271
THE ROLE OF LINGUISTIC SCHOOLS IN LANGUAGE
TEACHING
B.A. Razzaqov (NamECI)
Аннотация. В статью рассматривается актуальная проблема преподавания
английского языка как иностранного студентам нефилологических вузов.
Представлен вариант практической реализации основных компонентов
методической системы в учебном комплексе упражнений и заданий, позволяющий
наметить новые и эффективные методы обучения иностранным языкам. Данная
работа будет интересна и полезна учителям иностранных языков и другим
категориям специалистов, профессионально занимающихся исследованием и
применением новых методов в обучении языкам.
Аннотация. Илмий мақола филологиядан ташқари университетлар
талабалари учун инглиз тилини чет тили сифатида ўқитишнинг долзарб муаммосига
бағишланган. Чет тилларини ўқитишда янги ва самарали усулларни белгилаш
имконини берувчи машғулотлар ва топшириқлар мажмуасида услубий тизимнинг
асосий таркибий қисмларини амалий тадбиқ қилиш варианти келтирилган. Ушбу
мақола чет тили ўқитувчилари ва бошқа тоифадаги мутахассислар учун тадқиқот
ва тилларни ўқитишда янги усулларни қўллаш билан шуғулланадиган мутахассислар
учун қизиқарли ва фойдали бўлади.
Reasons for the formation of linguistic structuralism. The system of
phenomenological philosophy of the school of positivism. Copenhagen School of
Linguistics. Danish Structuralism L. Hjelmslev, W. Bröndal and H. Uldall. A. pp.521-534
Glossematics. L. Elmslev. Prague Linguistic School. Mothesius, Trnka, Trubetskoy,
Jacobson. Prague Linguistic Circle. Concepts. Functions. Prague Linguistic School.
Problems of phonology. Prague Linguistic School. Grammar problems. Prague Linguistic
School. Typological study of languages and language unions. London School of
Structuralism (School of Conceptualism). American structuralism. The Birth of American
Structuralism Boas, Sapir, Bloomfield. Descriptive linguistics. Syntactic analysis.
Transformational Method (American School). Generative Linguistics (American School)
Sociolinguistics. Ethnolinguistics. Cognitive linguistics. General tasks of cognitive
linguistics. Topics and direction of cognitive linguistics. Synchronic and diachronic
linguistics. F. de Saussure and his place in linguistics in the 20th century The concept of
language and speech (Saussure). Internal and external linguistics. Theory of prototypes.
1. Reasons for the formation of lingo-structuralism. The system of the phonemical
philosophy of the school of positivism
The emergence of structuralism as a leading trend in the first half of the 20th century.
associated with the widespread use of the concept of structure in science. The concept of
structure becomes in the 20th century. one of the most commonly used terms. This is due to
a deeper disclosure of the physiological mechanism of nervous activity with the use of
cybernetic principles in various areas of human activity. The provisions of structural
psychology have been widely developed. An important role in the development of the
philosophy of linguistic structuralism was played by the system of phenomenological
philosophy and the school of neopositivist. A significant place in the initial general
theoretical foundations of descriptive linguistics, one of the branches of linguistic
structuralism, was assigned to behaviorism.
272
The beginning of the doctrine, called phenomenology, was laid by Husserl. The
essence of the teaching is as follows:
1. The subject of philosophy is a phenomenon (phenomenon) and consciousness,
regarded as the only directly given phenomena.
2. these phenomena are some absolute entities that have universal significance. The
task of philosophy in order to reveal the univ-ing essence behind the world of incoming
phenomena Husserl put forward the demand to make philosophy a rigorous science, the
provisions of which would be close to the laws of logic and mathematics. Representatives of
the school of phenomenological philology had a meaning. influence on the forms of
structural linguistics, influenced both the representatives of the Prague school and the
representatives of the Copenhagen school. The works of the Copenhagen School were based
on Husserl's philosophical views. from the very beginning it developed as an international
philosophical trend. Logical positivism originates in the Vienna Circle, which was formed
in the early 1920s. under the direction of M. Schlick. It included: R. Karnak, F. Frank, O.
