AT THE CROSSROADS OF ETHNOPSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE: IN MEMORY OF E.F. TARASOV

Radchenko O.A.

—
Toronto, Canada
e-mail: radoleg@gmail.com

Each author of the article in this issue of our journal has special memories of Evgeny Fedorovich Tarasov. We first met in 1994, although two years earlier I had the opportunity to see him and hear him speak at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences on Bolshoi Kislovsky Lane. That year, we were both in Münster – he at the invitation of the Westphalian Wilhelm University to give a lecture, and I as a recipient of a German Academic Exchange Service scholarship, a doctoral candidate in the process of collecting materials for it. I will always remember his good nature, irony, wonderful humor, and stories about the classics of linguistics, whom he knew well personally, while I only saw them from afar during my studies at the Maurice Thorez Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages, especially Eliza Genrikhovna Riesel (1906–1989). These vivid reminiscences had to be recorded, of course, and it was then, in conversations with Yevgeny Fyodorovich, that the idea of an unorthodox, personal, lithophane historiography of our science, which will someday be written.

I'll remember our one-day trip to Paris (guerrilla-style) on a tour bus with young Russian-Germans sitting behind us, loudly ranting invective all night long. They were incredibly embarrassed by our parting words in Russian, as there were very few Russians in Münster at the time. But then came my first ever walk through the Tuileries, the Louvre, the bridges and towers of Paris... And in Münster, Yevgeny Fyodorovich and I also had many funny moments. We were walking down the street one day and saw a huge, beautiful television that someone had abandoned on the side of the road because it was no longer needed. Since he had no electronics in his room, we hoisted it onto our shoulders and, with great difficulty, transported it for over an hour to the professors' dormitory. We finally, completely exhausted, reached his small room, turned it on, and it didn't work. We laughed for years afterward when we recalled it. And there were many such episodes...

But I also recall our scholarly discussions related to the neo-Humboldtians, whose works Evgeny Fedorovich, of course, read and interpreted with great subtlety, thanks to his excellent command of German. Traces of his interest in this philosophy of language, which subsequently became the meaning of my entire academic life, can be found even in the earliest publications devoted to psycholinguistic problems, and among them, undoubtedly, his four articles for the now classic collection "National-Cultural Specificity of Speech Behavior" [1], published in 1977, stand out.

Analyzing these articles through the prism of the philosophy of language, especially neo-Humboldtian, it is impossible not to notice the intersections of ethnopsycholinguistics and linguophilosophy, which are important for the scientific views of Evgeny Fedorovich, but it is also impossible not to see the degree of divergence between his scientific position of those years, which was largely determined (and, perhaps, dictated) by his commitment to the theory of speech acts and the Marxist theory of reflection, and the concept of a picture of the world defended by German supporters of the energetic theory of language, which in German linguistics in those years was already at the decline of its popularity.

The problem of the human factor in language was not yet as pressing for the scholars of the Institute of Foreign Languages of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s as it would become in the late 1980s and culminate in the publication of two monographs edited by B.A. Serebrennikov (1915–1989) (see [5; 6]). This problem was directly linked to the works of J.L. Weisgerber (1899–1985) and his associates in the neo-Humboldtian movement, who were subjected to fierce and highly ideological criticism in the USSR beginning in 1957 (see [4; 7] for more details). The attitude of official linguistics towards Weisgerber and his closest associate J. Trier (1894-1970) turned into a complete and aggressive rejection in Soviet linguistics after a discussion on the problems of «Language and Thinking» that took place in May 1965 in the Department of Philosophy and Law and the Department of Literature and Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where V.M. Pavlov (1925-2011) and G.V. Kolshansky (1922-1985) spoke out against Weisgerber’s views (see [3]).

In this regard, it is extremely valuable that the views of the neo-Humboldtians were developed in the aforementioned articles by E.F. Tarasov, especially in his joint article with Yu.A. Sorokin (1936–2009) «National-cultural specificity of speech and non-speech behavior» [1, pp. 14–38]. This co-authorship is not surprising given the interest that Yu.A. Sorokin showed in the ideas of the neo-Humboldtians, which was confirmed by our conversations with him in the (now defunct) psycholinguistics sector of the Institute of Foreign Languages of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the 1990s.

