Климов Г.А.

Принципы контенсивной типологии. Изд. стереотип.

---

Vvedenie
Prinyatie sokrascheniya
Glava I.	Obschie printsipi kontensivnoj tipologii
Glava II.	Problema kontensivno-tipologicheskoj klassifikatsii yazikov
Glava III.	Istoricheskij aspekt kontensivno-tipologicheskikh issledovanij
Zaklyuchenie
Summary

---

Uzhe v nastoyaschee vremya nachinaet, po-vidimomu, opravdivat'sya predvidenie nekotorikh yazikovedov o vse bol'shem vozrastanii v buduschem roli tipologii sredi drugikh fundamental'nikh lingvisticheskikh distsiplin. Za neskol'ko poslednikh desyatiletij suschestvenno uvelichilsya udel'nij ves tipologicheskikh issledovanij na obschem fone lingvisticheskikh rabot. Progress tipologii nakhodit svoe virazhenie v posledovatel'nom otpochkovanii ot sobstvenno tipologii tselogo ryada drugikh raznovidnostej strukturnogo issledovaniya yazika, ne imeyuschikh dela s ponyatiem yazikovogo tipa -- kontrastivnogo (sopostavitel'nogo) yazikoznaniya, lingvisticheskoj kharakterologii, universalologii (lingvologii). On oschutim v postepennom utverzhdenii v pravakh diakhronicheskoj tipologii. Nakonets, ego ochevidnim svidetel'stvom sleduet schitat' i zametnoe vnutrennee razmezhevanie samoj tipologii na tak nazivaemuyu formal'nuyu, s odnoj storoni, i kontensivnuyu, s drugoj.

Odnoj iz naibolee kharakternikh chert sovremennogo yazikoznaniya yavlyaetsya, kak izvestno, rezkoe vozrastanie ob'ema soderzhatel'no orientirovannikh tipologicheskikh issledovanij, otrazhayuschee pristal'noe vnimanie lingvistov k semanticheskoj storone yazika. Eti issledovaniya, initsiatorami kotorikh vistupili esche v 30--40-kh godakh sovetskie yazikovedi, prevratilis' v nastoyaschee vremya v shirokoe mezhdunarodnoe napravlenie lingvisticheskikh rabot, predstavlennoe v zapadnoevropejskoj i amerikanskoj literature preimuschestvenno relyatsionnoj grammatikoj (relational grammar) ili relyatsionnoj tipologiej (relational typology). V poslednej svyazi dostatochno upomyanut', naprimer, chrezvichajno vozrosshij interes sovremennogo zarubezhnogo yazikoznaniya k problematike obschej teorii ergativnosti.

Vo izbezhanie vozmozhnikh nedorazumenij neobkhodimo srazu zhe raz'yasnit' upotreblenie samogo termina "kontensivnaya tipologiya " v nastoyaschej monografii. Podobno praktike tselogo ryada drugikh nedavnikh issledovanij pod nim zdes' podrazumevaetsya ne tipologiya soderzhatel'noj storoni yazika, o zhelatel'nosti razrabotki kotoroj pisali nekotorie yazikovedi, i uzhe opredelennij shag v realizatsii chego sostavlyaet izvestnaya rabota S.D.Katsnel'sona. Ne stoit za nim ravnim obrazom i ispol'zuemoe P.Khartmanom ponyatie Begriffstypologie (poslednee opredelyaetsya im kak nekotoraya leksikologicheski orientirovannaya distsiplina), kotoroe takzhe protivopostavlyaetsya ponyatiyu Formaltypologie. Etot termin sootnesen zdes' s osoboj raznovidnost'yu tipologicheskikh issledovanij, v rusle kotorikh formal'naya storona yazika izuchaetsya v neposredstvennoj svyazi s peredavaemim v nem soderzhaniem. Takim obrazom, esli stremit'sya k soblyudeniyu terminologicheskoj tochnosti, to kontensivnuyu tipologiyu mozhno bilo bi nazvat' soderzhatel'no orientirovannoj lingvisticheskoj tipologiej.

