МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ПОТЕНЦИАЛ СИСТЕМОЛОГИИ В ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ЯЗЫКОВЫХ ЯВЛЕНИЙ

Introduction

G. P. Mel’nikov’s system linguistics which, according to scientific ambitions of its author, claimed methodological priority in linguistics in general and linguistic typology in particular, at present cannot be estimated as an epistemic marginality. But at the time when scientists  previously considered leaders embodying genuine linguistic progress, proclaimed linguistics a “theoretically exhausted” field of knowledge (cf: «Once (in 1989) I asked the outstanding linguist Igor Mel’chuk, what was happening to his science. He answered (manifesting no pleasure), that some sciences were theoretically exhausted, including linguistics» [9], G. P. Mel’nikov’s systemology could fill the seeming void.  Symptomatically, at those critical 1990ies the concept of “dynamic” typology by A, Ye. Kibrik was published; his monograph [2] contains references to Yu. P. Rozhdestvenskiy’s «Typology of word» [8] which to a large degree reflects G. P.Mel’nikov’s theoretical views. Thus, G. P.Mel’nikov’s theory cannot be regarded as completely forgotten and ignored by the scientific «mainstream». In those years, critical for Russian linguistics, G. P.Me’lnikov acquired allies, such as the phonologist E. F. Kirov, typologist A. A. Kretov, Russian syntax researcher M. Yu. Fedosyuk. Presently, judging by the activeness of publishers and internet portals, the Russian linguistic community has regained a certain interest for the scientific heritage of the systemologist. Possibly, the scholars are mainly attracted by the explanatory and prognostic potential of «system linguistics». G. P. Mel’nikov used to test his guesses and ideas in the student audience; that  helped manifest the bright and original persuasiveness of the illustrative analogies, which sometimes disappeared in the few monographs by G. P. Mel’nikov, the fact that made editors complain: «This circumstance (limited volume. – authors of the article) must have denied the author the opportunity to use his original manner of presenting his ideas, the manner for which he is famous among the audience at conferences, congresses, seminars and lectures, where he illustrates each of his propositions by demonstrative pictures and examples from various scientific fields, branches of technology, from social and everyday situations» [3]. The authors of the present paper once comprised that very student audience of G. P. Mel’nikov and their object as they see it is actualizing some of the scientist’s speculations which  remain in their memories, which have never been published as completed texts, but fully realize the explanatory and prognostic potential of his «system linguistics».

Universal character of the system method

G. P. Mel’nikov characterized the typological structure of Semito-Hamitic languages in several relatively small scientific articles: «Interdependence of tiers in languages of Semitic system» [4] and «Relation of Semito-Hamitic languages to Indo-European and Ibero-Caucasian languages from the position of system linguistics» [5]. But later he often resumed the topic in his oral reports. For instance, there exists a record of his lecture of 1987, addressed to a wide audience. About a year before delivering the mentioned lecture, G. P. Mel’nikov had illustrated some principles of the “Semitic language system”, namely, the following one: «… we have two types of signs; one type expresses actions and is basic in all respects, other signs are modifiers of those basic ones. So, if we trace the development of the Semitic language system and compare it to the Indo-European system, we shall see that in the Indo-European systems the basic roots sometimes concern action, and such roots often prevail, but there is plenty of other roots (not verbal); as for Semitic languages, there a process took place of throwing away roots not naming action; they were either forgotten or reinterpreted, as the result, only words naming actions remained» [5, P.139]. This illustration appears to have had an independent meaning, as it stated isomorphism of semiotic systems of different substantial nature (verbal and visual) performing similar communicative function in the language community where one of the Semito-Hamitic languages was used. G. P. Mel’nikov  analyzed the visual system of the ancient Egyptian fresco. The first thing to note was the contradictory combination of visual statics and semiotic dynamics: for any human figure, there was an obligatory angle canon (shoulders horizontal, both feet stiff in pace, both hands shown, on the face in profile the eye shown en face). In such a way, the pictures of people-doers are verbalized, turned into visualized «verbs» – different positions of hands and feet are semantic specifiers of an iconic sign of what is the figure doing – shooting, going, running, carrying water etc. As for the areas of relative freedom in the frescos, they are similar to vocal modifiers: in Semitic languages, firstly, the changing vocal structure of the root consisting of three unchanging consonants, specifies the meaning or conveys a grammar category. In the horizontal picture placed on a wall, the most stable elements are the most standardized large figures, which can also be compared – besides the comparison to the stable consonant base of a Semitic root – to the verbal-attributive predicate of the Semitic sentence. As for the more variable from the point of view of the visual canon elements of the picture, on this level of comparison they will be akin to nominal modifiers of the message.

According to G. P. Mel’nikov’s conception, changes in the size of a language community, in the degree of its homogeneity or non-homogeneity, in the frequency and character of communication depending on the conditions and way of life of the native speakers, for instance, nomadic or settled, causes internal reconstruction of language leading to change of language type.  The explanatory potential of the method worked out by G. P. Mel’nikov covers the language substance on every scale, making the method itself universal. The external conditions of life of a language community explain not only the differences in typological characteristics of languages, but also dialect peculiarities of a single language. To make it sure, it is necessary to immerse into G. P. Mel’nikov’s system which, as a system aimed to receiving the complete knowledge, possesses a characteristic closedness caused by general interdependence and interrelation of its statements.

