language formula for all these types of human needs and activities. This is due to the
following features of the linguistic nature and words structure: simplicity and
generality of word’s form and content, implementation convenience of the operations
and activities. The word is adapted especially for the distinctive feature of human
thinking, learning, reflection and representation of the real world, its events,
106
connections and relationships between them. This feature is that during learning and
reflection man creates, first of all, ideal entities, and in one quality form, namely in
the form of generalizations. These are concepts, with the help of which man
organizes judgments, inferences, that is, thought, thinking activity, speech and
communication. Generalization is a necessity in cognitive and mental activity of man,
otherwise it would have died in the individual and separate particulars, also in the
isolated from each other events and would not have an idea about the integrity and
coherence of the world and its phenomena, about its categorical nature, that is, its
class system, that the world consists not so much from the individual, separate events,
as from the classes, genera, species, groups, subgroups of various objects and the
world’s phenomena. The world consists of communities, categories of different order,
generalizations of objective order of various subject areas as material world
phenomena and their cognitive-reflective categorical existence, not in the real world
already, which, as such, exists always, but in the human mind. The most common and
regular form of consolidation of knowledge about the world is a concept, which
encompasses the essential features and functions of the objects and phenomena of the
real world in a summarized form. The notion, in turn, is fixed, as usually, in the
language in such the most widespread and regular language unit as word. The notion
is usually the objective world in its natural quality, as it is in reality. For this the
concept and the notional system in cognitive, conceptual system of a nation are
responsible. The subjective, human predetermined or nationally and culturally
predefined knowledge, reflection and representation of the world meet another ideal,
conceptual, epistemological essence, another unit of consciousness, namely the
concept. The notion and concept as a generalization of essence and knowledge units,
epistemology and conscious are the own basis of human thought, thinking,
nominative, speech, communicative, pragmatic and the derivation activity and largely
due to their proper use for such purposes as speech, communicative, textual and
discussion application.
In contrast, the set expressions are not units of speech, they are units of language,
without which there are no rules of speech and communication organization, and also
there is no verbal communication. On the nominative, communicative and language
levels language includes the words, idioms, that is set phrases, rules, patterns of
speech organizations and communication.
In the communication between people in their native or foreign languages it is
essential to ensure mutual understanding between communication partners. It is
achieved by the fact that the last ones have a good command of language and all its
systems, units, including idioms. An important role in the understanding of people
with each other during the communication in a foreign language play such factors as
the similarity of human languages, some of their systems and units. In this sense
idioms do not make an exception. Between idioms of different languages there are
not only differences, but also similarities with varying degrees. For this reason, a
comparative structural-typological phraseology is methodologically objective
necessity, because out of research approach these patterns cannot be identified and
summarized.
107
Language system is characterized, like the whole language or other language
systems, with a universal feature: that it contains both universal and particular
properties and attributes, that are common to all systems related and unrelated
languages, or just a few, but most of the languages or from a limited number of
languages. It is this fact that gives reason to investigate language system in terms of
linguistic universals. In the science is presented the view that all languages are
created in the likeness and image of a single, universal language that can be imagined
in fact and mentally, and all the specific, real world languages are qualified as its
options, one or more system - its structure variety.
Linguistics of universals analyzes and is interested in features that allow you to
combine a variety of languages or languages. Establishing similarities and differences
in languages of different types is one of the central problems of linguistics. In the
early days of its development, linguistics was interested in more languages in relation
to their origin. The nature and type of language were based on the construction of any
language to any original condition. In recent years, the study of a common language
was made by identifying similarities on the basis of certain characteristics or
specially selected groups, justified from the standpoint of linguistics universals and
typological linguistics. Languages are grouped due to the nature of the spatial
distribution and juxtaposition, their local contacts, which is the subject of the so-
called areal linguistics or on the basis of their internal consistency - the actual
typological features, which is the subject of typological linguistics. Today linguistics
universals are not acting as a science, and in conjunction with the typological
linguistics. Compare: "Involvement in the study of general features for the large
group of languages set the stage for the second stage of generalization of these
features that is establishment of the general character of a large range of languages or
all languagesof the world. That is why now the problem of universals of a language
refers to the problem of simultaneously typology of languages ». However linguistics
universals and typological linguistics, though related, are similar but not identical to
linguistic science. They are the real basis for the classification of languages. They are
found in the languages themselves in one form or another of the real state of the
language. It is, of course, about the empirical, but not the universal sign of a
language. They are different things, and they must be distinguished: "But the
establishment of a common language of their different levels and sub-systems, in
whatever form it was carried out, there is only an empirical statement of some state
language, a certain amount of characters. Here we must clearly distinguish between
the language and the generalization of facts establishing universal sign language.
Direct assertion that language universals is the generalization of observed facts of a
language essentially bypasses the question of the nature of universals, since it reduces
to the problem of maximum coverage of the features of a group of languages that
exhibit some common ground.
