Article.
Оксана Просяник УДК 81-116.2 METHODOLOGY OF FUNCTIONAL PRAGMATISM
AS THE MERGE OF ANTROPOCENTRISM AND RELATIONISMUS У статті
зосереджено увагу на вивченні методології функціонального прагматизму, що
розуміється як поєднання антропоцентризму і реляціонізму. Розуміння
світу як об'єкта людського досвіду, людського досвіду – як інформації (і
навпаки), а також розуміння інформації як відношення є ключовими положеннями
описуваної методології. Ключові слова: концепція, антропоцентризм, реляціонізм, прагматизм,
мова, мовлення, мовна діяльність. Problem statement in general terms and its connection to significant
scientific and practical aims. Fundamentally the methodology of functional pragmatism (which we are
using in our work) consists of two main ideas of ontological nature and one
purely epistemic idea which originates as a logical outcome from the above two
ideas. We are talking about anthropocentrism and relationalism as essential
fundamental interpretation of perception object and about pragmatism as the
main pragmatist principle of the actual perception process and evaluation of its
results. The author of the article relies on analysis of the most recent research
and publications where resolution of this problem has been attempted. The basic principles of functional pragmatism
concept were developed by the group of Ukrainian, Polish and Russian liguists:
O. V. Leschyak, V. I. Zaika, M. S. Labuschyuk, Y. L. Sytko, M. Król, M. Kowalski and others on the basis of
philosophical viewpoints of I. Kant, G. Tarde, W. James,
L. Vygotsky, E. Cassirer, M. Mamardashvili, and also solely
linguistic concepts of the language activity by
J. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. de Saussure,
V. Mathesius, M. Dokulil and I. S. Toroptsev. Our interest
towards the above linguistic school is based on the fact that all of the above
scientists have developed their methodological views first of all based on the
work of F. de Saussure. The
idea of anthropocentrism is
confined in acknowledging the object of linguistics as the informational being
that lives solely in one’s consciousness (mind). Such a view is consistently contradistinguished
by both: purely physiological and materialistic concepts of language and speech
as energy-material phenomena (e.g. sound stream of graphic traces or
physiological sensations), and: solely metaphysical concepts that hypostatize
the language and the speech and consider these functions to be independent
entities from the human consciousness – as an independently existent
informational system, in a way spiritual being, e.g. so called “the spirit of
the nation”. As stated by O. Leschyak, “if a linguist stands only on
anthropocentist views”, then he or she “does not consider the language to be
elsewhere apart from the mind or consciousness of a human being” (“Study On
Functional Pragmatism” 57). The same thought can be found with Polish linguist M. Kowalski:
“functional pragmatism considers the units of existence not to be independently
existent, but exclusively within the subjective experience. Therefore, we are
searching not for the meaning of reality in inself (as it crosses the border of
our experience), but the reality relevant to us” (Kowalski 36-37). Formation of the Article Purpose. Having understood that neither
anthropocentrism nor relationalism are new philosophical-methodological
positions, we have attempted to define both anthropocentrism and relationalism
combined as functional pragmatism. We will go further and will consider the
methodological essence of the above. Main research material with the full
underlying rationale of the research results. As a
full-fledged and valid
doctrine anthropocentrism was incepted by Immanuel Kant. Both Kant’s followers
and scientists of other fields spread this doctrine. According to him, the
ideal (information, and therefore the language) can exist only in the form of a
function of a separate human being’s physiological function. According
to Jan Baudouin de
Courtenay “the Language exists only in individual brain, only in souls, only in
the mind of a human beings who form a language society. A tribal or a national
language is an abstract general idea, created out of numerous existing
individual languages.” (“Language and Languages” 71), following – “The language
changes can only be explained as a physiological and even to some extent
physiological changes. And psychological and physiological life exists only
within an individual human being and not within the society as such. Psychological processes and
physiological changes take place only within individual human beings and never
within the societies. But the fact that these processes take place in a similar
manner within different people means that first of all the lifestyle and the
life conditions may be similar, and secondly – in case of psychological changes
– due to communication
between individuals within the society” (Baudouin de Courtenay “On General
Reasons” 224). One of the founders of functional linguistics Nikolai Trubetskoy
states at the very beginning of his “Foundations of Phonology” : “The language
exists in the consciousness of each member of each language community and is at
the foundation of endless speech activities” (Trubetskoy 6). Russian philosopher Dmitrii
Dubrovsky once noted: “(…) “the content” of a national consciousness only
exists in the form of subjective reality of many people, it consists of the content core formed by combination
of individual consciousness’s (Dubrovsky 177), but “the ideal is immediately
