A LINGUIST'S PROFESSIONAL WORLDVIEW IN LIGHT OF P. BOURDIEU'S CONCEPT: BASED ON A REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS

Radchenko O.A.¹, Alikaev R.S.²

Radchenko O.A.

Moscow State Linguistic University
e-mail: radoleg@gmail.com

Alikaev R.S.

Kabardino-Balkarian State University named after H.M.
e-mail: ralikaev@mail.ru

 

Introduction: Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) as a linguist

P. Bourdieu's concept in the field of philosophy of science can hardly be considered a completely new phenomenon for Russian researchers. In the new century, his social concept as a whole [12], as well as his theoretical positions on social structure [11; 13], cultural mediation [17], his epistemology of social sciences [19], views on aesthetics [4; 18], etc., have come under the close attention of researchers. Against the background of the rather numerous philosophical and cultural studies of P. Bourdieu's work, articles on the connection of his views with the philosophy of language and linguistics in general seem rare [3; 7; 10; 14].

Meanwhile, Bourdieu's views on language and its role in social processes are a topic of far from uninteresting interest. It is to this topic that his student and associate Michael Grenfell (*1953), Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Education at the University of Southampton (Southampton Education School), who worked there as a full professor from 1989 to 2009 and then served as Head of the Department of Education at Trinity College, University of Dublin, and Dean of the University of Stirling (see [21]), dedicated a remarkable monograph. He is the author of a number of monographs devoted to the scientific legacy of P. Bourdieu [22-23].

Looking back on his long-term collaboration with Bourdieu and their discussions on language issues, Grenfell notes that in foreign scholarship, «strange as it may seem, language specialists and linguists still tend to ignore Bourdieu,» so Grenfell considered it his duty «to redress this imbalance and raise questions of theory and practice in relation to language study from a Bourdieuian perspective» [21, p. 1-2]. Grenfell also points to Bourdieu’s works that directly address the description of French linguistic usage (for example, in Algeria and Bearn), criticism of the Saussurean tradition and American structuralism, phonetics and phonology, multilingualism, language policy and ideology, linguistic education, etc. The theme of «language and culture» occupies a special place in Bourdieu’s work, to which he dedicated a number of his works in the 1960s [21, p. 18].

Typically, when discussing Bourdieu's linguistic views, scholars cite his work "Language and Symbolic Power" (English translation - 1991), as well as individual reflections in publications on the role and nature of media. Grenfell provides a list of 11 works that collectively represent Bourdieu's vision of language and linguistics, linguistic habitus and other essential components of his theory, including: "Interventions" (1961-2001), "The Creation of the Dominant Ideology" (1976), "Male Domination" (1998), "Returning Fire." For a European Social Movement (2001), The Bachelors' Ball (2002), Images of Algeria (2003), The Objectification of Participation (2003), The Science of Science and Reflexivity (2004), Sketches for Self-Analysis (2004), and Forms of Capital (2006). Some of these works were later revised, translated into other languages, or published in collections with co-authors.

In this article, we are interested in the extrapolation of Bourdieu’s thoughts on the «scientific field», formulated primarily in relation to the situation in contemporary sociology and political science, into the sphere of professional activity of a linguist, in which a special picture of the world of this professional group is formed [16].

This picture of the world gives rise to discursive practices that are, at first glance, specific – and yet, in a certain sense, eurychoric. We will proceed from the fundamental understanding of language as a special area of the human spirit, intersecting with many others, but possessing its own value against their background (which is reinforced by the use of its own sign system, the diversity of real sound realizations of the same graphemes and their combinations, as well as the significant influence of speech structures on verbal thought processes) [15]. We will be fascinated by the idea of the language market as a system of power relations that determine the value of a linguistic product and thereby help to «fashion» linguistic production. We accept the position according to which every linguistic interaction is a potential source of «profit» in a specific communicative area and in a specific «linguistic climate,» while the basic value is equal to the norm – the framework of acceptability accepted in a given sphere of communication, which may also be deviant, from the point of view of the general communicative standard. Here, the dichotomy of «knowledge (connaissance)» of legitimate norms/«recognition (re-connaissance)» of these norms is of fundamental importance, in which both elements «are highly variable, with specific patterns being established both within individuals and between them» [21, p. 91]. In this regard, we also do not reject the subjectivity of «linguistic habitus» and the consideration of linguistic competence as linguistic capital.

