Essay
"My language is my Motherland"
Zhanburshinova Aida
Grade 10
KSU "Jubilee Secondary School"
Taranovskiy district
Head: Vera Nikolaevna Topchaya,
teacher of Russian language and literature
The language of the fathers is a holy heritage,
Deep, sharp, strong, like a cry.
Your children with a caring hand
You will attract me, my native language!
M. Zhumabaev
I imagine any language as a great treasure, where people put the most
expensive. This is not money, not gold or even precious stones, but melodic beautiful
words, phrases, words of love, friendship, anger. Clever sayings and aphorisms, sharp
proverbs…. And also poems penetrating to the depths of the soul, wonderful songs and
wise books.
“The fate of every nation is organically intertwined with the fate of its language…. After all, everyone
people are a unique culture, history and traditions. And, of course, the language ", wrote
one of the writers…. He's really right! The fate of not only the people depends on the language,
the fate of each of us depends on the knowledge and skills to use our native language.
My Motherland is Kazakhstan, this is the most dear, important, precious, beloved
the country. Therefore, for me, the most native language is the Kazakh language, the most beautiful and
rich. Since birth, I have been inextricably linked with this language. As a child, my mother sang to me
lullaby, taught me the first steps in life. I sing songs in this language, grow with it
language, it is a part of my life….
According to the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kazakh language is a language that has the status
state. Our President N. Nazarbayev emphasized that “the state language is
it is a language that unites all the peoples of Kazakhstan ”. And people live in our state
of different nationalities. Our school is a motley ethnic composition: Kazakhs, Russians,
Belarusians, Ukrainians, Tatars…. We are so different, and yet we have a lot
general: the desire to get a decent education, to be in demand in society,
observance of the customs and traditions of their people. This means that Kazakhstan is our common home.
I am very glad that at our school we study three languages: Kazakh, Russian and English,
which allows us to confidently step into the future. But the native language is our “spiritual core”.
Thanks to our teachers, at each lesson we learn the history of our ancestors, our
customs and traditions, the importance of language and we absorb grains of that knowledge that
vital for native speakers.
A people without a language is a house without a foundation, the wind blew and people scattered like
bricks around the world…. Not being able to speak and write correctly in your native language is the highest
ignorance. Not knowing his native language, a person always loses his homeland, and a person without
Motherland, this is a person who does not have anything that could please him, a person who does not
knowing his native language is a lonely person. One person is not able to carry out
a large-scale idea to strengthen the mother tongue in all strata of society, a special
attitude and respect for him. But if thousands think about it, considering themselves
the only implementers of this plan in life, then the fate of the language will begin to change in
the better side.
Probably, every person knows this feeling when you are away from home, in a foreign land and
do you hear your own word! One long-awaited word can bring so much joy and
happiness, pride in your people, for your Motherland! Imagine: if I suddenly find myself in
unfamiliar place without family and friends, then it will be enough to find someone who speaks to me
in one language. He will understand and help me. This, in my opinion, is the biggest
wealth of the Motherland - you just need to reach out and someone will definitely respond.
The culture of each nation is unique and inimitable, and the language is its root. If
we will save the root, everything else will survive. Therefore, a person must cherish, cherish
your native language, keep it, and not pollute it with foreign words.
No language in the world can convey the feelings that awaken in me,
listening to Kazakh music or poetry. No language in the world can describe depth
souls, as Kazakh akyns (writers) do.
Raise the people ... revive the ancient roots in them, describe the rise of an eagle and the breath of the wind,
the taste of mother's milk, the significance of honor, the sounds of dombra, the singing of storytellers and
immortality of great deeds, living in centuries, all this is you, my language, my dear
Kazakh language, my Motherland!
Respectfully treating your native language, developing and protecting it, you can not only
preserve the true appearance of the native language for many centuries. But then it will turn out
improve his wonderful vocabulary, improve grammar and introduce your
a unique share in what we can use to express our thoughts and emotions,
disposing of stocks of tons of phrases with good intentions. The fate of the native language depends on
each of us and just each of us creates a small part of it, turning it into a priceless
treasure of the Motherland.
Let's appreciate, love and respect our language. There is no other such in the world. In him -
the immense soul of the people, the greatness of their feat. Our native language is our wise and eternal
teacher. The more I get to know him through the works of writers, the more I
I am aware of its power and strength. Where is my language, there is my home, my Motherland.
Yolkina Lyubov
Creative work in the essay genre was created within the framework of the school project "Literate School". With this work, the student took part in the regional competition "One Day of the Russian Language", which was held within the framework of the social and educational project "Literate Nizhny", organized by the Faculty of Philology of the Nizhny Novgorod State University. Lobachevsky. Has a certificate of the participant of the competition.
Download:
Preview:
Competition of creative works "One day of the Russian language"
Essay
"About the Russian language"
Completed the work:
Yolkina Lyubov, 8th grade student
MKOU Mamontovskaya main
Comprehensive school
Sokolsky district
Nizhny Novgorod region
Supervisor:
Oshoeva L.A., teacher
Russian language and literature
2014
Essay.
About the Russian language.
The language of the people is the best, never fading and eternally blossoming color of all its spiritual life.
(K. D. Ushinsky - teacher, writer.)
The Russian people have a great treasure, a great asset, a great shrine - the Russian language. Century after century the Russian people have followed their own unique historical path. And at all times his constant "companion" was the Russian language. The centuries changed, customs, morals, the form of organization and psychology changed, the language of the people underwent changes. And yet, for thousands of years, it remained the same Russian language. The language spoken by the Grand Duke of Kiev Vladimir (Krasno Solnyshko), Lomonosov and Radishchev, Pushkin and Lermontov, Yesenin and Chekhov ... The language spoken by my parents, brothers and sisters ... The language I also speak ...