Neuran. Along with them in the 30s. a so-called group of "analysts" arose in England (A.
Ayer) and the Lvov Warsaw School in Poland (Aidykevich, Tarksky, Tfardovsky). The
English logic-mathematician and philosopher B. Russell and the Austrian L. Witgeistein
played a very important role in the emergence and development of neopositivist. In the
opinion of neopositivists, philosophy should be a "logical analysis of language" in the words
of Wittgeistein or logico-syntaxis in Karnath's terms on the basis of mathematical logic.
Under the general name of structuralism, it is customary to combine the trace. schools:
Prague; Copenhagen; London; American structuralism (cat. is a very diverse phenomenon
and therefore the term “school” is less convenient to apply to it).
The ideas of F. de Saussure played a huge role in the formation of all areas of
structuralism.
2. Copenhagen Linguistic School. Danish Structuralism L. Hjelmslev, W. Bröndal
and H. Uldall.
This direction arose in 1931 as a result of the unification of Danish linguists (mainly
the University of Copenhagen into the Copenhagen Linguistic Society, or the Copenhagen
Circle). The founder of the society is Professor Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965) (Director of
the Institute of Linguistics and Phonetics at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of
Copenhagen), and the main representatives were W. Bröndal (1887-1942), H. Uldall (1907-
1957)... Representatives of Kopen-koischk. well aware of their connection with the previous
modern. directions in lingu-ke.Osn. theories of sources of the mine direction are:
1. the teachings of F. de Saussure on language;
2. the logical theory of language developed by Whitehead and Russell, as well as by
the Vienna School of Logistics and especially by Carnap in his work on syntax and
semantics.
Professor Carnap's logistic theory of language determined Hjelmslev's understanding
of structure as a phenomenon of pure form and pure relations, i.e. every scientific statement
must be a relational statement that does not involve a description of the very elements
involved in the relationship. According to the logistic theory of language, theoretical
thought should be reduced to an ideal language in which each character would be
unambiguous. Very important prerequisites for attempts to create a general theory of
language as a system of calculus was the fact that as a result of the development of the
theory of mathematics, the concept of mathematics as a system of signs arose, which is
constructed in acc. with certain formal rules.
273
Bröndal's goal is construction of a general, or logical, grammar. Danish structuralism
is sometimes also defined by the special term "glossematics". The term "g-ka" was
introduced by the creators of the theory, according to them, in order to draw a line between
traditional linguistics and a new structural method of research. L. Elmslev is considered to
be the creator of glossematics. The goal of glossematic theory is to create a method for
describing a language. L. Hjelmslev, like other representatives of the Copenhagen trend,
strives for an accurate study of the language with the help of purely linguistic concepts. Its
goal is "an algebra of language operating indefinite unities".
3.Glossematics Bröndal (1887-1942), Uldall (1907-1957) and Hjelmslev (1899-
1965), who laid the foundations of a new linguistic theory, known as "glossematics" (from
Greek – language), stand at the drains of the Copenhagen school of structuralism. The
Hjelmslev School was established at Kopen University in the 1930s. With a small number
of linguists working within the framework of glossematics, its positions remained very
influential for several decades. By the 1970s, glossematics ceased to exist. The number of
supporters of this trend is relatively small; in addition, there are known theoretical
discrepancies between them.
In the article “The Method of Structural Analysis in Linguistics”, Elmslev points to
the theoretical sources of glossematics – the teachings of F. de Saussure and the logistic
theory of language, which emerged from the mathematical reasoning of A. Whitehead and
B. Russell, as well as the provisions of the Viennese logical school, and especially the ideas
of R. Carnap. In order to draw a fundamental line between traditional linguistics and a
purely structural method of studying language, and to distinguish the new linguistics from
the traditional one, which is very closely related to psychology, physiology, history, etc.,
Hjelmslem proposes a special name for the new method – glossematics.