The Collective Belief Thesis

Bourdieu formulates this thesis quite categorically: "Science has no other foundation than the collective belief in its foundations, which produces and presupposes the very functioning of the scientific field" [Bourdieu 1976: 12]. Applied to linguistics, this means that, being a product of a specific educational system and the norms adopted within it for evaluating certain domestic and foreign concepts, and also recognizing the authority of scientific mentors and its incontestability for their own research, young linguists reproduce a specific type of belief, which is intended to simultaneously strengthen their scientific conformism. In its perfect form, this situation culminates in the formation of a scientific school, the exemplary examples of which can be considered the group of F. Bopp's students (and these include A. Schleicher, F. Dietz, F. Miklosich, M. Breal and many others) and the scientific school of A. Schleicher himself (which included I. Schmidt, G. Kurtius, A. Leskin, G. Schuchardt and others), - the first and second generations of comparativists, or supporters of N. Ya. Marr in Soviet linguistics of the 1920-1940s (including I. A. Javakhishvili, I. A. Orbeli, A. A. Kalantar, A. G. Shanidze, I. I. Meshchaninov, O. M. Freidenberg, M. M. Gukhman, F. P. Filin and others).

Similar situations in the history of linguistics arose, for example, in the early stages of its formation in the 19th century.[1], as well as in the conditions of totalitarian states of the last century (see more details [9]).

At the same time, the rule adopted in German universities not to allow persons who had defended doctoral dissertations (habilitated) at the same university to occupy professorial positions can be seen as an attempt to counteract the formation of scientific schools as cohesive centers of enhanced support for a specific scientific concept, although this practice also led to conceptual dispersion - the students of a specific authoritative scientist thus received the opportunity not only to disseminate, but also to implant their favorite teaching in the new university.

In this regard, one cannot but agree with the explanation of the consequences associated with the perception of collective belief offered by Boudier: «The objective coordination of practical schemes instilled and assimilated in the educational process constitutes the basis of a practical consensus regarding the goals proposed by the field, i.e., regarding problems, methods and solutions immediately recognizable as scientific, finds its own justification in the totality of institutional mechanisms that ensure the social and academic selection of scientists (depending, for example, on the established hierarchy of disciplines), the training of selected agents, control over access to research and publishing tools, etc.» [5, p. 12]. Thus, collective belief is transformed into a rigid institutional discourse, a scientific school into a kind of combat cell, a scientific director into an idol, an inspirer, a patron and persecutor of the uninitiated.

The thesis on the struggle in the space of doxa

The professional and existential spaces-fields that are formed in various spheres of human activity, including scientific, are «always in motion, constantly transforming in the course of social evolution. Change is essentially necessary for fields, so it can often be identified by the internal dynamics that oppose current (and orthodox) ways of working to new (heterodox) ones. Bourdieu defines them as doxa and heterodoxa. Fields are formed, communicate, reward and punish those who pass through them – in accordance with the logic and practice of a particular field – and offer social conditions of existence for their «members» [21, p. 31]. Linguists as participants in the scientific field are bound, like other scientists, by a »tacit contract« with doxa, which determines subordination to the existing order; trying to find new paths, they commit acts of »cognitive subversion« in their desire to change the picture of the world [20, p. 127-128].

In fact, Bourdieu defines doxa as «a set of assumptions that antagonists take for granted, independent of any discussion, since they constitute a hidden condition of the discussion» [5, p. 12]. This is quite comparable with the definition dogmas as "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals, officially set forth and authoritatively proclaimed by a church"«[2] . Bourdieu clearly draws parallels between science and religion, as he highlights the concept of "belief" when speaking specifically about science. In this sense, doxa in the linguistic field is a familiar dogma, beyond which one can only transcend the advantages of academic conformism. That such a move beyond doxa is far from always painless is demonstrated by the fates of Soviet linguists in the 1930s [1].