connected only to three types of codes: brain neurodynamic code,
behavioral-expressive (movement activities, change of body language, especially
changes in the eyes’ and facial expressions) and speech code. And only the
first code is fundamental.” (Dubrovsky 133). According to the above we come to
a simple conclusion that the language as an informational system must exist
only in the form of idiolect or language activity of an individual human being,
as only such an activity possesses all these three forms of the existence of an
ideal. The same thought
was supported by a founder of Russian School of Word-Formation Ivan Toroptsev: “As a general
language exists in the form of individual languages, the same way the units of
general language exist in the form of units of individual language” (Toroptsev
53), alongside this “the ideal sides of structural units of a general language”
exist not in some sort of metaphysical space of collective consciousness or
national tradition, but are embodied “in the brain of each language carrier”
(Toroptsev 53). However anthropocentrism should not
be confused with subjective idealism (ontological individualism), because in
this methodological concept a human being is understood at the same time both as functioning “here and now” individual who possesses relating to
species (populational) and ancestral (panhuman) features, and as an invariant
personality with his/her permanent characteristics. O. Leschyak
establishes specifics of anthropological understanding of human experience as
individual-lineal correlation: “Experience (…) is the content of existence. But its
form is a function, e.g. the connection, the active relation. The
experience of an individual does not isolate itself. In terms of a form – the
experience is recognized (in functionalism) by the relation of
psychophysiological empirics to social-cultural reflection, therefore it cannot
be considered to have no relation to both the material world and the world of
interpersonal cultural relations” (“Study On Functional Pragmatism” 66). In the monograph of M. Labaschyuk, the
representative of the Ukrainian-Polish school of functional pragmatism, we find
a similar approach in understanding of the human experience as an
individual-social relation: “Both semiotics of objective-practical activity,
and semiotics of spiritual-abstract activity of a human being are social in
there origins, however semiotics of virtual experience is much more complex and
more complicated to be verified in terms of social relations due to its
abstractedness. One
cannot speak in its totality either about an individual language, or about a
social language. One should note and always remember constant dynamic
relationship (that cannot be eliminated) between an individual language
(idiolect) that is understood as a result of reaction and the display of individual language
capability (individual style) within social speech communication, and the
language of social groups (social dialect) that is considered to be a part of
the same idiolect, that originated and is functioning as a result of speech
communication within the interdependent social combination of separate
interworking idiolects” (Labaschyuk 42) and going forward – “Whole human
experience is twofold – on one hand it is inner world of a separate individual,
his/her own experience, but on the other hand this experience of him/her-self
as a part of nature, and also as a part of human community. Although “my own”
experience is specific, unique and inimitable, every minute “I” receive
confirmation of the fact that it is an experience (on the level of feelings,
behavior, semiotics and even thought) that in many ways matches the experience
of other people” (Labaschyuk 44). V. Zaika sticks to the same view: “the knowledge is accumulated in
the process of daily
living and social functioning, and also in the process of verbal communication,
that is why the most important characteristic apart from implicitness (…) is
the fact that they are generic for the representatives of the same culture”
(Zaika 82). In other words the information (knowledge, meaning) is both social
(in origin and purpose) and psychologically implicit (according to its
anthological nature). Second
principle (as mentioned above) – relationismus (or functionalism) assists in
understanding of both human being and the language experience (as a basic
object of linguistics). This principle is based on understanding of each
occurrence and each entity as a relationship or combinations of relationships
(in other words – relations of relationships). The category of relationship is
the basic formal category of ontology within functional pragmatism. The notion of relationship became a
methodological category thanks to I. Kant and his followers from Magdeburg
and Baden Schools of Neo-Kantianism. For example, Kant says: “Inner definition
of subject matter that appears before us in space {substantia phaenomenon} is nothing but the
relationship and the very subject matter is the combination of relationships themselves” (Kant
251), “the space with all inside of it consists of only formal or real
relationships” (Kant 263) or “all we know about substance is down to
relationships only”. At the same time by Kant the basic ontological relationship
is relationship between the world and the self: “the objects can have dual
relationship towards our ability of perception, and in particular towards
sensuality and reason, and also depending on which ability of perception the
notions refer to. All the above establishes the channels of relationships.