From childhood to old age, human life is inextricably linked with language. The first syllables "ma-ma", lullabies, fairy tales, poems, and now the acquaintance with the Russian language has begun. It continues in kindergarten, school, university and ... all our lives. Through word, reading, speech, we learn about many things. About what they never knew or saw. And, perhaps, we will never see. We comprehend the world through the word. The stories of teachers, conversations with mom, good books, exciting movies, the necessary information from electronic media - and the world is getting closer to us. The universe reveals its secrets to us.
One of the main treasures of the people is their language! For centuries, the eternal treasures of human thought and experience multiply and live in the word.
The Russian language is one of the most difficult languages in the world. He is melodious and handsome, gentle and lyrical. There are many great works written on it.
There are a lot of words in the Russian language. But to write a good literary work, it is not enough just to find the right words. There is a huge amount of work to be done to keep it interesting. We all know the masterpieces of literature -fables by Ivan Andreevich Krylov ... Several centuries have passed since their publication. But they are still on everyone's lips; and all because Krylov's fables are magnificent finished dramatic works, and their language is perfect Russian. Krylov's works are full of amazing phraseological turns, apt expressions, subtle phrases. Most likely, only the person for whom Russian is their native language can fully appreciate the creations of this author. Although Krylov's works have been translated into many languages of the world, only those who are fluent in Russian will be able to fully feel the flavor that comes from the language of Krylov's fables and which makes them a phenomenon of only the Russian spirit. About two hundred lines of rough sketches were found for Krylov's well-known fable "The Cuckoo and the Rooster", which in its final version consists of only twenty-one lines. This is how carefully the great fabulist treated the Russian word, the Russian language.
The representative of Russian sentimentalism, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766-1825), once correctly noted: “The true wealth of a language consists not in the multitude of sounds, not in the multitude of words, but in the number of thoughts expressed by it. A rich language is one in which you will find words not only to denote the main ideas, but also to explain their differences, their shades, greater or lesser strength, simplicity and complexity. Otherwise he is poor; poor with all the millions of his words. In a language enriched by clever authors, in a language developed there can be no synonyms; they always have a subtle difference between themselves, known to those writers who master the spirit of the language, reflect themselves, feel themselves, and are not parrots of others».
The famous teacher, critic and literary critic Aleksey Fedorovich Merzlyakov wrote and discussed the Russian language. He was a teacher of the verbal department at Moscow University and a teacher of the writer A.S. Griboyedov. Alexey Fedorovich's lectures were very popular with students. Merzlyakov highly appreciated Russian literature of the eighteenth century, attached great importance to poetryLomonosov and Derzhavin , studied the Russian language. He wrote: “WLomonosov's servants to language and Literature are immortal. - In his works, with sweet amazement, Russians noticed for the first time the wealth, splendor, splendor of their language ... Everyone found a new language, new words, new sounds; felt that they were relatives, and wondered why they did not know them before».
Lyceum friend fought for purity, for the approval of the Russian languagePushkin , member of the Decembrist movementWilhelm Kuchelbecker ... In a publicistic article "On the direction of our poetry, especially lyrical, in the last decade" (1824), which caused a huge response in society, Kuchelbecker wrote: "Let truly Russian poetry be created for the glory of Russia; let holy Russia be the first power in the universe, not only in the civil, but also in the moral world! ... Chronicles, songs and folk tales are the best, purest, most reliable sources for our literature».
The Russian language, which united ancestors and descendants, united the nation, changing in time, never interrupting its history, has become one of the most perfect and richest languages in the world. Prominent French writer Prosper Mérimée emphasized: “.. the French language, supported by Greek and Latin, calling for help from all its dialects ... and even the language of the times of François Rabelais - unless he alone could give an idea of this sophistication and the energetic power ... of the Russian language».
A serious study of the languages of the world by polyglots inevitably leads to the fact that in their speech the most apt words and phraseological units of the studied languages begin to be used; and the deeper this recognition of the riches of another language, the more significant its penetration into the enriched speech of the polyglot. Here it is, the prototype of the inevitable process of developing a single language for the future earthly civilization. I feel myself that, even though I do not know only two languages: Russian and Ukrainian, I, by virtue of the taste and love for languages given to me by nature, already use them together in speech and in my literary work. And not as an ignorant surzhik, but as an enrichment, to achieve a new expressiveness of the word. When I come into contact with other, almost unknown to me, languages: English and Yiddish, I immediately feel the desire to use them to enhance speech.
And this is not because I know my boundless native Russian language completely unsatisfactorily, but because I am delighted with even just contact with the miracle of other languages. The feeling of isolation, overflow only with my own is not inherent in me. Limitation does not weigh on my freedom. Everywhere I immediately feel the desire to use a different language to enrich my own. Wealth has a polysemous root "god". Apparently, one cannot do without Gd in speech. Gd is the main zealous polyglot, he has to address each nation in its language.
Thus, knowledge of languages inevitably leads to their use and the creation of personal richness of speech and, at the same time, to an awareness of the merits of the native language and the need for its living development. This is an irrepressible property of a living ("living" according to Vladimir Dal) language.
In this simple example, the main thing is quite clear that the future single language of earthly civilization is already inevitably being developed, naturally absorbing all the best, accurate, and most successful of all the languages of the world known. And the current processes of cultural development of national languages and, more and more universal, the study of languages of interethnic, inter-terrestrial communication, such as English, German, Japanese, Russian (primarily English) speaks volumes about this.
It is difficult to agree in different languages. This is clear to everyone. About those who do not understand each other, they say directly and unequivocally: "They speak different languages." Whoever is able to deny this inevitable unifying process is incapable of understanding anything. People differ from each other in appearance, but not in the articulatory apparatus (vocal cords). And this is a good symptom.