In this article, the authors set two new tasks: «to develop an adequate theory of interaction between individuals in the communication process» based on the «sociologized» theory of L.S. Vygotsky (1896–1934) and to impart an anthropomorphic character to the communication models within the framework of his sociopsychological research, in particular, by using the concept of «meaning» as interpreted by A.A. Leontiev (1936–2004) and developing the theory of «social roles» [1, pp. 15–16]. While generally remaining within the framework of the theory of speech activity, both authors identify as the first problem to be solved «the determination of the non-identity of verbal categorization of reality in different languages (the problem of the national meaning of words)», as the second problem «the national specificity of the structure of the act of communication», and as the fourth problem «the national originality of the relationship between the verbal and non-verbal components of communication» [1, p. 17]. What stands out in this list is the "non-identity of the verbal categorization of reality in different languages," which, in modern terminology, corresponds to differences in the linguistic conceptualization of reality, or the coexistence of linguistic worldviews that are inconsistent with one another due to the differences in the living conditions of linguistic communities. In other words, the co-authors formulated the first task of the new psycholinguistics in direct parallel with neo-Humboldtian ideas.

However, as further explanations proceed, it becomes clear that the idea of a picture of the world is linked by them, first and foremost, to the theory of speech acts and, as a result, radically changes in their understanding. Thus, national specificity (sic!) the authors of the article see, first of all, not in the language, but in activities of various national communities, and they establish certain «identical activities» as universals, while the differences between peoples are seen only in the different «sets of operations» intended for their implementation [1, p. 17]. The mission of language as the main carrier of the picture of the world is relegated to the background, in comparison with the role of speech and non-verbal communication. True, the authors make an important reservation here: the specified operations «depend entirely on the conditions» of the environment, the artifacts surrounding a person, and the norms of social interaction [1, pp. 20–21], which correlates with the reasons given by neo-Humboldtians to explain the differences in the linguistic conceptualization of the world among different linguistic (not national!) communities. However, in general, E.F. Tarasov and Yu.A. Sorokin adhere to a universalist point of view on the role of language in the cognitive process: «The meaning of a word in a certain language can be considered as a national form of verbalized universal content» [1, p. 25].

In support of their position, the authors interpret J. Trier's well-known metaphor of the network, which he used back in 1928 for his theory of the lexical field: "We cast a lexical net over what we only vaguely and comprehensively sense in order to grasp it through ordering and possess it in the form of delimited concepts. Conceptual formation with the help of words is a process of ordering clarification, proceeding from a unified whole. At the same time, language does not reflect real being, but creates intellectual symbols, and being itself as such, i.e., the being given to us, is not independent of the method and division of sets of linguistic symbols" [7, p. 41]. This metaphor is interpreted in the article entirely in the spirit of Trier (though without mentioning him or referring to his works, which is entirely understandable given the above-described situation in Soviet linguistics): «A »grid« of social experience of society is imposed on cognitive activity; language is the universal means of recording this experience« [1, p. 21]. The fact that the authors nevertheless construct their theory in a universalistic vein (and anything else is apparently impossible if we assume that psycholinguistics is based on the biological unity of humanity) becomes obvious from their further explanation that they interpret metaphor not in the spirit of Sapir-Whorf, but as the mediating role of social experience in the form of language and socially approved non-verbal operations in the implementation of cognitive activity [1, p. 22].

The introduction of Trier's metaphors into the text of this work is undoubtedly the merit of E. F. Tarasov, since in his own article, "The Place of Speech Communication in the Communicative Act," published in the same collection, he again turns to this metaphor: "The knowledge of an individual, assimilated by him in the process of socialization, is organized, structured in a way that is to a certain extent common to all members of a given society. This way of structuring social experience (the field of meanings) is a "grid" through which an individual "sees" the world, with the help of which he divides it and interprets (cognizes) it" [1, p. 94]. It seems that in this definition, which includes the term "field of meanings" (that is, language as a carrier of certain information about the world), which is essential for the author, E. F. Tarasov practically quotes Trier, although further on he contrasts the "field of meanings" with the "field of meanings," attaching greater value to the formation of meaning by an individual in the process of his activity (including speech). It is noteworthy that in this article Evgeny Fedorovich no longer mentions the national specificity of the worldview, replacing it public. He does not, however, use Weisgerber's basic term "(language) community," which, in its scope, overlaps with "nation" and "society," but is not identical to them, since it unites all speakers of a particular language and the culture associated with it [9]. National and state borders are of no significance for this understanding of community, unless their existence threatens the unity and very existence of the language community.