V svete uzhe nakoplennikh naukoj nablyudenij nad vzaimosvyazyami strukturnikh faktov v konkretnikh yazikakh vse bolee otchetlivo virisovivaetsya aktual'nost' zadachi razrabotki tipologicheskoj teorii, ne tol'ko obsluzhivayuschej opisanie yazikovikh yavlenij, no i pretenduyuschej na ikh ob'yasnenie. Sr. v etoj svyazi shiroko oschuschaemuyu neobkhodimost' postroeniya estestvennoj tipologicheskoj klassifikatsii. Eksplikativnij aspekt ne chuzhd, kak izvestno, i nekotorim sovremennim formal'no-tipologicheskim kontseptsiyam (sr., naprimer, apellyatsiyu k faktam morfologicheskogo urovnya pri istolkovanii nekotorikh fonologicheskikh osobennostej agglyutinativnogo stroya3). Odnako znachitel'no bolee shirokimi predstavlyayutsya v etom plane perspektivi kontensivnoj tipologii, predpolagayuschej, iskhodya iz dialekticheskikh zakonomernostej sootnosheniya formi i soderzhaniya yavleniya, poiski obuslovlennosti formal'noj storoni yazika ego soderzhatel'noj storonoj. Imenno na fone tendentsii sovremennoj tipologii k razrabotke ob'yasnitel'noj teorii zakonomeren i vozrastayuschij interes tipologov k interpretatsiyam istoricheskogo kharaktera.

Pri vsej nablyudayuschejsya v nastoyaschee vremya variatsii podkhodov raznikh avtorov k razrabotke problem kontensivnoj tipologii ves'ma otchetlivo vistupayut cherti i ikh vnutrennego edinstva, reshayuschim obrazom obuslovlennie obschnost'yu samogo osnovaniya sravneniya raznotipnikh yazikov -- analiza sposobov peredachi v nikh sub'ektno-ob'ektnikh otnoshenij dejstvitel'nosti. Otsyuda sleduet i kontsentratsiya vnimaniya issledovatelej na odnoj i toj zhe sovokupnosti problem i, v chastnosti, operirovanie po suschestvu odnim i tem zhe inventarem yazikovikh tipov, chto, nesomnenno, sozdaet blagopriyatnie predposilki dlya dal'nejshego progressa kontensivnoj tipologii (sr. printsipial'no otlichnoe polozhenie del v sfere formal'no-tipologicheskikh issledovanij). Tem samim voznikaet nadezhda na vozmozhnost' dovol'no bistrogo dostizheniya real'nikh uspekhov v razrabotke teoretiko-metodicheskogo apparata etoj distsiplini i primenenii ego k konkretnomu yazikovomu materialu.

Vmeste s tem ne prikhoditsya nedootsenivat' i nekotorie obstoyatel'stva, suschestvenno tormozyaschie dal'nejshee razvitie kontensivnoj tipologii i zaklyuchayuschiesya prezhde vsego v nereshennosti ryada obschikh voprosov lingvisticheskoj tipologii (sr. problemi yazikovogo tipa, tipologicheski relevantnogo priznaka, tipologicheskoj klassifikatsii yazikov, istoricheskoj interpretatsii tipologiziruemogo materiala, tipologicheskoj rekonstruktsii i dr.), obuslovlennie v konechnom schete vse esche nedostatochno posledovatel'nim vnedreniem v sovremennie tipologicheskie shtudii printsipov sistemnogo i istoricheskogo podkhoda. Daleko ne polnoe ispol'zovanie vnutrennikh resursov sistemnogo podkhoda k yaziku zayavlyaet o sebe, naprimer, v ryade nedavnikh rabot v oblasti obschej teorii ergativnosti (sr. neredko vstrechayuschijsya v nikh neuchet leksicheskikh implikatsij ergativnogo stroya, esche neizzhituyu tendentsiyu k sopostavleniyu ergativnoj konstruktsii predlozheniya neposredstvenno s nominativnoj, minuya ee pryamoj strukturnij korrelyat v vide absolyutnoj konstruktsii i t.p.). Nedostatochnaya populyarnost' v issledovatel'skoj praktike poiskov opredelennoj sistemnosti v sovokupnosti nesistemnikh s tochki zreniya profiliruyuschego v yazike tipa yavlenij prepyatstvuet resheniyu voprosov istoriko-tipologicheskogo kharaktera. Dazhe esli ostavit' v storone mnogochislennie primeri yavnoj desemantizatsii samogo termina "tipologiya" v sovremennoj lingvistike (sr. takie upotrebleniya, kak "tipologiya slovarej", "tipologiya differentsial'nikh priznakov fonem", "tipologiya sotsiolingvisticheskikh situatsij" i dr.), trudno otdelat'sya ot vpechatleniya, chto tipologiya vse esche slishkom chasto predstavlyaetsya sovokupnost'yu edva li ne vsekh traktovok yazikovogo materiala, ne ukladivayuschikhsya v ramki geneticheskogo (sravnitel'no-istoricheskogo) i areal'nogo podkhodov.