The main instrument of doxa is scientific censorship, which «conceals a more radical and also more invisible censorship, since it is an integral part of the very functioning of the field and extends to the totality of what becomes permissible due to the very fact of belonging to the field, what is removed from the discussion due to the fact that the goals of the discussion are accepted, i.e. agreement on the subjects of disagreement, common interests that underlie the conflict of interests, everything undiscussed and unthinkable, by default kept outside the boundaries of the struggle» [5, p. 12]. True, even here «softer» forms of censorship are possible, for example, mutual citation only of participants in the same scientific community, ignoring or rejection of the ideas and publications of scientific «dissenters», behind the scenes regulation of the process of «blind» peer review in order to prevent the publication of undesirable articles, not to mention the torpedoing of foreign scientific projects by experts from research foundations whose hands are not formally tied by a conflict of interest.

An extreme example is when scientific disagreements become personal, with attempts to pressure opponents' students, etc. Scientific disagreements, debates, and discussions are important for the development of science, as they can contribute to the development of better ideas and approaches. However, when disputes take the form of personal attacks, pressure, and even manipulation aimed at suppressing opponents' views, this can negatively impact the scientific community as a whole. This raises a question that Bourdieu raises in another context: what constitutes doxa, how to define "good" and "bad" science, and how a scientist should conduct himself in a diverse world (of linguistics), full of contradictory self-assessments among scientists and opinions about what constitutes scientific classics and what is apocryphal.

The thesis of the imaginary independence of science

Perhaps the least controversial application to linguistics is the thesis that the independence of science is merely an appearance, a deliberately created mirage to obscure the fact that science always serves a specific client, be it the state as a whole, a specific university, or a scientific foundation. Bourdieu contrasts here fields "capable of producing and satisfying purely scientific interest and thus maintaining a continuous dialectical process" with fields in which "collective work has the sole purpose and function of preserving the field as identical to itself, producing, both externally and internally, a belief in the independent value of the tasks and objects it produces" [5, p. 12].

Believing that the second type of fields can be safely attributed to typical representatives of doxa, he points to some equally typical practices of doxa adherents, in particular, «the excommunication that they carry out through the arbitrary formation of esoteric knowledge inaccessible to the profane, and the powers that they demand by monopolizing certain practices or reasoning about them, only by imposing the belief that their false science is completely independent of social orders, which they fulfill so well only because they publicly declare their refusal to serve them» [5, p. 12-13].

This, of course, applies more to scientific fields related to economics or politics, but it is also quite applicable to situations in which linguists have taken part in dubious projects, simultaneously claiming autonomy in scientific research and independence, and sometimes flaunting their political opportunism (as in the case of N. Chomsky, a well-known pacifist and at the same time a supplier of ideas for the Pentagon [25]).

The thesis of the false rupture strategy

Related to the aforementioned "excommunication," according to Bourdieu, is the existence of a special professional jargon, which he contrasts with the language of science. The use of this jargon by linguists can lead the uninitiated into a state of amazement, incomprehension, and even admiration for the complexity of this field. However, "scholarly jargon (as opposed to scientific language) is defined by the same strategy of false rupture. If scientific language uses quotation marks to indicate that […] the words of ordinary language or the old scientific language it preserves are completely redefined and acquire their meaning only in the new theoretical system, scientific language uses quotation marks or neologisms only to symbolically demonstrate a fictitious distance and break with the generally accepted meaning: in fact, lacking any real autonomy, it can fulfill its ideological task only if it remains transparent enough to continue to refer to the experience and ordinary expression that it rejects. «False rupture strategies express the objective truth of fields that possess only a false autonomy» [5, p. 13].

L. Hjelmslev can rightfully be considered the father of the false-break strategy in linguistics. He transformed his Prolegomena into a sanctuary of exotic terminology, the charm of which can only be appreciated by ardent proponents of the mathematization of linguistic description. The terms he proposed (with rare exceptions) can quite appropriately be regarded as the jargon of a specific doxa, operating with duplicates of established terminological units of semiotics and the philosophy of language. That this break turned out to be false is clearly demonstrated by the dictionary at the end of the Prolegomena, which offers a "translation" of glossematic jargon into the professional language of structuralism [24, pp. 131-138]. In this understanding, any attempt to introduce exact copies of terms into linguistic use by replacing the signifier is the creation of a linguistic jargon that has nothing in common with the professional language of the linguist.