Let us, however, return to the first of the publications under consideration. The neo-Humboldtian approach to examining linguistic signs (primarily lexical ones) is manifested in the article by E.F. Tarasov and Yu.A. Sorokin within the framework of an analysis of both linguistic and culturally related material, and, as before, in the context of reflections on the use of linguistic signs, rather than on their systemic analysis. Thus, "the national specificity of the verbal expression of thought at the orientation phase can conveniently be demonstrated through the analysis of linguistic comparisons, metaphors, and metonymies" [1, p. 22], since the basis for transfer are images and lexemes associated with the original occupations of a given ethnic group. Here, the authors take into account a register so important for neo-Humboldtianism as the influence of original crafts, ancient occupations, and the interests of a linguistic community on the formation of its ethnic logic. The following examples include Abkhazian, Japanese, English, German and other cultures, and traditions of social interaction in different cultures.

This is accompanied by their reflections on the differences in the lexical segment of linguistic worldviews (even though these terms are not present in the text), although only in the context of translation: «Two words in two different languages, denoting the same object in the culture of two peoples and being translation equivalents, are inevitably associated with non-identical contents (having, however, an invariant part – a translation invariant), and this allows us to speak of the «national meanings» of linguistic signs» [1, p. 22]. This significantly distinguishes the position of the authors from the views of Weisgerber and neo-Humboldtians in general, since for the latter, certain invariants, especially translation invariants, were unthinkable. For such invariants, it would be necessary to choose a specific language – the embodiment of the linguistic ideal – as the tertium comparationis. For the authors of the article, however, such a tertium comparationis is not languages, but actions specific to each social collective and its members.

It is very important how in the second of the mentioned articles E.F. Tarasov characterizes these specific actions using the theory of social roles: «Orientation in a communication situation as in a situation of interaction between holders of social roles gives the communicants the opportunity not to to form the entire strategy of behavior in each individual case, and choose it from the existing set of standards and subject it to the necessary correction in the process of communication [1, p. 83]. Accepting and developing this position, one could confidently assert a high degree clichés of linguistic personality, since a certain circle is described around it: no longer the circle of the native language, according to the classical definition of W. von Humboldt, but the circle of social actions that form the typical and tested repertoire of a given society.

Noticeable in the first and especially the second articles under consideration is the desire not only to consider linguistic matter less essential for the characterization of nationally colored social practice, in comparison with verbal and non-verbal communications, but also, in general, to introduce hierarchical relations into the structure of this practice, in which speech activity itself will not play a primary role: «According to the initial postulates of the theory of speech activity, speech (speech activity, verbal communication) has the status of an action and occupies a subordinate position in relation to non-speech activity, in the structure of which it unfolds» [1, p. 87]. The same idea is present in the reasoning of E.F. Tarasov on the specifics of communicative acts (CA) in various concepts of foreign linguists. He, in particular, notes: «Many models of CA (mostly abstract-theoretical), constructed by linguists, have at least one drawback: in these models, the role of linguistic means is exaggerated (as a consequence of a completely understandable overestimation by linguists of the object of their science) and the extralinguistic reality, against which speech takes place, is depicted in an unjustifiably reduced form» [ibid., p. 70]. In contrast to this, he proposes to strengthen the «anthropomorphism of the CA model» with a consistent distinction between speech communication and social interaction of individuals as two indispensable components of the communicative act [ibid., p. 72]. It seems that the prevalence of social interaction, social practice in these definitions and in the author’s reasoning as a whole is explained by the obligatory for those years involvement of the classics of Marxism-Leninism as a theoretical basis, not subject to any critical revision.

However, in the second article, one can also see E.F. Tarasov's desire to rethink neo-Humboldtian postulates from the perspective of new psycholinguistics, in particular, the thesis on the mission of language as an intermediate world between man and the world he cognizes. However, this postulate is also modified in accordance with the chosen theoretical framework: "There is a meaningful connection between linguistic signs and the objects of real reality reflected in them, allowing signs to function as quasi-objects, i.e., a symbolic presentation of real reality occurs here, and this presentation leads to a change in behavior" [1, p. 95]. As we can see, the main focus in this thesis is not on the role and nature of intermediary signs (which in the neo-Humboldtian concept are idioethnic in nature as basic elements of a picture of the world unique to each language), but on their function as modifiers of social behavior.

The psycholinguistic foundation of Evgeny Fedorovich's reflections also explains his criticism of the bilateral concept of the sign: "Strictly speaking, a linguistic sign as a physical substance has no meaning. From a phenomenological point of view, meaning is the images and ideas aroused in the brains of native speakers; it is the social experience of the communicant, actualized in the production, perception, and understanding of speech messages" [1, p. 82]. This position fits in with the emphasis on meanings as the results of the individual's cognitive activity, which further shifts E.F. Tarasov's analytical focus from attention to language as a bearer of a picture of the world to the study of individual speech activity and its relationship with the social practices of a particular ethnic group.

