Понятие об изменении языка и его природе

Аннотация

Ключевые слова: Любая трактовка лингвистики должна касаться вопроса изменение языка, изменения языка. То, как меняются языки, позволяет электронная понять природу самого языка. Язык всегда меняется и коммуникация, развивается либо внутренне, либо внешне. Внутренние лексические изменения, синхронно, языковые изменения происходят в результате поведения диахронически, говорящих в их повседневной жизни, чтобы приспособиться историческая друг к другу, и сопровождаются тенденцией к инновациям в лингвистика, группах людей, которые уже знакомы. Затем следуют социолингвистика, другие изменения в последовательности, которые в эволюционная лингвистика, конечном итоге делают язык другим. Это грамматика, фонетические и фонология, последовательности фраз и предложения с фонологические гендерной функцией. За этим изменением последуют изменения, другие изменения. Языковые изменения могут происходить синтаксис, на любом уровне языка: в произношении, словоформах, речевое сообщество. синтаксисе и значениях слов. The possible answers to why languages change tell us about the way language is used in society, about how it is acquired by individuals and may reveal to us information about its internal organization. (Raymond Hickey, Language Change, 2003). As all languages are systematic, the history of any language is the history of change in its systems. By change, we mean a permanent alteration thus slips of the tongue, ad hoc coinages that are not adopted by other users of the language, and “new” structures that result from one person’s getting his or her syntax tangled in an overly ambitious sentence are not regarded as change. Neither ephemeral slang which is widely used one year but that has been abandoned five years later can relate to the language change, it is indeed part of the history of the language but has no permanent effect. It is studied in several subfields of linguistics: historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, and evolutionary linguistics. Some scholars use the label corruption to suggest that language change constitutes degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics typically does not support this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. (Kemenade, Ans van. ‘Parameters of morphosyntactic change’ 1997) John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language change must be based upon recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfill in the society which uses it”. (Bloch B., Trager G. Outline of linguistic analysis. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America, 1942) The belief that a language ought to be fixed; made stable and forbidden to modify itself in any way was held by a host of scholars in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were more familiar with the dead languages, in which the vocabulary and usage was closed, than they were with the living languages, in which there is always incessant differentiation and unending extension. Truly, the development of a language was firstly grounded on the lexical changes, when the first linguists saw that the older the text is, the less its level of comprehension. Any new epoch was accompanied by the introduction of new words which denote new objects and phenomena. From the time of Saussure until the late 1960s, it was assumed by the great majority of linguists that the “omnipresence of ongoing change” 834 Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations Special Issue – 4 (2021) / ISSN 2181-1415 which is observable in all real-life linguistic data must be ignored in synchronic description (apart from the possibility of allowing “free variation”; This picture has now substantially changed, as a result of numerous careful studies of linguistic variation, most of which have been directly or indirectly inspired by the work of William Labov. (Bailey, Charles-James N. Variation and linguistic theory. 1976) For Saussure, language is a social institution that has its own internal arrangement. He frequently compares the latter to a game of chess: in language, one moves from one synchronic state to the next, as one moves only one piece at a time on the chessboard. But, just as one move can change the whole game, and sometimes the chess player may not even foresee all its effects, one change in language may have a repercussion throughout the whole system. However, “each move is absolutely distinct from the preceding and the subsequent equilibrium”, whichever way a state in the game has been reached is irrelevant, and someone looking at the chessboard at that very moment can assess the situation without having to know what happened just seconds before. He constantly points out that any individual creation in language is doomed unless it is taken over by the speech community, at which time the individual loses all control over it. Thus, “a language ne