The thesis on the false benefits of competition in science

In condemning the fascination with the idea of competition as a source of scientific fertility and a guarantee of higher quality scientific work, Bourdieu points to its source – «the functionalist theory of competition, which is a sociological variant of the belief in the virtues of the «free market»» [5, p. 14]. He quite rightly mentions the economic and scientific obstacles that abound in the academic sphere and which are ignored when transferring market competition to this sphere, since as a result, competition between universities becomes an existential condition for scientists striving to realize themselves in the modern university environment [Ibid.]. This competition unfolds only within the framework of recognized scientific theories and practices; it turns into «competition within the framework of social decency» and hinders the escape from doxa. This is precisely why only at first glance does it seem contradictory that «the fascination with the unanimity of a «paradigm» can coincide with the fascination with competition» [Ibid.].

Moreover, the conductors of scientific competition in linguistics are in a constant creative search for ways to objectively evaluate the personalities of our science, compare their achievements, published works, successes at scientific forums, editorial work, contribution to the formation of the young generation of linguists, etc. These same criteria are intended to stimulate the research activity of scientists, to encourage them to publication impulses, however, forcing genius is a complex task, and the introduction of various indices for its evaluation does not guarantee an increase in high-quality, bright, breakthrough projects and publications (see [24]), not to mention the fact that this administrative tool is not one of the most popular in the linguistic environment.

The thesis on the duality of the phenomenon of scientific paradigm

One cannot help but share Bourdieu’s skepticism regarding T. Kuhn’s concept of paradigm, which he explains quite simply: «Indeed, this book, regarding which it remains unclear whether it describes or prescribes the logic of scientific change (an example of such a hidden prescription: the existence of a paradigm is a sign of scientific maturity), invited its readers to look in it for answers to the question of good or bad science» [5, p. 14].

The ambivalence of defining the scientific concept as "good science" was manifested, in particular, in the fact that both proponents of scientific revolutions and conformists could apply this definition to themselves. Bourdieu appears to highlight the social conditions "thanks to which a revolution against the established scientific order is also a scientific revolution, and not a simple heresy aimed at changing the established balance of forces in a field without affecting the foundations on which its functioning is based" [5, p. 16]. He thereby exposes false revolutions that ultimately do not lead to changes in the doxa.

The lack of consensus among linguists regarding the precise scientific paradigm in which we currently live and work can be seen as a clear example of the tenuousness of Kuhn's framework. Attempts to introduce the concept of "anthropocentric," "cognitive," "cognitive-discursive," "communicative-pragmatic," "nominative-pragmatic," and even "interdisciplinary" paradigms invariably encounter the categorical rejection of researchers who do not identify with any of them.

Studying the history of linguistics, it's easy to see that no revolutions have occurred in its development. Thus, the transition from a comparative-historical to a structural "paradigm" occupied a fairly lengthy period, from the publication of F. de Saussure's "Course" (1916) to the formation of structuralist schools. Moreover, only in two cases can we speak of a formal founding date: 1926 – the PLC, 1928 – the Copenhagen School. Meanwhile, the formation of the French and Geneva schools took place without such acts, not to mention neo-Humboldtianism, which, admittedly, is mistakenly not considered a school of structuralism in the proper sense. Prominent representatives of structuralism continued their parallel studies in the spirit of neo-grammarism, for example, A. Meillet and E. Benveniste. The PLC, unlike the Copenhagen Circle, was not based on a strict hierarchy, and the Geneva School can hardly be called such, since it included independent researchers with their own scientific programs, whose importance for the development of the science of language has been significantly underestimated (for example, A. Seche – see [27]). Finally, the life of the «structural paradigm» in European linguistics ended after only about thirty years, while the Indo-European one spanned an entire century.

It seems more preferable to turn to the phenomenon of «linguistic fashion», which more adequately explains the surge of interest in one topic and the decline in another.

The phenomenon of "linguistic fashion" reflects changes in language that occur under the influence of sociocultural factors. This term can be used to describe how certain words, phrases, or topics become popular and widely used in society for a period of time, and then gradually lose their relevance.