(Kant 248), but “(…) the laws exist not within phenomenon but only in the
relationship to the self which phenomenon are adherent to, because the self has
mind, as well as the occurrences exist not by themselves but only in
relationship to the same self as the self has feelings” (Kant 148). One
of the most prominent followers of Kant Ernst Cassirer dedicated the whole work to the subject, where
he consistently contradistinguished Substantialism (ontology of objects –
physical or spiritual) to Relationalismus (ontology of relationships): “What is
and what a certain idea means – can only be established when we consider this
as a carrier and the starting point of certain assertions, as a combination of
possible relationships. The notions are identical if they can be swapped within
the same statements” (Cassirer 49), which means that “we will never be able to
cognize the objects for what they really are, but we will always cognize them
from the perspective of a relationship within which they exist, and we will
only be able to acknowledge them within their change and relationship of their
existence.” (Cassirer 395). Therefore, concludes
E. Cassirer, “we can come to a category of an object only through the
category of relationship” (Cassirer 396). The idea of relationship as the
foundation of understanding of the objects is transferred to the self. Within
the same work we read: “The thought about “I” is not more original and is not
more logically straightforward than the thought about the self, because the
both exist only together and can develop only in constant interrelation between
one another. No content can be known or felt as subjective without being
opposed to one another which seems objective” (Cassirer 382). Mikhail
Labaschyuk note the same: “Object and the self do not exist on their own, but
they are absorbed by practical and social-communicative activity that is
determined by social and cultural-historical relationship between object and
the self, which suggests the possibility of change of both antology and
epistemics of the subject and the self” (Labaschyuk 41). The same thing is metioned by
Y. Syt’ko: “At every moment of activity, in each speech-thought act a
human being is in the state of fulfilling the function or role play, but at the
same time a human being does not stop being potentially ready for conducting of
other functions and roles. Therefore, the consciousness is a function of the
relationship between the self and the world” (Syt’ko 7). The understanding of
the world as an object of a human experience, and the human experience as the
information (and vice versa), and also understaning of the information as the
relationship – are all the key statements of the described methodology. As
noted by D. I. Dubrovsky, “information is always a relationship
between one to another, is a function of representation of one to another” (Dubrovsky
135). Relationalism
is not some kind of unique variety of methodology within the philological
field. At first it was part of functional linguistics and literary studies
(OPOYAZ, Prague School, Kazan School), but later on it was picked up by onomasiology, pragmatic
functionalism, and even by discourse study and narrative study” (Jennet). Stability and hierarchy of relationships allow seeing the sign of
functionality, effectiveness and pragmatism within relationships of
relationships. Stability of informational relationships can be regarded as
functions, and the combination of functions – as experience and activity. As fairly
noted by O. Leschyak, “function in the function research is not the
subjectal area of knowledge (as functioning), and is not one of the
characteristics of research object (its role within the acts of functioning or
the system). […] Function here is the central methodological idea, the means of
object representation, the character and the form of its being. In terms of
generalization – the function idea in functionalism can only be compared to the
understanding of experience as onthological-existential characteristics of self
(“About a problem of function understanding” 251). According to the opinion of
Polish researcher M. Król “by analisying the idea of functionalism, one
should pay attention to two facts: firstly, functionalism should be looked at
from the perspective of its functionality and not its objective essense, and
secondly and the most importantly the understanding of objects as different
types of functions” (Król 98). Cassirer noted that the understanding of
ontological objects has got nothing to do with subjectivism because Kantian
relationism (functionalism) talks not about the world as it is but about the
way we people perceive it: “Statement that the existence is the product of
thinking does not point to physical or metaphysical casual relation, but only
means solely functional hierarchic relationship in terms of significance of
certain assertions” (Cassirer 385). According to Labaschyuk, “Ontological and gnosiological category of “functional binding” (functional
connections of sides of relationship) is confirmed to be both the reason
(ontodiochronically – in relations to individual development) and the
consequence (idiosincronically – in relations to pragmatics of language
activity)” (Labaschyuk 183). O. Leschyak writes about the same dual functional
nature of human experience and the world (as an object of human experience):
“on one hand, experience of an individual human being is the main condition for