Favorites:
- © Mikhail Perchenko:
- Linguistics
- Readers: 3 413
- Comments: 9
- 2013-01-27
An essay about the common language of mankind, about the future common, international language of communication. Mikhail Perchenko.
Brief description and keywords for: Towards a common language
- Works on the topic:
- Multilingual analogy, displaying temporal nuances in the same type Leo One of the examples of the so-called. "Cal and" in the speech of the peoples of Europe.A somewhat belated reaction to a conversation about a proto-language
- On the possible origin of the multifunctional word "where" Leo About morphemic word parsing. As soon as the words have something in common, let's try to find their common fragment. Leo.About a common language of earthlings, a language problem or an alternative to discord. In addition to verses about the Ukrainian language.
- Examples of common Proto-Slavic heritage in Russian and Ukrainian languages Leo In the thirteenth chapter of the book "Proto-language (hypothesis of V. N. Litovka)" ancient prototypes of parts of speech are considered, which have passed into the composition of the word and into morphological features for word forms. Leo.A linguistic article about the factors that influenced the relationship between pronunciation and spelling of words during their transition from language to language. Continuation of the presentation of V. N. Litovka's hypothesis. L. F.
- On the connection of modern European languages with a common "ancestor" V. N. Litovka's hypothesis about the origin of modern European languages from the ancient proto-language of the very first human communities. Why Esperanto Has Not Become a World Language. Problems
At first, a person reacted to the language with confidence: the sign and the thing that he meant were one and the same. The image was a double of the original, the ritual formula reproduced the world and was capable of it recreate... To speak meant re-create implied subject. At the same time, the accurate pronunciation of magic words is one of the main conditions for efficiency. The need to keep the language of the initiates intact is the reason for the emergence of grammar in Vedic India. Over time, people noticed that a chasm opened between things and their names. As soon as the belief that the sign and the signified thing were the same was shaken, the sciences of language became independent. The first task of thinking was to establish the exact and definite meaning of words. So grammar became the first stage of logic. But words always resist certainty. And the battle between science and language continues to this day.
Human history can be reduced to the history of the relationship between words and thinking. Any critical epoch coincides with a crisis of language: suddenly, faith in the efficacy of the word is lost. "I put Beauty on her knees ..." - says the poet. Beauty or a word? Both, is it possible to grasp beauty beyond words? Words and things bleed from one wound. Every society has experienced a crisis, which consisted mainly of rethinking the meanings of certain words. It is often forgotten that, like any work of human hands, empires and states are created from words: they are verbal facts. In Book XIII of the Annals, Tsu Lu asks Confucius: "If the Master calls you to rule the country, what will you do first?" And the Teacher answers: "I will reform the language." It is difficult to say where evil is born, in words or in things, but when words are corroded by rust and meanings become approximate, the meaning of our actions also loses its immutability. Things rely on their names and vice versa. Nietzsche begins his rebellion by taking up arms against the words: virtue, truth, justice - what is it really? Having debunked certain sacred and eternal words, namely those on which the entire edifice of Western metaphysics stood, Nietzsche laid the mine at the foundation of metaphysics itself. Any philosophical criticism begins with an analysis of language.
The flaws of any philosophy are precisely connected with the fatal entrustment to words. Almost all philosophers argue that words are too crude instruments that cannot convey reality. But is philosophy possible outside of words? After all, the most abstract symbols, such as in logic and mathematics, are also a language. In addition, signs must have a meaning, but how can this meaning be explained without language? And yet, imagine the impossible: imagine some philosophy using symbolic or mathematical language, without any correlation with words. Man and his concerns, the main theme of all philosophy, will not fall into this philosophy. Because a person is inseparable from words. Out of words, he is indescribable. Man is a verbal being. On the other hand, any philosophy that uses words is doomed to be a slave to history, because words are born and die like people. And then at one pole we have a world that does not lend itself to verbal expression, and at the other - the world of man, which alone can be expressed by a word. And therefore, we have no other choice, and we must consider the claims of the science of language. First of all, its main postulate is the idea of language as an object.
But what can be said about language if every object somehow exists for the cognizing subject, and this is the fatal limitation of all knowledge and at the same time the only possibility of cognition? The boundaries between subject and object in this case are completely unclear. The word is the person himself. We are made of words. They are our only reality, or at least the only evidence of our reality. Without language, there is no thought, no thing to think about, and the first thing that a person does when faced with something unfamiliar is giving it a name, giving it a name. What we don't know is nameless. Any teaching begins with an acquaintance with the correct name, and ends with the message of the secret of the main word that opens the door to Knowledge. Or a confession of ignorance, after which silence reigns. But silence also says something, it is also saturated with signs. You can't get away from the language. Of course, specialists have the right to take the language separately, turning it into an object of study. But this is an artificial creation, torn out of its world, because, unlike other objects of science, words do not live outside of us. They are our world, and we are theirs. In order to grasp the language, there is only one way - to speak it. Word-catching nets are woven from words. This does not mean that I am against linguistics. However, one should not forget that for all the successes of linguistics, its possibilities are limited. Language ultimately eludes her. He is inseparable from man. This is a human lot, and not an object, organism or some conventional system of signs that can be accepted or rejected. In this sense, the science of language is included in the general science of man.
The assertion that language is exclusively a human heritage contradicts age-old beliefs. Let us recall how often fairy tales begin: “At the time when the animals spoke ...” Oddly enough, this belief was taken up by the science of the last century. Even now, many argue that animal communication systems are not so different from those used by humans. There are experts for whom the expression "language of birds" is not at all an erased metaphor. Indeed, there are two main characteristics of human language in the language of animals: meaning, albeit in its most elementary and rudimentary form, and communication. The cry of an animal hints at something, says something, it has a meaning. And this meaning is perceived and, so to speak, understood by other animals. These unarticulated exclamations constitute a system of signs that have meaning. But this is precisely the function of words. This means that speech is nothing more than the development of the language of animals, and, therefore, it is the natural sciences that study natural phenomena that can study words.