In the context of the internet and social media, where information spreads rapidly, linguistic fashions can emerge and spread quickly. This may be due to the emergence of new terms or modes of communication that become popular among a particular group of people.

However, it's important to consider that interest in various topics can also depend on a variety of other factors, including world events, changes in the sociocultural environment, fashion trends, and so on. Linguistic fashion may be just one aspect of a broader phenomenon of changing societal interests and preferences.

Overall, the analysis of "linguistic fashion" can provide an interesting perspective on trends in language and communication, but it is also important to consider other sociocultural and societal aspects to fully understand the dynamics of changes in interests and preferences.

 

The thesis on the symbolic capital of an academic title

Viewing the scientific field essentially as a playground with its own rules, Bourdieu defines its attributes, in particular, the «professional or academic title.» Since academic degrees and honorary titles are «a certain kind of legal rule of social perception, a perceived existence guaranteed as a right,» Bourdieu endows them with «institutionalized and legal (and not simply legitimate) symbolic capital, increasingly inseparable from the academic title, as the educational system increasingly strives to provide further and reliable guarantees for all professional titles» [6, p. 75].

However, in essence, we are talking about a symbolic title, a special onym, which, unlike a noble title in modern life, which does not always guarantee its holder a certain financial basis, is endowed with symbolic capital and guarantees symbolic profit («benefits that cannot be sold for money» [Ibid.]), which, for example, in the Russian academic situation is nevertheless realized in the form of a very tangible financial profit (since we are talking about a guaranteed position of no lower than an academic title, a salary and an academic workload corresponding to this title).

At the same time, one can agree with Bourdieu, who rightly criticizes the situation in which «the reward for a title tends to become autonomous in relation to the reward for work.» However, he himself notes that an academic title «in itself (like language) – institution "more durable than the intrinsic characteristics of labor. The reward for a title can be protected despite changes in labor and its relative value: it is not the relative value of labor that determines the value of a name, but the institutionalized value of a title that serves as a tool for protecting and preserving the value of labor" [6, p. 76].

The thesis on the reproduction of the universe of belief

Thus, scientific fields and their components (scientific schools, departments, institutes) are transformed under the conditions of doxa into "legitimation communities" reproducing a certain "universe of belief," and therefore the analogy that Bourdieu draws between scientific schools and religious associations, literary movements, or fashion centers is not surprising. Scientific legitimation circles are characterized by the use of special strategies of self-preservation, including "the circular circulation of objects, ideas, methods, and especially signs of recognition within the community (one should say a club open only to members of the local community or imported from the Ivy League)", "references to canonical sources, most often reduced, as they say, "to their simplest exposition"", "references to the most recent articles on the same topic, whenever possible", "strategies of closure that are intended to establish a boundary between scientific issues and profane and salon debates" [5, p. 15]. This circulation is associated with the «rhetoric of scientificity,» which allows members of the dominant scientific school to assert «belief in the scientific value of their products and in the scientific authority of their members» [Ibid.].

An excellent example of the positive influence of the «strategy of closure», so much criticized by Bourdieu, on the state of scientific knowledge can be considered in this regard the fight against pseudoscientific theories about language – cryptolinguistics [2] and amateur linguistics [8], which has received the full support of the scientific community.

 

Thesis on scientific habitus and inclusion

Let's begin with a general definition of scientific habitus as a set of certain dispositions that motivate scientists to act and react in certain ways. Such dispositions, dictated by doxa, give rise to discursive practices that are considered "regular" without being consciously coordinated or regulated by any "rules" (see a similar definition, for example, in [Simeoni 1998]).

The linguistic habitus is no different in nature from the sociological or medical one; it presupposes specialized training and the accumulation of scientific experience during postgraduate and doctoral studies, supervision of scientific projects and the work of students and applicants for scientific degrees, and, of course, primarily in the process of communication with the supervisor and members of his scientific school. Bourdieu describes the process of forming a scientific habitus as follows: «First of all, this is, of course, all the necessary training to obtain a whole block of specific knowledge (theories, problems, concepts, historical traditions, […] data, etc.), created and accumulated in the course of […] the work of professionals of the present and past, as well as more general abilities, such as proficiency in a certain language and a certain […] rhetoric, rhetoric tribune, necessary in relations with the uninitiated, or rhetoric debate, necessary in relations with professionals» [6, p. 188].