oneness of the world, but on the other hand, - this is only a function of
interrelation with the world of nature and the world of ideas (e.g. the world
of other people). The world as we know it, as we feel it, think it, experience
it – is the world of our experience: if this is a possible experience – we can
talk about the nature, and if this is not a possible experience – we can talk
about ideas or supernatural events. However, we know (see, feel, experience) ourselves indirectly –
via different people who taught us and continue teaching us to understand the
world, think, feel and experience this way and not the other” (“Ontological
foundations of functional pragmatism “200). M. Kowalski adheres to the
same concept: “(..) every single experience is at the same time a social
experience (social-cultural). Such dualism and interdependence should be
stressed as they are connected to the notion of activity that is defined as the
human experience existence. So if experience can manifest as an inner and
outward social process, then the human activity can be both individual and
social” (Kowalski 45). The basis of relationism
(functionality) allows to cross the border, first
of all, of the individual unicity of human self (as every informational function such as language,
is understood as a social interpersonal convention), and secondly, it crosses
the border of restricted situational experience (because every informational
function is understood as active working function, as the relationship between
the previous intention / reason and following outcome). That is exactly why the
key object of language study in functional pragmatism is not the language or
speech but whole language experience / language activity of social human
personality. Activity
is one of the key notions
of functional pragmatism. Referring to the Prague linguistic works: “Being a
product of human activity, the language together with its activity takes
principal direction (…) the language is a system of expression forms that serve
a certain purpose” (“Travaux du Cercle Linguistique” 7), “A word observed from
the functional point of view forms the result of nominal lingual activity that
sometimes inseparably connected to syntagmatic activity” (Ibid 11), and also
“One should distinguish the inner language activity and overt language
activity. This matter for most of speaking people is a one off event, because
lingual forms are more often used in thought rather than while speaking” (Ibid
14). The conclusion of the above research and the
prospects for future research. The pragmatics of research is the logical outcome of application of the
basics of anthropocentrism and relationismus, e.g. the concept of activity /
experience towards the procedures of epistemology. In other words the
dependency of research procedures on the needs (intentions) and the
possibilities (capabilities) of a human being (as self of perception activity)
and the researcher as the representative of a certain school, trend, the
carrier of a certain scientific-methodological worldview. Let us refer once
again to the work of O. Leschyak “Philosophical basis of functionalism can
be a concept called humanistic pragmatism. Function as a form of experience can be
perceived only within the relationship towards the needs of human experience –
pragmatically. And as function, that is considered through the prism of
activity notion, is defined as a central formational notion within this type of
methodology, it covers all aspects of activity: self, object, information, the
means and activities” (“On Functional Pragmatism” 66). According to pragmatics
basics the target dispositions
are decisive for every aspect of human activity including lingual-semiotic.
Ukrainian narratologist I. Papusha
says, that “in fact the pragmatics disposition of a creator-recipient
determines both syntax characteristics and semantics specifics of the
narrative” (Papusha 98). Methodological
relativism and pluralism become obligatory
conditions of pragmatic understanding of linguistic research. The first means
understanding of total dependency of the theory and the practice of research on
methodology and scientific worldview. The latter assumes the possibility of the parallel
decisions of scientific targets within various methodologies and possible
non-matching results. Therefore we can confirm that functional pragmatism does
not exclude the possibility of parallel coexistence of several linguistics,
which are built upon different methodological principles. None of these
linguistics can claim cognitive completeness or total objectivity of
conclusions and this does not mean that each of them must be inwardly coherent and
cognitively effective. The
conclusions from the above research and the prospects for further research. Based on functional-pragmatic methodological
principles that is “from the perspective of anthropocentrism, relationismus and pragmatic teleology” (Zaika
13), we try to re-interpret the number of points of “traditional”
F. de Saussure, and also to interpret the numerous commentaries to
these points and new unknown texts (published in 2002) of the Swiss linguist
with no commentaries.
References.
References
Baudouin de Courtenay, I. A.
"Ob obschih prichinah yazykovyh izmeneniy (On General Reasons of Language
Changes)".
Izbrannyie trudy po obschemu
yazykoznaniyu (Selected Works on
General Language Studies). Moskva:
Izd-vo AN SSSR,
1963. Т. I. 222-254. Print.