The first objection that comes to mind is the incomparably great complexity of human speech, the second - there are no traces of abstract thinking in the language of animals. However, these are quantitative differences, not the essence of the matter. More weighty to me seems to be what Marshall Urban calls the three-way function of words. Words indicate something and denote something, they are names; they also represent a direct reaction to some kind of material or mental stimulus, for example, interjections and onomatopoeia; and yet, words are representations, that is, signs and symbols. In other words, we are talking about indicative, emotional and representative functions. Each verbal expression has these three functions, while one of them is usually the leading one. But there are no representations without pointing to something and outside the emotional context; the same can be said for the other two functions. And although these three functions cannot be isolated in any way, the main one is the symbolic one. Indeed, without representation there is no indication: the sounds that make up the word "bread" refer us to the corresponding object, without them there would be no indication - the indication is symbolic. Likewise, a cry is not only an instinctive response to a situation, but also its name, a word. Ultimately, "the essence of language lies in the transmission, Darstellung, of one element of experience through another, in the correlation of a sign or symbol with the thing signified or symbolized and in the awareness of this." After that, Marshall Urban asks the question: do animals have the three listed functions? Most experts claim that "the set of sounds emitted by monkeys is completely" subjective "and refers only to their feelings, but never designates or describes anything." The same can be said for their facial expressions and gestures. In fact, in other cries of animals, one can catch some faint hints of an indication, but nothing can be said about the symbolic or representative function. So there is an abyss between the language of animals and the language of humans. Human language is something completely different from animal communication. And these differences are qualitative, not quantitative. Language is something that is unique to humans.
Hypotheses explaining the origin and development of language by a gradual ascent from simple to complex - from interjection, shouting or onomatopoeia to a symbolic and indicating expression - are also unfounded. The language of primitive societies is very complex. Almost all archaic languages have words that are identical to phrases and whole sentences. The study of these languages confirms the discoveries of cultural anthropology: as we go deeper into the past, we are not faced with simpler societies - as we thought in the 19th century - but with societies of extraordinary complexity. The principle of ascent from simple to complex is justified in natural sciences, but not in cultural sciences. But if there is no symbolic function in the language of animals, then the hypothesis of the origin of language from the language of animals turns out to be untenable, and yet its great merit is that it includes "language in the world of gesture." Before starting to speak, the person gestures. There is meaning in gestures and body movements. All three elements of language are present in them: indication, emotional attitude, presentation. People speak with their faces and hands. If we agree that the cry of animals belongs to the world of gesture, then in it one can find the rudiments of representation and direction. Perhaps the first language of humanity was pantomime, the silent language of ritual-imitative action. Following the laws of universal analogy, the movements of bodies imitate things and recreate the ways of dealing with them.
Whatever the origin of the language, experts seem to agree on one thing, namely, the "mythological nature of words and linguistic forms." Modern science impressively confirms the idea of Herder and the German romantics: "Undoubtedly, language and myth were originally inextricably linked ... Both are the expression of the same fundamental tendency towards the formation of symbols, at the heart of all symbolization is a metaphor." Language and myth are vast metaphors. The essence of language is symbolic, because it conveys one element of reality through another in exactly the same way as a metaphor does. Science confirms what poets have always believed: language is poetry in its natural state. Any word or combination of words is a metaphor. But it is also an instrument of magic, in other words, something capable of transforming into another thing and transforming what it touches. The word is a symbol that gives birth to symbols. Man is man thanks to language, the original metaphor, which forced him to become different, taking him out of the natural world. Man is a being that has created itself, creating a language. In the word, man becomes his own metaphor.
Language falls by itself into crystals of metaphors. Words collide with each other hourly, pouring metal sparks and forming into radiant phrases. In the night sky of words, new stars are constantly lit up. And every day words and phrases float to the surface of the tongue, from the cold scales of which a damp silence still flows. And then all the old words disappear somewhere. The abandoned language field is suddenly covered with verbal inflorescences. Fireflies settle in their thickets. And I must say, these are voracious creatures. A merciless war is going on in the womb of the language. All against one. One against all. An immense mass set in motion, continuously creating and re-creating, filled with itself. From the lips of children, madmen, sages, fools, lovers, hermits fly away images, bizarre combinations that arise from nowhere. They flash and go out. Woven from a highly flammable fabric, words ignite as soon as imagination touches them. But they cannot keep their flame. Language is the essence of a poetic work, nourishes it, but it is not a work itself. The difference between a work and poetic expressions - regardless of whether they were invented yesterday or they have been repeated for a thousand years by a people who preserve their traditions - is this: the work seeks to surpass the language, while poetic expressions, on the contrary, live within the language, roaming from word of mouth. They are not creatures. In a poetic work, speech, the language of society is condensed, molded into shape. A poetic work is a language that has acquired its own identity.