Otmechennie obstoyatel'stva nakhodyat svoe otrazhenie v mnogochislennikh viskazivaniyakh yazikovedov, krasnorechivo svidetel'stvuyuschikh ob ikh neudovletvorennosti suschestvuyuschim v tipologii polozheniem. V spetsial'noj literature ne bez osnovaniya priznaetsya, chto trudnosti resheniya etikh voprosov korenyatsya ne stol'ko v ob'ektivnoj slozhnosti samoj tipologicheskoj problematiki, skol'ko v neproportsional'no visokoj dole sub'ektivnogo faktora, vozdejstvuyuschego na veduschiesya issledovaniya. Kak izvestno, nekotorie avtori predlagayut preodolet' eti trudnosti za schet obrascheniya k luchshe razrabotannomu metodicheskomu apparatu drugikh nauk, imeyuschikh delo s klassifikatsiej svoego materiala. Pri bezuslovnoj tselesoobraznosti ucheta sootvetstvuyuschego opita neyazikovedcheskikh distsiplin, predstavlyaetsya estestvennim, odnako, chto v pervuyu ochered' tipologiya dolzhna ispol'zovat' te vnutrennie rezervi, kotorie imeyutsya v etom plane v sfere samoj nauki o yazike. Poetomu pri reshenii zadach, voznikayuschikh pered nastoyaschej rabotoj, avtor schital vozmozhnim i bolee togo neobkhodimim provedenie tseloj sovokupnosti analogij metodicheskogo kharaktera mezhdu tipologicheskimi i geneticheskimi, t.e. sravnitel'no-istoricheskimi, issledovaniyami, kotorie uzhe davno zarekomendovali sebya v kachestve metodicheski obraztsovoj lingvisticheskoj distsiplini. Trudno somnevat'sya v tom, chto imenno v etom napravlenii, na kotorom, kak izvestno, delayutsya lish' pervie shagi, sleduet iskat' magistral'nie puti prevrascheniya tipologii v otrasl' nauki o yazike, vpolne sopostavimuyu po svoej ob'ektivnoj tsennosti (v chastnosti, po ob'yasnitel'noj sposobnosti) s geneticheskim yazikoznaniem.

Drugoj faktor, igrayuschij negativnuyu rol' v razvitii lingvisticheskoj tipologii, zaklyuchaetsya v tom, chto v spetsial'noj literature soderzhatel'no orientirovannie issledovaniya vse esche neredko okazivayutsya nedostatochno chetko otgranichennimi ot formal'no-tipologicheskikh. On rezul'tiruet, v chastnosti, v zametnom vozdejstvii na ikh kontseptual'nij apparat so storoni prinyatikh v poslednikh ponyatij, kotoroe osobenno yarko otrazhaetsya v rabotakh avtorov s uzkim empiricheskim krugozorom. Mezhdu tem dolzhno bit' ochevidnim, chto lyubaya ustupka formal'nim kriteriyam v podkhode k tipologiziruemomu materialu chrevata iskazheniem samoj perspektivi kontensivno-tipologicheskogo issledovaniya.