The study of a language, not related to the general supervision of some empirical
facts and not depending on the cause of generating similarities, is a totally different
field of study. It leaves its origins not in the study actually specific to language, but to
detect signs of a language in general in terms of its specific character as an attribute
108
of human activity. Relationship between linguistics universals and typological
linguistics does not exclude, but confirms the vitality of the universals probability, as
an exception. It is found in different areas and types of quasi-universal laws and is
extremely important from the standpoint of the theory of typological linguistics and
linguistic universals. They reveal the deeper nature of language universals, universal
processes and features in one and different languages.
Their usage can install typologically significant features and characteristics of
related and unrelated languages. In addition, the boundaries between the absolute and
the probable universals are fluid or removed because of preferences and advantages
in the universal implications. With universal implication we are not talking about
type "available in all languages." Here is a particular inexact case, for example, it is
just a revision of the implication that takes the general form, or it entails a certain
refinement of relevance conditions of any implication. The summary for all the above
can be formulated in the following generalizations:
1. Methodological basis of identifying of language universals form a complex
inductive-deductive method of analysis of language, linguistic phenomena and their
properties in terms of their similarities and differences.
2. It is not always necessary to divide the universals to "language ones" and
"linguistic ones".
3. According to its logical form language universals have many implications. In
every case their analysis includes quantitative, statistical relationship between them.
Implication-universals are considered scientifically as informative, even though
investigation of the possibility of identifying and set of "absolute universals." They
form a set of basic parameters that must be the basis of case studies and is an
ancillary.
Central problem in the study of idiomatic universals is to determine their place in
the typology of linguistic universals. Traditionally there are the following types of
language universals: phonological, grammatical, semantic and symbolic.
In modern linguistics, there is a distinction between the natural and logical-
conceptual, extra linguistic universals, that means, between the intellectual,
conceptual and linguistic universals.
Universals can thus be caused by both external and internal factors. In the analysis
of the national language features are included, as it is known, on the one hand, those
which are caused by the national culture of the people and a speaker, and those that
relate to the internal organization and structure of the language system. The first and
the second are not the same and should not be confused.
Similarly, there is a need to consistently distinguish these two factors in the
analysis of common, universal features of the language. It is important to point out
that the existence and the presence of so-called "extra linguistic" (linguistic and
logical, logical-conceptual, cognitive) universals are universally accepted. These are
reality and logical-conceptual categories, which are reflected in mental sphere by
language and expression. So they must also be examined in the study of a language.
Considered as invalid attempt, extra linguistic exception of universals is caused from
the scope of linguistic research or explanation of all the universals in all languages by
109
external factors.
So the object of linguistic universals is the proper linguistic and extra linguistic
universals. It is quite clear that there are signs of events that can be inherent and truly
present in all languages. Each language is a sign system and it can be shown and
confirmed empirically by studying many languages and their comparison to the
deductive theoretical basis.
The first are linguistic universals, the second – cognitive ones. The identification
of both types of universals is, strictly speaking, the identification of elements of the
system in which objects and processes of the real world are noted with human
consciousness.
References
1.
Barbara Wotjak. Verbale Phraseolexeme in System und Text. Tuebengen, 2002
– 180 S.
2.
Jakobson R. Implications of language universals for linguistics. In: Universals
of language. Ed. By J.H. Greenberg, Second edition. Cambridge (Mass.) – London,
2006.
3.
Marion G.Neue methodische Ansätze im DaF-Unterricht mit Beiträgen
deutscher und usbekischer WissenschaftlerInnen.G.Marion, Neue methodische
Ansaetze.2011,55,58 (in Germ)
4.
Jakobson R. Implications of language universals for linguistics. R.Jakobson,
Universals of language. 2006, 11, 107,111 (in Engl)
УДК 376.3=111
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEUROLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING
G.K.Kapysheva, N.A.Sadykova,
School №44, S.Amanzholov East-Kazakhstan, State University Ust-Kamenogorsk
Different nations are able to equally divide, reflect and see the world. For this
there are a variety of reasons, among which should be noted, first of all the unity and
similarity of the real world, lifestyle, needs and desires of the people, the identity of
their biology, physiology, psychology and of course ascending of modern languages
phraseological units to the general image-semantic prototype. The fact of similarity
of phraseological units in different languages on various aspects of their linguistic
nature, development and operation makes the study’s comparative structural-
typological principles necessary and relevant.
Comparative structural-typological study of different languages systems shows
two patterns:
a) The existence of thought unity and mental operations in both processes of
conceptualizing the world and phraseology building, that is, phraseological
derivation;
b) Selectivity and national characteristics in the two types of cognitive and
110
linguistic human activities.
Phraseological component is an essential constituent of any language. Between
the maturity of language and phraseological system there is a direct relationship. In
addition, visual-image thinking is higher level of human consciousness and more
complex form of thought, than ingeniously subject, objectively due to conceptual
thinking.