And just as it never occurs to anyone that the author of the Homeric epic is the whole people, so no one thinks that a poetic work is some kind of natural product of language. Lautréamont wanted to say something completely different when he announced that the day would come and everyone would create poetry. A truly dizzying project. However, it turns out - and this is the case with all revolutionary prophecies - that this forthcoming universal poeticization is nothing more than a return to the origins of time. By the time speaking and creating were one and the same. Returning to the identification of a thing with its name. After all, the distance between a word and a thing - and that is what turns every word into a metaphor - is essentially a gap between man and the natural world, because as soon as a person gained self-consciousness, he separated himself from the natural world and, being himself, became different for himself ... The word is not identical with the things it calls, because between a person and things and - even deeper - between a person and his being, the consciousness of oneself wedges itself. The word is a bridge, throwing which a person tries to overcome the distance between himself and the world. But you can't get away from him, without this distance there is no man. To get rid of it, a person must renounce the human in himself, either by merging with the natural world, or by rejecting all natural limitations. Both temptations - and humanity has been latently exposed to them at all times - are now especially strong. So modern poetry rushes between two extremes: on the one hand, it wants to be magic, on the other - the call of revolution. Both that and another desire are the essence of attempts to fight their own destiny. After all, “to remake a person” means to renounce the human way of being, to plunge forever into animal ignorance and to free oneself from the burden of history. But to free oneself from the burden of history means to turn the concepts in one old definition-statement, saying that it is not historical being that determines consciousness, but consciousness predetermines history. The revolutionary impulse liberates the alienated consciousness, and it conquers the world of history and nature. But, having mastered the laws of history and society, consciousness will predetermine being. And then the human race will complete its second somersault-mortale. Having completed the first, he isolated himself from the natural world, ceased to be an animal, rose to his feet, saw nature and saw himself. Having accomplished the second, he will return to the original integrity, not only without losing consciousness, but making it the real foundation of nature. And although for a person this is not the only opportunity to find the lost unity of consciousness and being - magic, mysticism, religion, philosophy have suggested and are offering other ways - the advantage of this method is that it is open to all people and appears as the goal and meaning of history. It is here that one must ask the question: let's say a person has acquired this initial unity, why does he need words now? With the disappearance of alienation, language will also disappear. This utopia will suffer the same fate as mysticism - silence. In the end, whatever we think about this, it is obvious that the fusion or, better, the reunification of a word and a thing, a name and what is named, presupposes a person's agreement with himself and with the world. In the meantime, there is no such agreement, poetry will be one of the few ways to overcome oneself and meet with what a person is in all his depth and primordiality. Therefore, one should not confuse a scattering of eloquence with such a risky and daring undertaking as poetry.
The movements of the linguistic element in themselves are not yet creativity, it is easy to be convinced of this, because there is no poem in which there would be no traces of the creative will of its creator. Yes, language is poetry, and each word carries a metaphorical charge, ready to explode at the slightest touch of the hidden spring, but the creative power of the word is released by the person who utters it. The person sets the tongue in motion. It would seem that the idea of a creator, without whom there is no poetic creation, contradicts the widespread belief that poetry is beyond the control of will. It all depends on how you understand the will. First of all, we need to abandon the inert concept of the so-called abilities of the soul, just as we abandoned the idea of a self-existent soul. One cannot speak of the abilities of the soul - memory, will, etc. - as if they were independent and independent entities. The psyche is whole and indivisible. Just as it is impossible to draw a line between body and soul, so it is impossible to determine where the will ends and pure receptivity begins. Each movement of the soul reveals the whole soul as a whole. Each ability contains all the others. Immersion in a state of passive contemplation does not cancel desires. The words of San Juan de la Cruz about “desire for nothing” acquire a deep psychological meaning here, because the power of desire turns nothing itself into an effective principle. Nirvana is a hybrid of effective inaction, movement, which at the same time is calm. States of inaction - from the feeling of inner emptiness to the opposite experience of the fullness of being - require a volitional effort aimed at overcoming the dichotomy of "I" and the world. A yogi who has attained perfection sits motionlessly in the desired position, “impassively contemplating the tip of his own nose,” so controlling himself that he does not remember himself.
We all know how difficult it is to step on the shore of distraction and distraction. This emotional experience is completely alien to our civilization, which cultivates "involvement" and the corresponding types - a scientist, industrial leader and public figure. Meanwhile, a person who is "distracted" rejects the modern world. In doing so, he burns all bridges. After all, in theory, this decision is not very different from the decision to commit suicide in order to find out what is there, on the other side of life. The distracted person asks the question: what is there, on the other side of vigilance and reason? Distraction is an attraction to what is beyond life. Will does not disappear anywhere, it simply changes direction, no longer serves the mind and does not allow it to spend soul energy without a trace. If our psychological and philosophical vocabulary in this area is very scanty, then we have no interest in poetic expressions and images that convey this experience. Let us recall San Juan's "soundless music" or Lao Tzu's "fullness of emptiness". The states of passive contemplation are not only the experience of silence and emptiness, but also the experience of the fullness of being: in the very core of being, a vein of poetic images opens. “At midnight my heart blooms,” says an Aztec poem. The will to inaction captures only a part of the soul. The inaction of one sphere is compensated by the activity of another. Analytical, discursive, rational thinking gives way to imagination. The creative will does not disappear anywhere. Without her, self-identification with the world would have been ordered for us.
Poetic creativity begins with violence against language. The first act of this procedure is that the words are uprooted. The poet removes the layers of everyday life from them, removed from the muddy element of ordinary language, the words remain naked, as if they had just been born. The second act is to bring back the word. Two oppositely directed forces coexist in the poem: one is released, pulls out words from the root system of the language, the other force, gravity, forces them to come back. The poem is unique and unrepeatable, but it is also read and recited. The poet writes a poem, the people, reciting it, rewrite this poem. The poet and the reader alternate, and in this sequential, one might say cyclical, alternation a force field is created in which a spark of poetry jumps.
These two procedures - the withdrawal and return of the word - imply that the work of poetry lives off of ordinary language. But not vernacular or local dialects, as many now believe, but the language of a certain community: a city, nation, class, group or sect. Homeric poems are written "in an artificial literary language that has never been spoken properly" (Alphonse Reyes). Great texts in Sanskrit were created in an era when very few people spoke it. In the Kalidasa theater, noble characters speak Sanskrit, while plebeians speak Prakrit. The language that feeds poetry, it doesn't matter whether it is folk or elite, must have two qualities: it must be lively and understandable. In other words, this is the language that a group of people uses to convey and perpetuate their experiences, hopes and beliefs. No one has yet managed to write a poem in a dead language, except as a literary exercise, and even in this case it is not about a finished poetic work, because the finished embodiment of a poetic work includes reading, without a reader it is only half a work. Poetry does not feed on the language of mathematics, physics and any other science, because these are understandable languages, but not living ones. Nobody sings with mathematical formulas. Of course, scientific definitions can be used in poetic texts, for example, they were brilliantly used by Lautréamont, but in this case there is a transformation, a change of sign: a scientific formula ceases to prove anything, rather it destroys the proof. Humor is the greatest poetic weapon.