Esche odno obstoyatel'stvo, uscherbno skazivayuscheesya na dal'nejshem progresse tipologicheskikh shtudij, netrudno usmotret' v vozdejstvii na printsipi deskriptivnogo analiza yazikov tak nazivaemogo evropotsentricheskogo faktora. V sfere kontensivno-tipologicheskikh issledovanij ono nakhodit svoe virazhenie v dovol'no ustojchivom davlenii skhemi opisaniya predstavitelej nominativnogo stroya na metayaziki opisaniya nenominativnikh yazikov (sr., naprimer, traditsionno praktikovavshuyusya kharakteristiku strukturi aktivnikh yazikov v terminakh nominativnoj sistemi, vse esche ne vpolne preodolennoe vpechatlenie o strukturnoj blizosti ergativnoj konstruktsii predlozheniya k stradatel'nomu oborotu nominativnoj i t.p.). Daleko ne izzhit ryad analogichnikh zabluzhdenij dazhe v samikh poslednikh publikatsiyakh. Sr., v chastnosti, ves'ma shiroko rasprostranennie predstavleniya o tipologicheski neotmechennom kharaktere takikh yavlenij, kak printsip leksikalizatsii glagol'nikh slov po priznaku tranzitivnost'  intranzitivnost', zalogovaya differentsirovannost' glagol'nikh slovoform, funktsionirovanie imenitel'nogo padezha i t.p.

Po-prezhnemu polezno napomnit', chto korrektnost' tipologicheskikh obobschenij samim neposredstvennim obrazom zavisit ot stepeni vladeniya tipologom samoj yazikovoj bazoj issledovaniya. Netrudno dogadat'sya, naskol'ko dezorientiruyut veduschuyusya rabotu neadekvatnie predstavleniya o strukturnikh parametrakh konkretnikh yazikov, neredko vstrechayuschiesya i v sovremennikh publikatsiyakh.

Tak, vo mnogikh tipologicheskikh rabotakh otmechaetsya soblyudenie norm ergativnogo stroya v gruzinskikh postroeniyakh s aoristnimi slovoformami glagol'nogo skazuemogo, v to vremya kak kazhdomu kartvelistu izvestno, chto fakticheski v nikh dejstvuyut inie pravila (dostatochno upomyanut', chto passivnie slovoformi vsekh tranzitivnikh glagolov obuslovlivayut zdes' obichnuyu nominativnuyu konstruktsiyu predlozheniya i, naprotiv, mnozhestvo intranzitivnikh glagolov -- ergativoobraznuyu).

Nakonets, nevozmozhno ne zamechat' vse esche ves'ma oschutimoj razobschennosti usilij sovremennikh tipologov. Ochen' chasto predstaviteli odnogo napravleniya sovershenno nedostatochno osvedomleni o rezul'tatakh poiskov, predprinimaemikh v ramkakh drugikh napravlenij (v etom otnoshenii suschestvennie peremeni predveschaet sozdanie v 1979 g. po initsiative vengerskikh lingvistov Mezhdunarodnoj rabochej gruppi po tipologii). Odnako esche bolee uscherbnim obrazom na tempakh razvitiya nauki skazivaetsya slaboe znakomstvo, a inogda i polnoe neznakomstvo avtorov s bogatimi traditsiyami tipologicheskikh shtudij proshlogo. Tak, naprimer, v odnoj iz nedavno vishedshikh v svet publikatsij utverzhdaetsya, chto tol'ko v poslednikh issledovaniyakh (s ssilkoj na rabotu 1978 g.) bila ustanovlena neadekvatnost' traditsionnoj (?!) tochki zreniya, soglasno kotoroj ergativnaya i neergativnaya konstruktsii predlozheniya isklyuchayut drug druga v strukture odnogo i togo zhe yazika. Mezhdu tem imenno naslediyu tipologov proshlogo prinadlezhit otnosyascheesya samoe pozdnee k 30-m godam nablyudenie o sovmeschenii obeikh konstruktsij v nekotorikh yazikakh (sr., v chastnosti, spetsial'nij analiz takogo sovmescheniya v neskol'kikh rabotakh I.I.Meschaninova). K sozhaleniyu, v sovremennikh issledovaniyakh, dazhe pretenduyuschikh na razrabotku tipologicheskoj teorii, mozhno vstretit' mnozhestvo podobnikh nedorazumenij. Esche bol'shaya razobschennost' usilij avtorov nablyudaetsya v empiricheskikh rabotakh po tipologii, poskol'ku sootvetstvuyuschie otraslevie issledovaniya obichno orientirovani na nekotoruyu konkretnuyu tipologicheskuyu kontseptsiyu (poslednee obstoyatel'stvo skazivaetsya negativnim obrazom, naprimer, na publikatsiyakh po opisaniyu ergativnikh yazikov).