At first, Bourdieu’s attempt to equate scientific schools with secret societies seems somewhat anecdotal, but on the whole, one cannot help but acknowledge the correctness of his reasoning when, for example, he explains the process of entering doxa: «But it is also and above all a kind of initiation with its trials and rites of passage that seek to instill practical possession logic, immanent […] field, and instill reality subordination values, hierarchies and censorships peculiar to a given field, and the specific form in which its pressure and control are clothed […]. This means that in order to fully understand […] the performances that are offered on the market at a given moment, the totality of which determines the universe of what can be thought or expressed […] as opposed to what is rejected as unthinkable or inexpressible, it would be necessary to analyze the entire process of production of professionals […], from the marking produced according to the often implicit definition of the desired competence that destins them for these functions, as well as the general and specialized education that prepares professionals for their performance, and ending with the continuous normative influence» [6, pp. 188-189].

In his discussion of Bourdieu's position, Grenfell also mentions such an important term as inclusion (Inclusion): «Inclusion, that is, how government strategies shape policy and practice, and how this intersects with individual inclinations… In Bourdieu’s vision, inclusion takes on another quality: reconnection with questions of social mobility; questions of a social nature (habit); influence of local communities; language (linguistic capital) initiated and uninitiated; institutional versions of inclusion and doxa, inherent to them; unrecognizable forms of exclusion; interests supporters of inclusion; structural relations (fields) between state agents of inclusion and the dispositions of those involved in the situation, based on habitus; cultural capital inclusion; and the results of such a policy for the «subjects of inclusion» [21, p. 223]. Let us add to initiation and inclusion such important parameters of doxa as scientific ritual, unwritten rules, unspoken prohibitions, taboo and euphemisms, adopted in a particular scientific school (mentioning the names of competitors, their works, ideas, terms in oral and written scientific discourse).

Conclusion

The critical thrust of P. Bourdieu's conception also takes on a distinctly negative connotation when applied to linguistics, leaving a rather depressing impression of the professional life that unfolds as a result of this "feast of cognitive pessimism." Situations capable of darkening a linguist's vibrant professional life are, in fact, real and capable of painting their worldview in "sad gray tones," but they are successfully countered by the conceptual richness, evaluative relativism, and fundamental freedom of scientific exploration in modern linguistics, at least in Russia. Bourdieu's conception incorporates ideas about sociocultural factors influencing linguistic practice and the structure of society. His concept of "linguistic fashion" can highlight how sociocultural inequalities and structures influence linguistic behavior. The terrifying images Bourdieu paints are of past and possible worlds, of the past and imagined "bogeymen" of linguistics, knowledge of which does not increase sorrow but rather protects against infatuation with dogma, no matter how profitable it may seem. For: "A learned man knows much, and one who has much experience will express knowledge" [Sir. 34:9].