By creating the language of European nations, epics and legends contributed to the creation of the nations themselves. They created them in the deepest sense of the word, for they provided nations with the opportunity to realize themselves. Indeed, thanks to poetry, everyday language was transformed into mythological images, and these images became archetypes. Roland, Sid, Arthur, Lancelot, Parsifal are heroes, images. With certain, albeit significant, reservations, the same can be said about epic works, whose birth coincides with the birth of bourgeois society - about novels. Of course, in our time, unlike in past times, the poet is a marginal figure. Poetry is such a food that the bourgeoisie cannot digest. Therefore, they try to tame poetry again and again. But as soon as a poet or some poetic trend gives in and agrees to return to the general system, every time a new work appears, which, often unwittingly, gives rise to confusion and provokes a scandal. Contemporary poetry is the bread of dissidents and outcasts. In a split society, poetry is always in revolt. But even in this extreme case, the blood connection of the language with the poetic work is not broken. The language of a poet is always the language of his community, whatever that community may be. They play one game, they are like a system of communicating vessels. Mallarmé's language is the language of the initiates. Readers of modern poetry are like conspirators or members of a secret society. But the most characteristic feature of our days is the loss of balance, which was preserved in half throughout the entire 19th century. Poetry for a narrow circle comes to an end, because the pressure is too great: the language is getting thinner and thinner day by day under the influence of newspaper clichés and professional jargon, while at the other extreme it is diligently destroying a work of poetry. We have come to the end of the path that we embarked on at the dawn of an era.
Many modern poets, wishing to break through the wall of misunderstanding, tried to find the lost listener and went to the people. Only now there are no more people. And then there are the organized masses. And “going to the people” means taking a place among the “organizers” of these masses. This is how the poet becomes a functionary. This transformation is always amazing. Poets of the past have been priests and prophets, lords and rebels, fools and saints, servants and beggars. But only the bureaucratic state managed to turn the poet into a high-ranking official of the "cultural front". They found a "place" in society for the poet. And poetry?
Poetry lives in the deepest layers of being, while ideology and what we call ideas and opinions lives on the very surface of consciousness. A poetic work feeds on the living language of society, its myths, its passions and dreams, in other words, it draws from the deepest underground waters. The people create the poem, because the poet clues to the springs of the language and drinks from the original source. The poem reveals to society the foundations of its own being, its primordial word. Having uttered this primordial word, man creates himself. Achilles and Odysseus are not just two heroic characters, they are the lot of the Greek people, who create themselves. A poetic work is a mediator between society and its foundation. Without Homer, the Greek people would not have become what they have become. The poem reveals to us what we are and invites us to become what we are.
Modern political parties turn the poet into a propagandist and thus spoil him. The propagandist sows the ideas of those in power among the "masses". Its task is to convey the directives of the top to the bottom. In this case, the possibilities of interpretation are very small, it is known that any deviation, even involuntary, is unsafe. Meanwhile, the poet moves in the opposite direction: from the bottom up, from the language of the community to the language of the poetic work. After which the work returns to its origins, to the language. The poet's connection with the people is direct and organic. Nowadays, everything resists this process of continuous co-creation. The people are divided into classes and layers, so that later they are petrified in blocks. Language becomes a system of formulas. Communication channels are clogged with rubbish, the poet is left without a language on which he is used to relying, and the people without images in which he could recognize himself. And we must face the truth: if a poet refuses to be exiled - and only this is a genuine rebellion - he refuses both poetry and the hope of transforming exile into complicity. Because the propagandist and his audience doubly do not hear each other: the propagandist thinks that he speaks in the language of the people, and the people think that they are listening to the language of poetry. Loneliness calling out from the rostrum is final and irrevocable. It is precisely this that is hopeless and hopeless, and not at all the loneliness of the one who alone with himself is fighting for a word intelligible to everyone.
There are poets who believe that some elementary manipulations with the word are enough - and a harmonious understanding will be established between the poetic work and the language of the community. And so some turn to folklore, while others - to local dialects. But folklore, which can still be found in museums and in the outback, has ceased to be a language for hundreds of years, it is either a curiosity or a longing for the past. As for the disheveled urban jargon, this is not a language, but scraps of something once coherent and harmonious. Urban speech turns to stone in stable expressions, sharing the fate of folk art put on the conveyor, and at the same time the fate of a person who has been transformed from a personality into a mass person. The exploitation of folklore, the use of local dialects, the introduction of deliberately antipoetic, prosaic passages into a very complete text - all these are literary means from the same arsenal as the artificial dialects used by the poets of the past. In all these cases, we are talking about such typical techniques of so-called elite poetry, such as landscapes by the English metaphysical poets, references to mythology by the poets of the Renaissance, or bursts of laughter by Lautréamont and Jarry. These foreign inclusions emphasize the reliability of everything else, they are used for the same purpose as non-traditional materials in painting. It is no coincidence that "The Waste Lands" was compared to a collage. The same can be said about some of Apollinaire's things. All this gives a poetic effect, but this does not make the work more understandable. Because understanding is not related to this: understanding is based on shared values and language. In our time, the poet does not speak the language of his community and does not share the values of modern civilization. Therefore, poetry cannot escape either loneliness or rebellion, unless both society and the person himself change. The modern poet creates only for individuals and small groups. Perhaps this is the reason for his current success and the guarantee of the future.