Baudouin de Courtenay, I. A. "Yazyk i yazyki (Language and
Languages)". Izbrannyie trudyi po obschemu yazykoznaniyu (Selected Works on General Language Studies). Moskva: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1963. Т. II. 67-95. Print.
Dubrovskiy,
David. "Problema idealnogo (Problem of Ideal)".
Moskva: Myisl, 1983. Print.
Zhenett, Zherar.
"Povestvovatelniy diskurs (Narrative Discourse)". Figuryi
(Figures). Moskva: Izd-vo im.
Sabashnikovyih, 1998. T. 2. 60-281. Print.
Zaika, Vladimir. Ocherki po teorii hudozhestvennoy rechi (Studies on Literary Speech). Velikiy Novgorod: NGU, 2006. Print.
Kant,
Immanuil. Kritika chistogo razuma (Critique of Pure Reason). Sobr. soch. v 8 tomah. Moskva: Choro,
1994. (SUM
3).Print.
Kassirer,
Ernst. Poznanie i deystvitelnost:
Ponyatie o substantsii i ponyatie o funktsii (Development
of Knowledge and Reality: Understanding of Subject Matter and Function). Spb.: Fond
«Universitetskaya kniga», 1996. Print.
Labaschuk,
Mihail. Dinamika struktury verbalnogo
znaka v ontogeneze (metodologicheskiy vzglyad) (Dynamics
of Structure of Verbal Sign in Ontogeny
(Methodological View). Bielsko-Biała: ATH, 2012.
Leschak,
Oleg. "K probleme ponyatiya funktsii v funktsyonalno-pragmaticheskoy
metodologii (On the Problem of Function Understanding within
Functional-Pragmatic Methodology)".
Rozważania metodologiczne. Język – Literatura – Teatr. Warszawa: Zakład Graficzny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2000.
243-254. Print.
Leschak, Oleg. "Ontologicheskie osnovaniya funktsionalnogo pragmatizma: svyaz – otnoshenie – vzaimnost – akt – sobytie – deyatelnost – opyt" (Ontological Basis for Functional Pragmatism: connection – relationship – reciprocity – act – event – activity – experience). Funktsionirovanie russkogo i ukrainskogo yazykov v epohu globalizatsii (Functioning of Russian and
Ukrainian Languages During Age of Globalization
). Simferopol: Dolya, 2003. 200-204.
Print.
Leschak, Oleg. Ocherki po funktsionalnomu pragmatizmu: metodologiya – ontologiya – epistemologiya (Studies
on Functional Pragmatism: Methodology – Ontology – Epistemology). Ternopol-Keltse: PIdruchniki & posIbniki, 2002. Print.
Papusha, Ihor. "Narratyv y zhanr" (Narrative and Genre). Modus ponens. Narysy z naratolohiyi (Modus ponens. Notes on Narrative). Ternopil': Krok, 2013. 87-98. Print.
Sitko, Yuriy. Byitovanie funktsionalno-pragmaticheskoy
metodologii v otechestvennom yazykoznanii 60-h godov XIX veka I-oy poloviny XX
veka (na primere ponyatiya chasti rechi)(Existence of Functional-Pragmatic Methodology in Native Language Studies
of 60-s 19th Century and early 20th Century (based on example of understanding
of part of speech). Sevastopol:
Ribest, 2007. Print.
Toroptsev, Ivan. Yazyk
i rech (Language and Speech).Voronezh: VGU, 1985. Print.
Trubetskoy, Nikolay. Osnovy fonologii (Basics of Phonology). Moskva:
Izd-vo Inostrannoy literaturyi, 1960. Print.
Kowalski, Mateusz. Język
i czas. Studium myśli naukowej Jana Baudouina de Courtenay i Ferdinanda de Saussure’a (Language and Time. Studies
on Scientific Thought by Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and Ferdinand de Saussure). Warszawa:
UKSW, 2016. Print.
Król, Martyna. Typologia homonimii językowej w aspekcie
onomazjologiczno-dyskursywnym (Typology of Language
Homonymy within the Homonymological-Discourse Aspect). Kielce: UJK 2014. Print.
Thèses. Travaux du Cercle
Linguistique de Prague. 1. Mélanges linguistiques (Thesis. The Studies of Prague
Linguistic Circle. 1. Collection of Linguistic Works). Prague,
1929. Print.
Надійшла до редакції 05 березня 2018 року.
|