V zaklyuchenie ostaetsya podcherknut', chto avtor stremilsya k razvitiyu v nastoyaschej monografii sovokupnosti idej, v yavnom ili neyavnom vide soderzhaschikhsya v tvorcheskom nasledii otechestvennikh tipologov 30--40-kh godov. Eto kazhetsya tem bolee opravdannim v usloviyakh, kogda i v sovremennom zarubezhnom yazikoznanii oni poluchayut dostatochno opredelennij otklik. Naibolee obschie iz etikh idej prelomlyayutsya v tesno vzaimosvyazannikh printsipakh sistemnosti i istorizma v podkhode k tipologizatsii yazikovogo materiala. Predstavlyaetsya, chto i dal'nejshie perspektivi razvitiya lingvisticheskoj tipologii budut prezhde vsego zaviset' ot posledovatel'noj realizatsii oboikh printsipov v deskriptivnikh i teoreticheskikh issledovaniyakh.

---

Numerous attempts were made in the past to take into account in typological research the content component of language resulting in mutual separation of the formal and the so called content-oriented typology. In contrast to the former, which is abstracted from the content conveyed in language, the latter may be defined as content-oriented. Its origins lie in the work done by Soviet typologists in the 1930-40s. Subsequent research conducted abroad, primarily in the field of relation grammar, made a sub- stantial contribution to its development. The modern content-oriented typology treats of formal structures of the world's languages in terms of those differences which exist in the ways they convey subject and object relationships of reality. The content-oriented criterion's typological relevance and, further- more, its fundamental importance for structural research, are deter- mined by the fact that it is on the basis of this criterion that the broadest possible units of systematically interrelated structural characteristics of languages, forming various language types, can be identified. In contrast to various schools of the formal typology that pay insufficient attention to the very concept of language type (its traditional replacement by the notion of the '-ga_ in language" was later supplemented by an opinion that typology is possible without the concept of types altogether), the content-oriented typo- logy has been invariably based on the notion of language type which encompasses all the logically necessary features-coordinates of the lexical, syntactical, morphological and, apparently, phonolo- gical (but in any case, morphonological) levels of a language. It is not an arbitrary system superimposed on a language, but rather an inductively revealed set of features of various levels of a lan- guage type, that accounts for the fact that all linguists working in the field of the content-oriented typology operate with essenti- ally the same inventory of types, each identifying a specific typo- logical class of languages which embody the type to a greater or lesser degree. It follows that the resulting classification of the world's languages has a natural character, with all its consequences (e. g. it admits of historic interpretation), and therefore it becomes comparable with the geneological and areal linguistics in terms of objective value and, in particular, explanatory power. On the level of lexical features operate and make their specific projections on the rest of the levels, principles of organization of the noun and verb vocabulary specific to a given language type. In the sphere of syntax, a type is characterized by a special set of sentence structures, as well as a special nomenclature of objects. In the sphere of morphology, a language type is characterized by specific series of personal markers of verb conjugation, and funda- mental cases of noun declension. Alongside with the coding proper- ties listed above, there exist so called controlling properties of a language type, that consist in a certain body of transformational tests, used to identify the type to which a particular language belongs. Four language types can be identified within the framework of the content-oriented typology: nominative, ergative, active and class, each having a specific structure which apparently is, deter- mined by an innate content-oriented stimulus or a semantic deter- minant of this type.. These determinants are the following: for the nominative system - the opposition of semantic roles of the sub- ject and object, for the ergative system - of agent and factitive, for the active system - of active and inactive, for the class system - of a number of class roles (the neutral type was postu- lated conditionally, on the