Historians argue that periods of stagnation and crisis automatically give birth to decadent poetry. And hermetic, sophisticated poetry designed for a few is condemned. On the contrary, periods of historical upsurge are characterized by full-fledged art, accessible to the entire society. If a poem is written in a language accessible to all, we have mature art. Clear art is great art. For a few, dark art is a decadent art. This opposition is expressed by the corresponding pairs of adjectives: humanistic art - dehumanized, folk art - elite, classical - romantic or baroque. And almost always the heyday coincides with the political or military successes of the nation. As soon as nations get themselves huge armies with invincible commanders, great poets are born to them. Meanwhile, other historians assure that this poetic greatness is born a little earlier, when the military is just getting teeth, or a little later, when the grandchildren of the conquerors deal with the loot. Fascinated by this idea, they form radiant and twilight couples: on the one hand, Racine and Louis XIV, Garcilaso and Charles V, Elizabeth and Shakespeare, on the other, Louis de Gongora and Philip IV, Lycophron and Ptolemy Philadelphus.
As for darkness and incomprehensibility, it should be said that any poetic work initially presents a certain difficulty, creativity is always a struggle against inertia and conventional formulas. Aeschylus was accused of darkness, Euripides was disliked by his contemporaries and considered incomprehensible, Garcilaso was called a stranger and a cosmopolitan. The romantics were accused of hermeticism and decadence. The "modernists" were subjected to the same attacks. But the difficulty of any work lies in the fact that it is new. Outside the usual context, arranged according to different rules than in colloquial speech, words resist and irritate. Any new creation gives rise to bewilderment. Poetic pleasure can be obtained only by coping with some difficulties, with the very difficulties that arise in the process of creativity. Reading presupposes co-creation, the reader reproduces the poet's emotional movements. On the other hand, almost all epochs of crisis and epochs of social decline turned out to be fruitful for great poets. So it was with Gongora and Quevedo, Rimbaud and Lautréamont, Donne and Blake, Melville and Dickinson. If we agree with the historical criterion mentioned above, Poe's work would be a symptom of the decline of the South, and Ruben Dario's poetry would be an expression of a deep depression that gripped Spanish-American society. And what can you do with Leopardi, who lived in the era of fragmentation in Italy, and German romantics in the defeated and surrendered Napoleonic army of Germany? Jewish prophets worked in times of slavery, decay, and decline. Villon and Manrique write during the "autumn of the Middle Ages". And what about the "transitional era" when Dante lived? Spain Charles IV gives Goya. No, poetry is not a cast of history. Their relationship is much subtler and more complicated. Poetry changes, but it doesn't get better or worse. This society can get worse.
In times of crisis, the ties that cement society into an organic whole are weakened and broken. During periods of social fatigue, these ties lose their flexibility. In the first case, society disintegrates, in the second it turns to stone, crushed by the imperial guise. And then semi-official art arises. But the language of sects and small communities is precisely beneficial for poetry. Separation gives words more strength and weight. The language of the initiates is always secret, and, on the contrary, every secret language, including the language of the conspirators, is almost sacred. The difficult poem praises poetry and denounces the wretchedness of history. The figure of Gongora speaks of the health of the Spanish language, and the figure of the Count-Duke of Olivares speaks of the decline of the empire. Social fatigue does not necessarily lead to the downfall of the arts, and the poet's voice does not always fall silent in these times. More often it happens the other way around: poets and their creations are born in solitude. Whenever a great and difficult poet appears or an artistic trend appears that subverts social values, one should think about the fact that maybe this society, and not poetry, suffers from an incurable disease. This disease can be recognized by two signs: society does not have a single language and it does not hear the voice of a lonely singer. The loneliness of the poet is a sign of the degradation of society. Poetry presents its account of history always from the same height. Therefore, complex poets sometimes seem to us more sublime. But this is an optical illusion. They have not become taller, the world around them has become lower.
The poem draws on the language of its community; but what happens to words when they leave the realm of public life and become the words of a poetic work? The philosopher, orator and writer choose words. The first - in accordance with their meanings, the others - depending on the psychological, moral or artistic impact. The poet does not choose words. When they say that a poet is looking for his own language, this does not mean that he is rummaging through libraries or wandering the streets, picking up old phrases and memorizing new ones, this means that he is painfully thinking about which words to choose - those that really are to him belong to and were laid in him from the very beginning, or taken from books and picked up by him on the street. When a poet finds a word, he recognizes it, because it was already in it and he was already in it. The poetic word is fused with its being. He is his word. In the moment of creativity, our innermost depths are permeated with the light of consciousness. Creativity is about bringing out words that are inalienable from our being. These and not others. The poem is composed of essential and irreplaceable words. That is why it is so difficult to correct the work already done. Any correction presupposes re-creation, a return to what we have already gone through, to ourselves. The impossibility of poetic translation is due to the same circumstance. Each word of the poem is unique. There are simply no synonyms. The word cannot be moved from its place: by touching one, you touch the whole work; by changing one comma, you rebuild the whole building. The poem is a living integrity for which there are no spare parts. A real translation cannot be anything other than a co-creation.
The statement that the poet uses only those words that were already in him before does not contradict what was said above about the relationship between a poetic work and ordinary language. It is worth remembering that by nature language is communication. The poet's words are the words of his community, otherwise they would not be words. Every word presupposes two: one who speaks and one who listens. The verbal world of the poem is not the words of the dictionary, but the words of the community. The poet is rich not in dead, but in living words. The poet's own language is the language of the community, clarified and transformed by him. One of the most sublime and difficult poets defines the mission of the poetic work as follows: "To give a distinct meaning to the words of his tribe." And this is true even in the literal sense: the word is returned to its etymological meaning, and thus languages are enriched. A large number of expressions that today seem common and common to us are in fact invented, these are Italianisms, neologisms, Latinisms of Juan de Mena, Garcilaso or Gongora. The poet remakes, transforms and refines the language, and then speaks it. But how does poetry purify words, and what do they mean when they say that not words serve the poet, but the poet serves the words?
