En
Register Log in
  1. Main
  2. Journal "Ethnic culture"
  3. No 3 (4)
  4. Dependency Between Grammatical Structure of Langua...

Dependency Between Grammatical Structure of Language and Verbal Thinking Strategies

Research Article
EDN: JEJMYM DOI: 10.31483/r-86032
Open Access
International academic journal «Ethnic Culture»
Creative commons logo
Published in:
International academic journal «Ethnic Culture»
Author:
Ekaterina V. Savitskaya 1
Work direction:
Problems of Crosslinguistic and Intercultural Communication
Pages:
35-39
Received: 16 July 2020

Rating:
Article accesses:
3159
Published in:
doaj РИНЦ
1 Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education
For citation:
Savitskaya E. V. (2020). Dependency Between Grammatical Structure of Language and Verbal Thinking Strategies. Ethnic Culture, 35-39. EDN: JEJMYM. https://doi.org/10.31483/r-86032
UDC 130.121.4

Abstract

The article contains a discussion of how the grammatical structure of a language determines sentence structure and affects verbal thinking strategy. The stages of languages’ historic development (incorporative, ergative, nominative) and the relationship between sentence structure and native speakers’ thinking are characterized. The common case of the grammatical subject of a sentence does mean that Anglo-Saxons regard themselves as their own fortune’s active makers and masters. The common case equally expresses success and failure, activity and passivity, self-will and conformity. Nowadays, languages of all the three types coexist on the Globe. The languages of the first two types are used not only by primitive peoples but also by civilized nations. But this does not mean that civilized speakers think archaically. Methods and conclusions. Contrastive analysis of language material (English personal and Russian impersonal morphosyntactic constructions) enables the author to conclude: there is no direct correlation between national character and sentence structure. The connection between thinking and grammar does not consist in this; it consists in the choice of thinking strategies based on the grammatical potential of the language under discussion.

References

  1. 1. Wierzbicka, A. (1992). The Semantics of Grammar., 32. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences.
  2. 2. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Russian Language. A. Wierzbicka. Yazyk. Kul'tura. Poznanie, 33-88. Moscow: Russkie slovari.
  3. 3. W. von Humboldt (1984). On the comparative study of language and its relation to the different periods of language development. W. von Humboldt. Izbrannye trudy po yazykoznaniju [Selected works on linguistics], 307-354. Moscow: Progress.
  4. 4. Losev, A. F. (1982). On types of grammatical sentences in connection with the history of thinking. Losev A.F. Sign. Symbol. Myth. Works on linguistics., 280-407. Moscow: Moscow State University.
  5. 5. Okkam, U. (2002). Sushchee, sushchnost' i sushchestvovanie. U. Okkam. Izbrannoe, 136-144. Moscow: Editorial URSS.
  6. 6. Ter-Minasova, S. G. (2000). Language and Intercultural Communication., 146. Moscow: Slovo.
  7. 7. Fillmore, C. (1981). The case for case. Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike, Vol. X, 369-495. Moscow: Progress.
  8. 8. Fillmore, C. (1981). Delo o padezhe otkryvaetsia vnov'. Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike, Vol. X. 496-530. Moscow: Progress.
  9. 9. Chernavskaya, Yu. V. (2000). Narodnaya kul'tura i natsional'nye traditsii., 421. Minsk: Belarus'.
  10. 10. Deutschbein, M. (1953). Grammatik der Englischen Sprache auf Wissenschaftlicher Grundlage., 264. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer.
  11. 11. Goddard, C. (2002). Meaning and Universal Grammar – Theory and Empirical Findings., 337. Amsterdam. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  12. 12. Gruber, J. S. (1970). Studies in Lexical Relations., 224. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  13. 13. Jump, Sh. (2014). The Sweetheart Rules., 304. N.Y.: Berkley Publishers.

Comments(0)

When adding a comment stipulate:
  • the relevance of the published material;
  • general estimation (originality and relevance of the topic, completeness, depth, comprehensiveness of topic disclosure, consistency, coherence, evidence, structural ordering, nature and the accuracy of the examples, illustrative material, the credibility of the conclusions;
  • disadvantages, shortcomings;
  • questions and wishes to author.