Defining the dialect verb forms думаш, думат, corresponding to literary and other dialect forms дум[айеш], дума[йет]  as a result of «morphologization of processes on the junction of stem and inflection of verbs» does not mean explaining the cause of their appearance.

A dialect of the Russian language, on the one hand, turns out to be a dialect of a language the system of which is determined by the necessity of maintaining a very large language community retaining homogeneity and leading a settled way of life; on the other hand, the dialect itself is not spread among all Russian native speakers.

According to G. P. Mel’nikov, in the Russian language, in the present external circumstances, when communication of everyone with everyone is impossible due to an extremely large language community, dispersed on an enormous territory, the mechanism of sharing information should imply constant verification of what the speaker wanted to say with what the listener has understood. Such a possibility is given by a nominative system with well-developed inflecting technique.   

The ending of the noun in nominative case and the personal ending of a finite verb denote the same person: паренЬ думаЕТ. The ending of the nominative case парен-Ь represents a reduced simplest clause «Некто делает», the finite form of the verb also represents a reduced predicative unit: the stem of the verb names an action, and the personal ending дума[й-ЕТ ] names the person performing the action.

Such technique – first subject, then action – gives a chance of collating the uttered and the comprehended. First the named subject allows the recipient to assume, judging from the knowledge of general qualities of the subject, what action the latter can perform, and the action named subsequently indicates (by way of ending) the person which is the subject of the named action: дума[й-ЕТ ] – ‘дума-ОН’.

In conditions of limited communication reduced to everyday life, when both the speaker and the listener know equally well who is the initiator of the described action, the necessity of confirming the correct understanding of who is in question is diminished, and the form думат, characteristic of some Russian dialects, appears.

Generally, minimal change of form leads to change of meaning. Change of form is always connected with change of meaning, and this connection is absolutely obligatory. At such understanding of correlation between form and meaning, when asked: «Which form is correct, профессоры or профессорá?», we shall answer: it depends on what you want to say. If you consider the professors as a «disjoint set» in which the personality of each professor is important,  you say профессорЫ. If you mean not a «disjoint set», but a homogeneous mass, you say профессорА. Where it is said  профессоры, as it was in the Russian Empire, the social status of a professor is incomparably higher than there where the form профессорá, is habitually used, no matter whether the speakers understand the difference in meaning or think in standard stereotypes, like an obsolete form/ a modern form.  

Explaining phenomena of a certain language level by facts of other levels as the central idea of G. P. Mel’nikov’s linguistic theory

Explaining phenomena of a certain language level by facts of other levels discloses the central idea of G. P. Mel’nikov’s linguistic theory. In polemics with the followers of structural linguistics, G. P. Mel’nikov had always argued the interdependence of language levels, showing by way of examples their being organic parts (subsystems) and having their own functions within the whole suprasystem, i.e. language. He did not reject the well-known level model of language, but considered it one of the aspects of the system model which structural linguistic never attempted to build. Following F. de Saussure, they considered language «in itself and for itself», never turning to its external functions and conditions of existence. This autonomy principle was applied by structural linguists to investigating separate levels. As for typological classifications, they, if taken into account at all, were regarded as completely independent from one another.

In his work of 2000, «System typology of languages: synthesis of morphological and phased classifications of languages» G. P. Mel’nikov, as it is clear from the title, synthesized the synchronic and diachronic aspects of typological classification and thus put an end to the generally accepted and fruitless opposing of «morphological classification» to «phased classification by stage». It has become clear that linguistic typology cannot be only synchronic, and historic linguistics cannot be only descriptive and local.    Also the interrelation of morphological and syntactic structures of languages was shown in the light of Mel’nikov’s initial idea that both structures of the external form of language are generated by its internal form; the latter is «the essence of the language system manifesting itself  through numerous observable projections, including “morphological” and “phased” classifications of language types» [6, P. 52].

Change of such parameters as the size of a language community and the degree of continuity of the social experience leads to the change of language type in the direction: incorporating language (in morphological and syntactic aspects non-distinctive of these levels) – incorporating ergative language (in morphological aspect incorporation is partial, the object of an utterance is singled out)  - agglutinative ergative language (terminative and attributive angle) – agglutinative nominative language (the subject is singled out) - inflective nominative language (the subject come out to the foreground, all parts of the sentence tend to morphological formalization, eventivity is the main trait of the nominative angle) -  isolating nominative language (parts of the sentence are devoid of morphological formalization, the situation is depicted in an outline, in a general contour).

Conclusion

G. P. Mel’nikov has proved that syntactic and morphological classifications, although they consider different dimensions of language, are parts of one system and are not absolutely independent: incorporating language cannot be nominative, inflective and isolating languages cannot be ergative. At the same time, there is no direct system of correspondences here: firstly, there are three morphological types that can be syntactically nominative; secondly, an agglutinative language can be both ergative and nominative. This is natural for G. P. Mel’nikov conception, because two classifications based on external forms of different levels, are explained not only through one another, but mostly through a beeper notion of the internal form of the language. Incorporation, for instance, is directed on a detailed description of a situation, not jf a dynamic event including subject and object of action. The tendency of language to create a certain image, called by G. P. Mel’nikov the determinant of a language, depends not on the formal structures of the language but on the typical informational need of the participants of communication. Moreover, it is the factor inducing the language to fix some formal structures as canonic.