Literature

1. Alpatov V.M. The History of a Myth. Marr and Marrism. – Moscow: Nauka, 1991. – 240 p.
2. Bazylev V.N. Cryptolinguistics. Moscow: Saratov State University Publishing House, – – 277 p.
3. Belov S.A., Kropachev N.M. The concept of the state language // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 2020. - No. 17 (1). - P. 4-21.
4. Bogatov M.A. The Being of a Work of Art: A Phenomenological Analysis. Dissertation … Doctor of Philosophy, 09.00.01, 2018. – 322 p.
5. Bourdieu P. Field of Science. Translated from French by E. D. Voznesenskaya. Almanac of the Russian-French Center of Sociology and Philosophy of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. — St. Petersburg, 2002. // Electronic publication: Center for Humanitarian Technologies. — 03.2007.
6. Bourdieu P. Sociology of politics: Trans. with fr./comp., total. ed. and preface N.A. Shmatko. – : Socio-Logos, 1993. – 336 p.
7. Devyatko I.F. Philosophy of language and the language of social science // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, – Vol. 7. – No. 5. – P. 50-58.
8. Zaliznyak A.A.From Notes on Amateur Linguistics. 2nd ed., corrected and expanded. Moscow: Alpina Non-Fiction, 2023. – 208 p.
9. Kosteva V.M. Linguistics of totalitarianism in the linguo-philosophical paradigm of the twentieth century: dissertation … Doctor of Philology: 10.02.19. Perm State National Research University, 2019. – 398 p.
10. Lassan E.F. Linguistics as biased knowledge // Budaev E. V., Chudinov A. P. Modern political linguistics. Ekaterinburg, 2006. – P. 199-213.
11. Lonew A.L. A comparative analysis of P. Bourdieu's theoretical propositions on social structure. Dissertation… candidate of sociological sciences, 22.00.01. St. Petersburg, 2006. – 210 p.
12. Maslovskaya E.V. The Development of Modern Concepts in Western Sociology of Law: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects. Dissertation … Doctor of Sociological Sciences, 22.00.01, Moscow, 2009. – 290 p.
13. Mikheeva A.R. Vectors of Contemporary Transformations of the Russian Family: Analysis in the Discourse of P. Bourdieu's Structural-Genetic Theory. Dissertation… Doctor of Sociological Sciences, 22.00.0 Novosibirsk, 2015. – 295 p.
14. Mogilevich B.R. Polylingualism as a linguistic capital of the information society // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 18. Sociology and political science. – – No. 26(1). – P. 188-208.
15. Myskin S.V. On the formulation of the problem of «pathology of linguistic personality» / S. V. Myskin // Organizational psycholinguistics. – – No. 3 (23). – P. 10-24. – EDN TZGUEG
16. Myskin S.V., Tarasov E.F. (ed.) Professional picture of the world. Methodology. Variants. Practice. Collective monograph. – Moscow, Publishing House of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2020. – 312 p.
17. Tikhonova A.V. Transformation of Cultural Production and New Cultural Intermediaries in Contemporary Russian Society: Sociological Theories and Regional Practices. Dissertation … Candidate of Sociological Sciences, 22.00.04, Kazan, 2007. – 201 p.
18. Ushkarev A.A. The Art Audience: A Cultural Phenomenon in Social Dimensions. Dissertation… Doctor of Cultural Studies, 24.00.01, Moscow, 2019. – 487 p.
19. Yudin G.B. Phenomenological Reduction in the Epistemology of Social Science. Dissertation… Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, 09.00.01, Moscow, 2012. – 237 p.
20. Bourdieu P. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited and Introduced by John B. Thompson. Polity Press, 1991. – 291 p.
21. Grenfell M. Bourdieu, Language and Linguistics. Continuum International Publ., 2011. – 259 p.
22. Grenfell M. Bourdieu's Metanoia: Seeing the Social World Anew. Routledge, 2022. – 240 p.
23. Grenfell M. Pierre Bourdieu: Education and Training. Bloomsbury Academic, 2007. – 286 p.
24. Hjelmslev L. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison, Milwaukee, London, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. – 144 p.
25. Knight Chr. The Unknown Chomsky: When the Pentagon Used Chomsky's Linguistics for Weapons Research // Critique 48, Issue 4, 2020. – 661-676.
26. Koltun V., Hafner D. The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation // PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253397, June 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397
27. Seuren P.M. Saussure and Sechehaye: Myth and Genius. A Study in the History of Linguistics and the Foundations of Language. Brill, 2018. – 268 p.
    Simeoni D. The Pivotal Status of the Translator's Habitus // Target10:1 (1998), – P. 1-39.

