Skip to content

ON THE ISSUE OF THE METHODOLOGY OF O. O. POTEBNIA’S RESEARCHES

Volodymyr Glushchenko pdf
State Institution “Donbass State Pedagogical University”
E-mail: sdpunauka@ukr.net
ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000–0001–5545–7452
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24195/2616-5317-2019-28-3


Keywords: historic and phonetic works, genetic ties between languages, phonetic law, analogy.


The main goal of the presented article is the analysis of M. M. Sokolov’s methodological conclusions about O. O. Potebnia’s scientific legacy from the point of view of their objectivity and faithfulness, particularly, to what extent the true achievements and drawbacks of O. O. Potebnia’s historic and phonetic works have been rendered. The tasks of the research included the following: to explain the meaning of M. M. Sokolov’s statements concerning the interpretation of O. O. Potebnia’s views on the genetic ties between languages, the phonetic laws and analogy. There has been also made an attempt to assess M. M. Sokolov’s definitions from the point of view of modern methodology, linguistic historiography and comparative linguistics. In our opinion, the suggested by M. M. Sokolov critical review of O. O. Potebnia’s views on the genetic ties between the languages, the phonetic laws and analogy is one-sided and simplified. The findings of the research have proved that the interconnection between the East-Slavic and Old Slavonic languages was described in O. O. Potebnia’s works from the point of view of the comparative historic method. O. O. Potebnia studied the interconnected phonetic laws which in his interpretation were postulated as exact, true not only for separate sounds but also their features (the conception of the “qualitative consonant shifts”). The critical review of M. M. Sokolov ’s judgments was predetermined by the fact that the scholar treated O. O. Potebnia’s historic and phonetic legacy not from the point of view of historical linguistics but according to “the assimilation of the past”. The theses postulated by M. M. Sokolov didn’t reflect the views of other representatives of Moscow linguistic school. The perspective of the further research is seen in the more detailed study of O. O. Potebnia’s scientific legacy as well as views of other representatives of Kharkiv linguistic school in the context of the linguistics of XIX cent. — early XXІ cent.


REFERENCES

1. Belorussov I. M. Sintaksis russkogo yazyka v issledovaniyah A. A. Potebni. Orel, 1902. 258, HII s.
2. Berezin F. M. Russkoe yazykoznanie konca XIX — nachala XX v. / otv. red. F. P. Filin. M. : Nauka, 1976. 366 c.
3. Bulahovskij L. A. Potebnya-lingvist. Uch. zap. Mosk. un-ta. 1946. Vyp. 107. T. 3. Kn. 2. S. 36–62.
4. Glushchenko V. A. Metodologіya doslіdzhen’ O. O. Potebnі v іnterpretacії M. M. Sokolova. Naukovі pracі : naukovo-metodichnij zhurnal. T. 221. Vip. 209. Fіlologіya. Movoznavstvo. Mikolaїv : Vid-vo CHDU іm. Petra Mogili, 2014. S. 16–19.
5. Glushchenko V. A. Principi porіvnyal’no-іstorichnogo doslіdzhennya v ukraїns’komu і rosіjs’komu movoznavstvі (70-і rr. HіH st. — 20-і rr. HKH st.) / NAN Ukraїni, іn-t movoznavstva іm. O. O. Potebnі ; vіdp. red. O. B. Tkachenko. Donec’k, 1998. 222 s.
6. Glushchenko V. A. Sistematizacіya іstoriko-fonetichnogo materіalu v studіyah O. O. Potebnі. O. O. Potebnya j aktual’nі pitannya movi ta kul’turi : zb. nauk. prac’ / vіdp. red. V. YU. Franchuk. K. : Vidavnichij dіm Dmitra Burago, 2004. S. 173–180.
7. ZHiteckij P. I. Ocherk zvukovoj istorii malorusskogo narechiya. K., 1876. IV, 376 s.
8. Kolesov V. V. Sravnitel’no-istoricheskij metod v trudah A. A. Potebni. Naukova spadshchina O. O. Potebnі і suchasna fіlologіya. Do 150-rіchchya z dnya narodzhennya O. O. Potebnі : zb. nauk. prac’ / vіdp. red. V. YU. Franchuk. K. : Nauk. dumka, 1985. S. 25–39.
9. Kolosov M. A. Obzor zvukovyh i formal’nyh osobennostej narodnogo russkogo yazyka / M. A. Kolosov. Varshava, 1878. X, 270 s.
10. Kolosov M. A. Ocherk istorii zvukov i form russkogo yazyka s XI po HVI stoletie / M. A. Kolosov. Varshava, 1872. 192 s.
11. Potebnya A. A. Dva issledovaniya o zvukah russkogo yazyka: і. O polnoglasii, іі. O zvukovyh osobennostyah russkih narechij. — Voronezh, 1866. — 156, ііі s.
12. Potebnya A. A. K istorii zvukov russkogo yazyka : etimologicheskie i drugie zametki. Varshava, 1880. CH. 2. II, 31, 70, 25 s.
13. Sokolov N. N. [Rec. :] Sintaksis russkogo yazyka v issledovaniyah Potebni : izlozhil I. Belorussov. Orel, 1902. Izv. Otd-niya rus. yaz. i slovesnosti. 1903. T. 8. Kn. 2. S. 347–366.
14. Fasmer M. Etimologicheskij slovar’ russkogo yazyka : v 4-h t. Izd. 2-e. M. : Progress, 1986. T. 2. 672 s.
15. Fortunatov F. F. Russkij filologicheskij vestnik. 1879 g. № 1-j ([Rec. :] Potebnya A. A. Etimologicheskie zametki. Nachal’nye sochetaniya ly-, ry-, lu-, ru- = osnovnym *al, *ar). Kriticheskoe obozrenie. 1879. № 7. S. 33–35.
16. Franchuk V. YU. O. O. SHahmatov і naukova spadshchina O. O. Potebnі. Movoznavstvo. 1974. № 3. S. 36–44.
17. Franchuk V. YU. Oleksandr Opanasovich Potebnya. K. : Nauk. dumka, 1975. 92 s.