regulatory and school exercises on language and texts, distributing incorrect, from the point of view of the authors of the exercises, the use of language funds, as well as the assessments of the language given by writers and other workers of the culture of the past.