Phraseological component of language is one of the most difficult elements in the
study of foreign languages and language acquisition. Mostly it is connected with the
complexity of linguistic nature. Its most typical and categorical features are: multi-
component, separately statefulness, phrase form, imagery, semantic integrity,
phraseological stability in all aspects of its linguistic nature, belonging to the
language and linguistic phraseological system, therefore, taking them out from of
memory or phrasebook ready, as much as one man does this with words. The typical,
characteristic features of phraseology are their attribution not to the primary, but to
the secondary language system, that is, their genetic unoriginality and structural
derivatives. Primary linguistic systems make the language, on the one hand, the
universal mean of communication and cognition, knowledge storage, identification
and differentiation of real phenomena and expression of different relations between
them, and, on the other hand, for the speech organization, communication and more
complex language and speech formation.
This feature is that during learning and reflection man creates, first of all, ideal
entities, and in one quality form, namely in the form of generalizations. These are
concepts, with the help of which man organizes judgments, inferences, that is,
thought, thinking activity, speech and communication. Generalization is a necessity
in cognitive and mental activity of man, otherwise it would have died in the
individual and separate particulars, also in the isolated from each other events and
would not have an idea about the integrity and coherence of the world and its
phenomena, about its categorical nature, that is, its class system, that the world
consists not so much from the individual, separate events, as from the classes, genera,
species, groups, subgroups of various objects and the world’s phenomena. The world
consists of communities, categories of different order, generalizations of objective
order of various subject areas as material world phenomena and their cognitive-
reflective categorical existence, not in the real world already, which, as such, exists
always, but in the human mind. The most common and regular form of consolidation
of knowledge about the world is a concept, which encompasses the essential features
and functions of the objects and phenomena of the real world in a summarized form.
The notion, in turn, is fixed, as usually, in the language in such the most widespread
and regular language unit as word. The notion is usually the objective world in its
natural quality, as it is in reality. For this the concept and the notional system in
cognitive, conceptual system of a nation are responsible. The subjective, human
predetermined or nationally and culturally predefined knowledge, reflection and
representation of the world meet another ideal, conceptual, epistemological essence,
another unit of consciousness, namely the concept.
Comparative structural-typological study of phraseology can effectively
111
implement and provide interesting, valuable and useful scientific results under certain
research conditions: the use of unified theory of methodology, a unified conceptual-
terminological apparatus. Characterization and comparison of phraseology of
different languages are carried out under different conditions, with different coverage
of phraseological system and, usually, at the level of the whole phraseological
system, the definitions of categories, classes of phraseological units, specific and
individual phraseological units. Among the most important research tasks of
comparative phraseology are, above all, such as the identification of deep-rooted
intralanguage and extra-linguistic factors and causes of the similarities and
differences of phraseology systems, phraseological units, phraseological picture of
the different languages world, phraseological regularities and universals of various
languages.
Phraseological units of the phraseology-semantical field occupy in each
phraseologycal system of compared languages an independent place and certain
proportion. The number of such phraseological units is measured for each of the
compared languages several hundred, and in general, there are more than 1000
phraseological units in this four languages. Comparative structural-typological
analysis in term of their similarities and differences showed typical patterns of the
types of interlanguage phraseological equivalents which are specific only for this
phraseological semantical field and for the four languages.
They concern, first of all, a similar number of phraseological units of this type in
each of the four languages and typology of phraseological images and models. This
can, firstly, have effect that phraseological units of the phraseological-semantical
field and each of the studied languages have phraseological equivalents or
compliance in other three studied languages. Since this initial study is the German
language, it is important in the search for phraseological equivalents in other
languages.
The language is as a system structural organized and language units are closely
connected. As they are different in quality structurally, semantically, functionally and
practically, language units have only their own means and capabilities in
communicative implementation of the language.
The existence of all the language’s units in two forms and types as the units of the
language and using it in speech are relevant to phraseological units too[1]. In this
case there is direct parallelism between the term linguistic system and others
subsystems of the language, including the phraseological system of the language.
The following terms are typical to the system of the language in general: the levels
units of the language levels, different types of paradigmatic, syntagmatic,
hierarchical, derivation relations. [2].These traits, characteristics, relations are also
typical to the phraseological level.
We can speak in the native language or in the foreign language without using
idioms. But it is only theoretically, in reality it is not so, because when people
communicate in their native language, they use a variety of types of set phrases like
expressive and non-expressive, like imaginative and non-imaginative, like idiomatic
and non-idiomatic. There is objective reason for it: in each language there is a
112
developed system of phraseological units, which develops during all the history of
formation and functioning of the language. There is not full language without
phraseological units, because they perform their special functions. All the different
problems, issues, which are connected with the role of phraseological units in the
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |