E-catalog        

Библиогр.: 33 назв.

Исследована проблема праязыка в трудах ученых московской школы. Праязык рассматривали как языковую систему (с конкретными особенностями на фонетико-фонологическом и морфологическом уровнях), представляющую динамическое явление (праязык раннего / позднего периодов). В праязыке допускалась диалектная дифференциация. Реконструкция праязыка трактовалась буквально, имела избыточный характер. Моделировались дивергентные и конвергентные процессы. Использовались ретроспективная и обратная реконструкция. The problem of a parent language in the works of scholars of the Moscow linguistic (Fortunatov) school is studied. The authors of the article strive to reveal the linguists’ views on the following fundamental questions: 1. Is a parent-language a real language system, or should it be considered as a reconstruction? Is a parent-language a static or dynamic phenomenon? 2. Does the phenomenon of a parent-language have a methodological value? How should the reconstruction of a parent-language be interpreted: literally or with awareness of a certain conventionality of reconstruction? Is it possible to reconstruct a parent language as a dynamic phenomenon? Should we focus on the reconstruction of dialectic parent-lingual phenomena? How do parent-language reconstruction and genealogical classification of languages correlate? 3. Which should be the nature of a parent-language reconstruction – prospective or retrospective? The Moscow school scholars considered a parent language as a dynamic phenomenon revealing early and final periods in its history. Though in the aspect of a parent language dialect differentiation was allowed, however, according to the representatives of the Moscow school, significant dialect changes in parent languages arose in the final period of the existence of a parent language – in the period on the eve of the “collapse”. According to A.A. Shakhmatov, some dialectal differences might be inherent in the parent languages of the early period. This point was logically inferred from the idea of the gradualness of linguistic changes, supported by F.F. Fortunatov and his followers. Linguistic reconstruction was treated as a reconstruction of the linguistic facts of the past in the literal sense: in the works by Fortunatov and his followers, parent languages were presented as real phenomena with their specific features at the phonetic-phonological and morphological levels, and both linguistic and speech facts were reconstructed. Taking into account Fortunatov’s divergent-convergent language development theory, the scholars of the Moscow school studied mainly divergent processes. Following A. Schleicher and the neogrammarians, the scholars of the Moscow school correlated the parent-language reconstruction with the genealogical classification of languages and reconstructed not only the Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Slavonic, Proto-Eastern-Slavonic languages, but also the Baltic-Slavonic parent language and “intermediate” states. Reliability of research results obtained by the scholars of the Moscow school is connected with the direction towards modern dialect facts as a priority source of language history study and the retrospective character of linguistic reconstruction.