Reading Evgeny Fedorovich's early works reveals the "struggle with concepts" that both attracted his interest as elements of a unique vision of language and speech in the context of the "national" specificity of communication and forced him to relate them to the prevailing paradigm in psychology, sociology, and psycholinguistics. This struggle resulted in the development of E.F. Tarasov's distinctive conceptual framework, which became a source of new inspiration for his students and enabled one of them to create a new, organizational approach to psycholinguistics and explore the pathology of linguistic personality as a phenomenon [2].

 

Literature

1. National and cultural specificity of speech behavior. Edited by Leontiev A.A., Sorokin Yu.A., Tarasov E.F. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. 352 p.
2. Myskin S.V. On the formulation of the problem of «pathology of linguistic personality» // Organizational psycholinguistics. 2023. No. 3(23). P. 10–24.
3. Pavlov V.M. The problem of language and thinking in the works of Wilhelm Humboldt and in neo-Humboldtian linguistics // Language and thinking. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1967. pp. 152–161.
4. Radchenko O.A. Language as World-Creation. The Linguistic-Philosophical Concept of Neo-Humboldtianism. 5th revised and supplemented edition. Lambert Publishing, 2024. 510 pages.
5. Serebrennikov B.A. (ed.) The Role of the Human Factor in Language. Language and World Picture. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. 216 p.
6. Serebrennikov B.A. (ed.) The Role of the Human Factor in Language. Language and Thinking. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. 247 p.
7. Radčenko Oleg A. «"Weisgerberiana sovetica" (1957-1990). Ein Versuch der Metakritik des Neuhumboldtianismus bzw. der Sprachinhaltsforschung // Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft (Münster, BRD), H. 2.2-3, 1992. S. 193-211.
8. Trier J. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes. Bd. 1 Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. 2.unver. Aufl. Heidelberg: Winter, 1973. 347 S. (Germanistische Bibliothek, 3. Reihe, Untersuchungen und Einzeldarstellungen).
9. Weisgerber JL. Die Sprachgemeinschaft als Gegenstand sprachwissenschaftlicher Forschung. Köln, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1967. 57 S. (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes NRW. Geisteswissenschaften, 142).

References 

1. Nacional'no-kul'turnaja specifika rechevogo povedenija. [National and Cultural Specificity of Speech Behavior] Pod red. Leont'eva A.A., Sorokina Ju.A., Tarasova E.F. Moscow: Nauka. 1977. 352 p.
2. Myskin SV. K postanovke problemy «patologii jazykovoj lichnosti» [To the formulation of the problem of «pathology of linguistic personality»]. Organizacionnaja psiholingvistika [Organisational Psycholinguistics] 2023. No. 3(23), pp. 10–24.
3. Pavlov VM. Problema jazyka i myshlenija v trudah Vil'gel'ma Gumbol'dta iv neogumbol'dtianskom jazykoznanii [The Problem of Language and Thinking in the Works by Wilhelm von Humboldt and in Neo-Humboldtian Linguistics]. Jazyk i myshlenie [Language and Thinking]. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR. 1967, pp. 152–161.
4. Radchenko OA. Language as World-Creation. Neo-Humboldtian Language Philosophy [Language as World-Creation. Neo-Humboldtian Language Philosophy]. 5th ed., revised and supplemented. Lambert Publishing. 2024. 510 p.
5. Serebrennikov BA. (ed.) The Role of the Human Factor in Language: Language and Worldview [The Role of the Human Factor in Language: Language and Worldview]. Moscow: Nauka. 1988. 216 p.
6. Serebrennikov BA. (ed.) The Role of the Human Factor in Language: Language and Thinking. Moscow: Nauka. 1988. 247 p.
7. Radčenko Oleg A. «"Weisgerberiana sovetica" (1957-1990). Ein Versuch der Metakritik des Neuhumboldtianismus bzw. der Sprachinhaltsforschung // Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft (Münster, BRD), H. 2.2-3. 1992. 193-211.
8. Trier J. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes. Bd. 1 Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. 2.unver. Aufl. Heidelberg: Winter. 1973. 347 p. (Germanistische Bibliothek, 3. Reihe, Untersuchungen und Einzeldarstellungen).
9. Weisgerber JL. Die Sprachgemeinschaft als Gegenstand sprachwissenschaftlicher Forschung. Köln, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 1967. 57 p. (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes NRW. Geisteswissenschaften, 142)