The philosophical basis of the glossematics theory is positivism, which consistently
denies the real existence of objects of material reality, declaring these objects to be bundles
of intersection of their mutual dependencies – functions. Glossematics do not take into
account the practice in which the unity of material existence and consciousness is realized.
The widespread borrowing of the concepts of mathematical logic has led to the fact that
glossematicians sometimes call their theory an immanent (intrinsic, inherent) algebra of a
language that operates with nameless entities, i.e. arbitrarily named entities of unnatural
designation. Hjelmslev was aware that his approach to language led to a "temporary
restriction of outlook", but considered this restriction "the price paid for tearing away its
secrets from the language." The concept of glossematics, generally not accepted by other
areas of structuralism, turned out to be too abstract and not directly applicable to specific
linguistic practice. From the point of view of model theory, glossematics turned out to be
too strong a model, neglecting many properties of natural language and describing rather a
semiotic system in general. Some. the principles of glossematics nevertheless entered
scientific use; many terminological innovations proposed by Elmslev turned out to be very
successful.
4. Prague Linguistic School. Mathesius, Trnka, Trubetskoy, Jacobson
The Prague School is one of the main directions of structuralism, and it was in
Prague that the latter first took shape as an integral trend in modern linguistic science. The
philosophical basis of the Prague School is the theory of knowledge of neopositivism and
the phenomenology of E. Husserl. The emergence of the Prague School was due not only to
the natural trends in the development of world science in general, but also, in particular, to
some features of the development of the science of language in Czechoslovakia. On the one
hand, there was a predominance of neogrammatism, and on the other hand, already at the
274
end of the 19th – beginning. 20th century in the works of a number of linguists, provisions
appeared that were consonant with the ideas of Saussure.
From the very beginning, the Prague school opposed its linguistic concept to the
provisions of the young-gram direction, its historicism and atomism. According to Trnka,
one can speak of the Prague School as a school of functional linguistics. Because the
concept of function pervades all fields of study of the Praguers. They understand language
as a functional system, i.e. “a system of means of expression serving a definition. goals".
The Praguers, in contrast to F. de Saussure, are striving for the convergence of synchronic
and diachronic analysis. Language is a system that is in a certain movement in time.
Therefore, they believe that when studying the development of individual phenomena, one
must keep in mind the entire system, because only then can one arrive at satisfactory results.
Even when reconstructing the elements of a language, one should take into account the
entire system of the language as a whole. After all, the ultimate goals of historical and
structural-reconstructive research, according to the Praguers, do not differ from the tasks of
synchronous structural research, since in both cases it is necessary to identify certain
linguistic connections and patterns.
REFERENCES:
1.
Brown H. 2000. Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York:
Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc
2.
Penny Ur. 1999. A course of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
3.
Thornbury Scott. 2006. How to Teach Grammar. England: Pearson Education
Limited.
4.
Vagramova, Ya. V. Linguistic personality from the standpoint of the theory of
bilingualism / N. V. Vagramova // Formation of a bilingual personality based on a
competency-based approach / ed. G. A. Baeva. – St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St.
Petersburg. un-ta, 2012. – S. 5-20.
5.
V. M. Filatov [and others]; under. ed. V. M. Filatova. – Rostov n / a : Phoenix,
2004. Methods of teaching foreign languages in elementary and basic general education
schools:
6.
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Linguistic-Stereotypes-F3HHCFYVC
7.
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Huang-RolePlay.html
8.
http: // iteslj.org/Technique/Kodotchigova-RolePlay.html
9.
Ашуров, Шахобиддин Саидович, and Дилфуза Азизовна Атауллаева.
"ИНТЕРНАЦИОНАЛИЗАЦИЯ СИСТЕМЫ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЯ ИНОСТРАННЫХ
ЯЗЫКОВ В УЗБЕКИСТАНЕ: ЭТАПЫ ЭВОЛЮЦИИ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ." Научные
школы. Молодёжь в науке и культуре XXI века. 2018
.
