|Към по-приемлива анализа и постройка на опитите за съпоставителни и типологични изследвания в славянското езикознание
|Вид на публикацията
|Година на публикуване
|Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics
|Език на публикацията
|Contrastive Studies; съпоставителни изследвания
Through distribution and stratification, the author aims at a more accurate characterization of the various methods (contrastive and typological in particular) used in Slavonic language studies. The study has been prompted by the existing inconsistency in their formulation which is, to a certain extent, understandable. The starting point is the continuity and mutual complementation of all methods of study used so far. The relative difference between these methods stems from their attitude towards the presumed parent language prototype of the phenomena which is valid only for the comparative method. The Slavonic languages, being genealogically related, display a number of structures (zones and objects) which can be studied not only comparatively but also contrastively and typologically. Thus, for example, a number of contrastive studies of languages in contact during the post- Proto-Slavonic period, such as the Byelorussian and Russian akan’e, the Polish mazurzenie etc. differ from the typological interpretation of phenomena such as the system of obligatory՛ open syllables in the Proto-Slavonic period, the appearance of the genus virile in some Slavonic languages, the Bulgarian citational forms, etc. A potential relationship and interdependence are assumed to exist between descriptive, comparative and historical linguistics. The reliability of the contrastive method is enhanced by соmparison, while it sometimes loses validity if the historical principle is neglected. The typological method is becoming increasingly reliable since it applies to the essential parameters and universal categories of language and facilitates its dynamic characterology.
|Код за цитиране