basis of a negative criterion, i. e. its features do not coincide with those of the other types). The above mentioned sequence of the types reflects the degree of their mutual structural kinship. Therefore, the greatest typological distance lies between the nominative and the neutral types. In the nominative system, where verb words are lexicalized on the basis of their transitivity and intransitivity, nouns do not reveal content-motivated classes. In the field of syntax, where there is a single nominative sentence construction (with the possibility of contrasting the active and passive voices of the verb), the distinction between direct and indirect objects becomes obvious. At the level of morphology, there is a correlation of personal verb affixes of the subject and object series or of the nominative and accusative cases with their derivatives. In the lexical nomenclature of the ergative system, in the ab- sence of the content-motivated nominal classification, verbs are grouped into the agentive and factitive classes. Its syntax is cha- racterized by the opposition of ergative and absolutive sentence constructions, and of objects which can be qualified as "direct" and "indirect" with difficulty. Among morphological implications of the ergative system the most important are the difference between the ergative and absolutive series of pers6nal affixes in verb conjugation or the difference between the ergative and abso- lutive cases of noun declension. The organizational principles of the active system lexical voca- bulary are characterized by the existence of a latent nominal classification differentiating between active ("animate") and in- active ("inanimate") nouns whereas verbs are broken down into active and stative classes. The corresponding syntactical correlates are the opposition between active and inactive sentence construc- tions and distinction between the near and the distant objects. The distinction between active and inactive series of personal affixes of verb conjugation or the active and inactive cases of noun declen- sion, the diathesis of the active verb differentiating between the centrifugal and non-centrifugal versions, the Aktionsart gradations of the verb in lieu of the temporal ones constitute a specific morphological character of the active system. The fundamental breakdown of substantives into stable and content motivated classes (the principle of lexicalization of verb words is unclear) forms the lexical implication of the class system. The specific nature of the typology of its sentence has not been explored. Its verb morphology is characterized by the presence of a number of series of class-personal affixes. The noun morphology is not separated from word formation. The natural character of the content-oriented classification pre- supposes the possibility of its historic interpretation. There emerges a working theory that the logical interrelations of the language classes postulated are able to reflect a historic sequence of typo- logical transformations. This is testified to by a high explanatory power of the taxonomy of the left-hand types in relation to the right-hand ones (see page 87), which has been repeatedly used in typological research (see a role of active system in interpreting non-system phenomena in the ergative and nominative languages). The hypothesis is backed by the characteristic dialectical interrela- tion between form and content of structural features of every type (thus, when, in terms of form, the ergative system has much in common with the active one, its ties with the nominative system are obvious in terms of content). This is testified to by specific breakdown of typological components of languages combining two types into various levels of their structures (e. g., in languages, combining nominative and ergative components, the latter is more clear on the more conservative level of morphology). As a rule, empiric research of numerous languages, combining heterogeneous typological components, supports these theoretical considerations; by contrast, infrequent cases of opposite interpreta- tion of development are always accompanied by an alternative view in specialized literature. It is clear that diachronic conclusions will be more adequate when linguists start paying greater attention to the methodology of typological reconstruction. It seems that further prospects of content-oriented research will depend on a consistent use of the system principle and historic ap- proach to typologized material.

---