In words, phrases, exclamations that burst out in our moments of grief or joy, in any strong experience, language appears only as an expression of affect. Such words and phrases, strictly speaking, cease to serve as a means of communication. Croce notes that they cannot even be called in words, for this they lack a strong-willed and personal principle, while they have an abundance of reflex spontaneity. These are ready-made phrases in which there is nothing personal. One could do without references to the Italian philosopher, because it is already clear that these are not genuine verbal expressions, for authenticity they lack one important thing - to be a means of communication. Every word presupposes an interlocutor. But the only thing that can be said about these phrases and expressions that serve as emotional relaxation is that there is very little or no interlocutor in them. These are crippled words, their listener is cut off.
Translated by Vera Reznik.
Today, fifteen years after I wrote this, I would like to make some clarifications. Thanks to the works of Nikolai Trubetskoy and Roman Yakobson, linguistics was able to describe language as an object, at least at the phonological level. But if linguistics correlated sound with language, as Jacobson himself says (phonology), then it has not yet learned to associate meaning with sound (semantics). And from this point of view, my judgment remains valid. In addition, linguistic discoveries, such as the concept of language as an unconscious system that obeys strict laws that do not depend on us, increasingly turns this science into a central part of the science of man. According to Levi-Strauss, linguistics, as part of the general science of signs, occupies the space between cybernetics and anthropology, etc. probably, it is she who is destined to connect humanitarian and exact knowledge. (Author's note.)
Marschall Urban J. Lenguaje y realidad. Mexico, 1952.
Today I would not draw such a sharp line between human and animal communication. Of course, there is a gap between them, but both are part of the communicative universe that poets have always envisioned when they talked about the universal correspondence of phenomena, and which cybernetics is now dealing with. ( Note. the author.)
"Barren Land" ( English.).
Now, I've been sitting on Gotps3 for almost a year, and I almost never unsubscribed, read myself the news, read who trolls whom, who sends whom. But recently I got carried away with writing an essay. At first glance, everything is easy, but it was not there - everything is much more complicated. I would like to post the most successful of the first works.
Essay about language
In our daily life, we constantly use it, whether it is part of the body or culture. Why, you ask. But, unfortunately, no one can give an unambiguous answer to this question. From early childhood we begin to use it, although we are not yet fully aware of what we are doing and why. Be it the first "mom" or some kind of "budyakabra", the child is already beginning to use the language.
Each culture, from the Alayambda tribe living somewhere in the vastness of Africa, and ending with any developed country (Switzerland, for example), has its own language or spoken dialect, since it is considered a direct part of the nationality and original culture. All languages are different, but there are very similar words, for example: "mama" in Russian and "mama" in English do not differ much. And such coincidences can be seen in many languages, which speaks of their similar origin, but it can speak not only of the fact that we descended from one species of monkeys, but also that people were once not separated as they are now by the borders of states, at the helm of which are politicians who often think more about their own benefit, and not about the prosperity of the state and the people being satisfied with the way they live. To talk about a state in which everyone would be happy with what they have and how they “have” is nothing more than dreaming. This is a utopia that a modern person will probably never achieve. Okay, let's get back to the language, otherwise we somehow got distracted by politics.
If you ask a biologist what language is, he will undoubtedly answer: “Language is a special organ of the human body that allows a person to distinguish between sour, sweet, salty and peppery; complements the rest of the senses; language allows a person to make articulate sounds; thanks to the tongue, we can taste the food being consumed ... ”and further in the same spirit. In fact, these words fully convey the true purpose of the language. In principle, many can limit themselves to this, but if you dig a little deeper ...
For example, a not very sensible boy wanted to lick a lamppost in winter and ... froze, as it would not be surprising for him. After long attempts to separate his frozen tongue from the pillar, he finally succeeds. This, it seems, a simple trick taught the little boy many things: not to touch iron objects with your tongue in the cold, not to swear in the street, thus expressing your emotions after freeing your tongue from the frosty shackles, when a police squad passes by. It is possible that after this story the little boy will read in an encyclopedia or somewhere else about the properties of wet objects to freeze to cold ones. Thanks to his stupidity and his language, the boy learned a lot for himself.
If we talk about older people, then the language can greatly diversify the love games of lovers, which will give them both unthinkable pleasure. The partner will always appreciate the tenderness and affection with which this is usually done. By the way, about tenderness and affection: examples of the use of language can be seen in the animal kingdom, when a mother cat diligently licks her kittens. On the one hand, she diligently washes them so that her kids get used to cleanliness, and on the other, she shows how much she loves and values them. But the love of animals is not limited to their fellow-creatures: for example, a faithful dog always tries to lick the hands and face of its beloved owner, because for a dog there is no one more important than the owner in the world.
Summing up, we can say that over all the millennia, while modern man was forming, our language has constantly evolved, both the one that is in our mouths and the one that is everywhere around us, which we can see, hear, some just feel with his fingertips. Today, we can say with confidence that if there was no language, exactly as it is now, then there would not be a person as such, and not only because we could not share emotions and experiences with each other, communicate, but because we could not convey to a person what we saw, but this person does not, or simply does not have the opportunity to see (experience). Thanks to the language, we can communicate, tell people how we love them, let the dog express its incomparable feelings for us, say how we hate someone, or send someone to hell - all this makes us by who we are. Thanks to the language, we can literally see our own story, which was invented by the author, be it Shakespeare or J.K. Rowling. If in our time it is simple to remove the language from the life of a person, then he, a person, simply will not be able to function and will turn into a biological object closed in himself, more or less intelligent, but absolutely useless.