References

1. Alpatov VM. The Story of a Myth. Marr and Marrism. Moscow: Nauka, 1991, 240 pp.
2. Bazylev VN. M.: SGU Publishing House, 2010. – 277 s
3. Belov SA, Kropachev NM. Understanding the State Language // Vestnik of the Sankt-Peterburg University. Language and Literature, 2020. No. 17(1). – 4-21.
4. Bogatov MA. The life of a work of art: phenomenological analysis. Dissertation … Doctor of Philosophy, 09.00.01, 2018. – 322 p.
5. Burd'jo P. Field of Science. – Translation from French: ED Voznesenskaya. Almanac of the Russian-French Center of Sociology and Philosophy of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – , 2002. // Electronic publication: Center for Humanitarian Technologies. – 28.03.2007.
6. Burd'e P. Sociologija politiki: Per. s φρ./Sost., obshh. red. i predisl. NAShmatko. – : Socio-Logos, 1993. – 336 s.
7. Devjatko IF. Filosofija jazyka i jazyk social'noj nauki // Zhurnal sociologii i social'noj anthropologii, 2004. – 7. – No. 5. – S. 50-58.
8. Zaliznjak AA. Iz zametok o ljubitel'skoj lingvistike. 2nd izd., ispr. i dop. : Al'pina non-fikshn, – 2023. – 208 s.
9. Kosteva VM. Linguistics of totalitarianism in the linguophilosophical paradigm of the 20th century: dissertation … doctor of philological sciences: 10.02.19. Perm State National Research University, 2019. – 398 p.
10. Lassan Je. F. Linguistics as engaged knowledge // Budaev Je. V., Chudinov A. P. Modern political linguistics. Ekaterinburg, 2006. – 199-213.
11. Lonev AL. Comparativist analysis of P. Bourdieu's theoretical propositions on social structure. Dissertation… candidate of sociology, 22.00.01. St. Petersburg, 2006. – 210 p.
12. Maslovskaja EV. Formation of modern concepts of Western sociology of law: theoretical and methodological aspects. Dissertation … Doctor of Sociological Sciences, 22.00.01, M., 2009. – 290 p.
13. Miheeva AR. Vectors of modern transformations of the Russian family: analysis in the context of P. Burdjou’s structural-genetic theory. Dissertation… Doctor of Sociological Sciences, 22.00.03. Novosibirsk, 2015. – 295 p.
14. Mogilevich BR. Polylingualism as a Linguistic Capital of the Information Society // Moscow University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. – – No. 26(1). – P. 188-208.
15. Myskin SV. On the formulation of the problem of «pathology of linguistic personality» / SV Myskin // Organizational psiholingvistika. – 2023. – No. 3 (23). – P. 10-24. – EDN TZGUEG
16. Myskin SV, Tarasov EF. (red.) Professional'naja kartina mira. Methodology. Variance. Praktika. Kollektivnaja monografija. , Izdatel'stvo Instituta jazykoznanija RAN, 2020. – 312 s.
17. Tihonova AV. Transformation of cultural production and new cultural intermediaries in contemporary Russian society: sociological theories and regional practices. Dissertation … candidate of sociological sciences, 22.00.04, Kazan, 2007. – 201 p.
18. Ushkarjov AA. Art Audience: Cultural Phenomenon in Social Dimensions. Dissertation… Doctor of Cultural Studies, 24.00.01, Moscow, 2019. – 487 p.
19. Judin GB. Fenomenologicheskaja redukcija v jepistemologii social'noj nauki. Dissertacija…kandidata filosofskih nauk, 00.01, M., 2012. – 237 s.
20. Bourdieu P. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited and Introduced by John B. Thompson. Polity Press, 1991. – 291 p.
21. Grenfell M. Bourdieu, Language and Linguistics. Continuum International Publ., 2011. – 259 p.
22. Grenfell M. Bourdieu's Metanoia: Seeing the Social World Anew. Routledge, 2022. – 240 p.
23. Grenfell M. Pierre Bourdieu: Education and Training. Bloomsbury Academic, 2007. – 286 p.
24. Hjelmslev L. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison, Milwaukee, London, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. – 144 p.
25. Knight Chr. The Unknown Chomsky: When the Pentagon Used Chomsky's Linguistics for Weapons Research // Critique 48, Issue 4, 2020. – 661-676.
26. Koltun V.; Hafner D. The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation // PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253397, June 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397
27. Seuren P. AM Saussure and Sechehaye: Myth and Genius. A Study in the History of Linguistics and the Foundations of Language. Brill, 2018. 268 p. Simeoni D. The Pivotal Status of the Translator's Habitus // Target  10:1 (1998), pp. 1–39

[1] True, even then, scientific schools in Germany were not repressive structures that did not allow deviations from dogma, as evidenced by the history of I. Schmidt's evolution from a faithful follower of Schleicher to the creator of the "wave theory," which he, however, published four years after the death of his teacher.

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma