M Peshkovsky - an outstanding linguist - about the errors in the methods of teaching the Russian language in schools. A.m. Peshkovsky - an outstanding linguist - about the errors in the methods of teaching the Russian language in schools Department of German Philology

students were placed in the position of independent researchers, discovering
teachers of grammatical laws and were freed from memorizing ready-made determiners
divisions, rules and terms from the textbook. The method of observing language is used
led to a great loss of time and vagueness of knowledge, thereby causing
detrimental to the development of students’ practical skills, and therefore it is rejected
got busy at school; before many others realized his shortcomings A, M. Pesh-
Kovsky, although he himself had previously used it in his educational book “Our Language”.
Page IZ, etc. Under the neo-grammatical school, neo-grammar there is
in view of the direction that sought to bring together the school study of grammar
with science, to overcome the traditional confusion of grammar with logic and psychology
chology. Sometimes, to denote the same concept, A. M. Peshkovsky uses
is called new grammar.
Page 118. By GUS programs we mean school programs,
approved by the State Scientific Council of the People's Commissariat
education of the RSFSR.
Page 119. The author refers to his article “Spelling and Grammar
in their relationships at school”, posted here, see page 63.
Page 121. The author refers to his article “Objective and normative
point of view on language”, placed here, see page 50.
Page 129. The Latin expression ad hoc is used to mean “by the way”,
"for this case."
To the article “Does composition and subordination exist in the Russian language?
proposals?
The article was first published in the magazine “Native Language at School”, 1926,
No. 11-12, and then in the collection of articles by A. M. Peshkovsky “Issues of methodology
native language, linguistics and stylistics", 1930. Reproduced here from
text of the collection.
Page 134 and others. Acad. A. A Shakhmatov (1864-1920) - outstanding
linguist and historian of ancient Russian culture. Issues of morphology and syn-
taxis of the modern Russian literary language are devoted to its fundamental
mental works: “Essay on the modern Russian literary language”
(first edition 1913, fourth 1941), and “Syntax of the Russian language”
(first, posthumous edition, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, L., 1925-
1927; second edition, Uchpedgiz, Leningrad, 1941). In 1952, Uchpedgiz issued
book “From the works of A. A. Shakhmatov on the modern Russian language (Uche-
knowledge about parts of speech)” with an introductory article by academician. V. V. Vinogradova.
Page 137 ID r. D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky (1853-1920 $ -
literary critic and linguist, professor, honorary academician since 1907, student
A. A. Potebni. “Syntax of the Russian language” by D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky,
which A. M. Peshkovsky refers to, was published in 1912 in the second edition.
Page 143, etc. The Latin expression mutatis mutandis is used in
meaning “with a change in what is subject to change”, “with the corresponding
amendment."
To the article “The role of grammar in teaching style”
The article was first published in the magazine “Native Language at School”, 1927,
the first collection, and then in the collection of articles by A. M. Peshkovsky “Issues of me-
Todics of the native language, linguistics and stylistics", 1930. Reproduced
here according to the text of the collection of articles
Page 154. The author refers to his article “Principles and techniques of style”
stical analysis and evaluation of artistic prose”, not included in
“Selected Works” (see A. M. Peshkovsky, Questions of the methodology of native
language, linguistics and stylistics, Gosizdat, M.-L., 1930, p. 133).
Page 154 The author refers to the article by Arnautov and Straten, in response to
which his article “To My Critics” serves.

O. Nikitin

Many articles have been written about Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky (1878-1933), an outstanding linguist and teacher, and his methodological experiments, carried out at the dawn of the “linguistic age,” have long become a philological tradition. Peshkovsky’s legacy, having acquired over the years sometimes bizarre methods, “newspeak” and all kinds of innovations, was not lost, but further established his name in the history of Russian philology. Among the endless hesitations, searches and ideological battles of the beginning of the 20th century, he was able to make his way in science, contrary to the strained “concepts” of some contemporaries and followers, focusing on studying the psychology of word perception, on creating a scientific base of linguistic knowledge in the learning process. His theories were born of conscious experimentation. He was equally good at mastering strict linguistic skills and at the same time had a keen sense of a completely different facet of linguistic creativity - poetry and prose. The views of A. M. Peshkovsky, in some ways, of course, outdated, but thereby showing the ultimate vulnerability of any hypothesis, are actively discussed; the ideas that he developed, as well as the system of classes he created “from sound to meaning”, “from meaning to form” turned out to be in demand today.

Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky was born in Tomsk. Even in his early years (and it seems that no one has noted this until now), he, fascinated by natural science research, simultaneously experienced a largely decisive influence from another - aesthetic environment. A. M. Peshkovsky spent his childhood and youth in Crimea, where in 1897 he graduated from the Feodosia gymnasium with a gold medal and soon entered the natural sciences department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University. There, in Crimea, in 1893, he met the future poet and critic Maximilian Voloshin, which developed into a close friendship. Their extensive correspondence has not yet been published. Here, for example, is Peshkovsky’s confessional letter to Voloshin regarding the issue of “choosing a path,” which we presumably date back to the late 1890s:

“I am beginning to strengthen the opinion that I myself only understand the natural sciences, but do not like them. That I understand them, that it was not difficult for me to assimilate the basic facts and make their sphere a little bit my own, that I am carried away by final conclusions and riddles - you know this. But let's take the other side of the coin. As a child, before entering the gymnasium, I loved only literature. Of the classics, I only read Pushkin and Lermontov - the rest were all from children's literature. (...) In the gymnasium in the 1st grade I I really loved the Latin language, that is, I liked grammar and the process of translation (this, thank God, has disappeared of course). I also liked geography, but it must be added that the teacher was absolutely exceptional in talent and originality. (...) Acting on his own attraction of character, and not reason, I should have actually entered the Faculty of History and Philology. I’ll also explain my thought to you. In the fact that I was interested in poetry, there was no contradiction with natural science, but in the fact that I was interested in More than aesthetically, there was a contradiction. In essence, to be a naturalist, you need to be a cold person, or at least have a special chamber of coldness in the brain. Natural science has a lot in common with “pure” art - distance from one’s neighbor (I’m talking about theoretical natural science - applied natural science is not at all for me, since I am, after all, a theorist). Well, then university, diligent study of sciences - and no attraction to any of them. Finally I settled on zoology - but why? I must confess that in essence this is because zoology is closest to man. Looking closely at the zoologists I know, I am convinced that I essentially do not have a “zoological point” in my brain, so to speak. By this I mean interest in animal forms, a purely organic, causeless interest, which alone motivates a person to follow (as the author says - O.N.) along this path. I come to the conviction that not a single zoologist has ever become one because he was interested in this or that problem; no, he was simply interested in the material and this way he became interested in problems. I don't have this at all. I repeat, biological sciences interest me more than physicochemical sciences, because they are closer to man, zoology is more than botany, because it is closer to man. It is clear, therefore, that the humanities will interest me even more, and that of them I will be interested precisely in those that deal with man himself, that is, with his spiritual abilities. And since I have come to this conclusion, then my intention to specialize in zoology in the coming semester is at full risk of being unfulfilled. A completely different intention takes its place. Instead of studying zoology for the first half of the day all winter and anatomy for the second, as I thought, listen to only one physiology of plants and animals from the natural sciences, which alone remained completely unknown to me from the natural history course, and the rest of the time listen to the humanities sciences from a variety of fields, i.e., in other words, to continue general education on the basis of natural history. This revolution happened just at a time when I had almost calmed down at the thought of specialization, and therefore, you can imagine what confusion there was in my head."1

In 1899, A. M. Peshkovsky was expelled from the university for participating in student unrest. He continues his science education in Berlin; in April 1901, together with M.A. Voloshin, he travels around Brittany; Having returned to Russia in 1901, he returned to the university, but to the Faculty of History and Philology. A year later, he was expelled again “for participating in the student movement”; Peshkovsky goes to prison for six months2. He graduated from his alma mater in 1906, and all of his subsequent activities were related to teaching in high schools and universities3.

Peshkovsky is an atypical philologist in the sense that in the process of strict scientific analysis of texts he did not separate the latter from their creators. And it is probably no coincidence that on the pages of his most voluminous work - “Russian syntax in scientific coverage” (Moscow, 1914) - there are poetic lines by V. Ya. Bryusov, A. A. Blok, F. K. Sologub, excerpts from works of Pushkin, Nekrasov, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, periodicals of the 1920s. He perceived the text not as an empty object of study, but was filled with echoes of names, events, and speech manners of different eras. He knew some of his “authors” personally. We have already written about his friendship with M.A. Voloshin. Another representative of the literature of the Silver Age - V. Ya. Bryusov - also harmoniously entered into the linguistic concept of A. M. Peshkovsky with his poems. Alexander Matveevich presented him with the first edition of “Russian Syntax...”, calling himself in the dedicatory inscription “a zealous reader and admirer” of the poet4. On the pages of the collection “Scroll”, where Peshkovsky published the article “Poetry and Prose from a Linguistic Point of View”, there is also his autograph: “To the dear V. Ya. Bryusov from the author”5.

A. M. Peshkovsky took part in the work of the Moscow Dialectological Commission. So, for example, at one of the meetings in 1915, he read the report “Syntax at School”; on February 6, 1929, together with D. N. Ushakov, N. N. Durnovo, G. A. Ilyinsky and other prominent philologists, he attended the anniversary 189 - meeting of the Commission dedicated to the 25th anniversary of its founding 6.

At the dawn of the 20th century, a new direction arose in philology, turning to the rich experience of the classics and adopting the tradition of living research and expeditionary work, no longer based on isolated “experiments,” but on a strictly substantiated system, the priority of which was the science of specific data (A. M. Selishchev) - linguistics. Here the Moscow Linguistic School and the Moscow Dialectological Commission undoubtedly played a big role. At the same time, they were also the center of philological experimentation, where many individual methods were tested and current problems of school and university teaching were solved. All this, we believe, significantly influenced the formation of the scientific position of A. M. Peshkovsky. Since the 1910s, he has been active in the field of philological education: in 1916-1917 he spoke at the first All-Russian Congress of Secondary School Russian Language Teachers (Moscow) with a report on “The Role of Expressive Reading in Teaching Punctuation Marks”; after the revolution, he taught at the department of comparative linguistics at Dnepropetrovsk (formerly Yekaterinoslav) University (1918), at the Higher Institute of Public Education and other educational institutions; in 1921 he became a professor at the 1st Moscow University and the Higher Literary and Art Institute named after V. Ya. Bryusov; During the same period, he headed the Moscow Standing Commission of Teachers of the Russian Language, participated in the work of special scientific commissions under the People's Commissariat for Education and the Main Science, in various meetings and conferences on methods of teaching the Russian language.

On the other hand, A. M. Peshkovsky remained invariably fascinated by the elements of artistic creativity. During the turbulent 1920s, he took part in a number of high-profile cultural projects. How can one not recall the Nikitin Subbotniks - a literary society that united many talented poets, prose writers, and playwrights. In No. 3 of the collection "Scroll", published by the society, an article by A. M. Peshkovsky was adjacent to publications by L. Grossman, K. Balmont, O. Mandelstam and other famous authors. Here, in a lively creative atmosphere of poetic and stylistic quests, the scientist honed his philological intuition, developed largely paradoxical, “fraught with the future” approaches, no longer relying on the grammatical traditions of the Moscow linguistic school. In communicating with the artistic intelligentsia, he was witty and fresh, with sparkling miniatures fully demonstrating the originality of his linguistic thinking. Here is one of them:

"Dear Evdoxia Fedorovna Nikitina

Cup and tea are only coincidentally consonant, starting with “cha”;

But it is no coincidence that you both found your home.

A. Peshkovsky"7.

We found a certificate of the election of A. M. Peshkovsky in 1925 as a full member of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. In a statement addressed to the chairman of the OLRS on March 8, 1925, he expressed “deep gratitude for the offer made to me,” “agreement to run,” and “desire to work in the Society”8. The mentioned proposal, signed by famous philologists P. N. Sakulin, N. K. Piksanov and others, has also been preserved9.

Since 1926, Peshkovsky taught at the pedagogical faculty of the 2nd Moscow University, at the Editorial and Publishing Institute, at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after V. I. Lenin. In 1928, Moscow scientists nominated him for election as a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the department of literatures and languages of European peoples, noting in their appeal that “A. M. Peshkovsky should be considered a major scientist, the author of outstanding works, combining broad scientific interests with high useful social and pedagogical activities"10. In addition, he writes prefaces to the works of A. Artyushkov “Sound and Verse. Modern studies of the phonetics of Russian verse” (Pg., 1923) and S. Kartsevsky “Repeat course of the Russian language” (M.-L., 1927), and polemicizes a lot in publications on the problems of teaching the Russian language, publishes reviews of books by his colleagues, prepares materials for the “Dictionary of the Language of A. S. Pushkin” and compiles a new spelling dictionary for primary and secondary schools11.

As you can see, most of A. M. Peshkovsky’s life was spent in Moscow. According to the famous Moscow scholar and bibliographer V. Sorokin, at one time he lived in house No. 2 on Rakhmanovsky Lane, in a hotel building, where Maximilian Voloshin stayed with him. It is noteworthy that V. G. Belinsky, who was then working on the book “Foundations of Russian Grammar”12, lived here in the 1830s. In the 1910-1930s, the scientist lived in house No. 35 on Sivtsev Vrazhek (apartment 18). Not far away, in house no. 19, at the beginning of 1912, “the poet M.A. Voloshin stayed”13.

“The main feature of A. M. Peshkovsky was his restless passion, the direction of inquisitive thought towards the new, selfless honesty in the performance of his duty, the desire to bring the greatest benefit to the Motherland. This is what prompted him first, in his student years, to take part in the revolutionary movement, then for a long time to look for his own path in science in order to ultimately settle on philology, then take an ardent part in the construction of the Soviet school and wage an irreconcilable struggle for advanced ideas in linguistics and methods of the Russian language"14.

In his chosen field, Alexander Matveevich was an enthusiast, a pioneer and a great worker. Today, without it, it is impossible to imagine Russian philological culture of the 20th century. The scientific heritage of A. M. Peshkovsky has outlived his time and is now again at the center of linguistic searches and discussions. We now turn to a brief consideration of it.

The first scientific work of A. M. Peshkovsky - “Russian syntax in scientific coverage” (M., 1914) - became a landmark phenomenon in the linguistics of that time and caused a wide resonance. The young scientist made a name for himself with a bright, integral, methodologically thought-out study intended “for self-education and school.” The book received a prize from the Academy of Sciences (1915). As a graduate of Moscow University, Peshkovsky well mastered the traditions of the Fortunatov school and in the preface to the first edition of “Russian Syntax...” he wrote: “The scientific foundation of the book was primarily the university courses of Prof. F. F. Fortunatov and V. K. Porzhezinsky”15. However, he did not limit himself to this. D. N. Ushakov, in a short review of the first works of A. M. Peshkovsky, shows other sources of his linguistic views: “The author, as a scientist, belongs to the Moscow linguistic school, i.e., the school of professor and academician F. Fortunatov, who recently died, but who managed to get acquainted with this book and spoke about it with great praise. The system of Mr. Peshkovsky is mainly based on the ideas of Fortunatov; in addition, he was influenced by the works of Potebnya and Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky. It is natural, first of all, to raise the question of the relationship of the new syntax to the work of this the last scientist. Without going into particulars, let's say that in raising the issue of reforming the teaching of syntax, the Russian school is most indebted to D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky; with his talented coverage of many syntactic phenomena, he also did a lot to resolve this issue, and in the main credit should be given to him for everything that he did on the path of destroying the logical point of view in syntax; but Russian syntax still did not receive a truly grammatical, or - which is the same thing - a truly linguistic appearance in his work. In this respect, Mr. Peshkovsky’s syntax is a major step forward.”16

D. N. Ushakov especially emphasizes the innovation of A. M. Peshkovsky: “Let us note (...) as news for such general works on syntax, paying attention to the intonation and rhythm of speech as external indicators of known syntactic shades”17. It is this property of the scientist’s linguistic temperament that will continue to be invariably present in his works.

"Russian syntax..." appeared in the midst of ideological clashes and conflicts. "Firstly, this is a clash between school and scientific grammar and an attempt to raise the level of theoreticalness of school grammar through more strict definitions of basic grammatical concepts. Secondly, this is a conflict between the historical description of language - the dominant type of scientific description in that era - and the needs of a purely practical teaching a modern language in order to increase the level of literacy of people who speak and write it. Thirdly, this is a conflict between the psychologism of the previous era (A. A. Potebnya) and the formalism of the Fortunatus school of Russian linguistics. Fourthly, this is a conflict between the requirement of Marxist ideologization of all areas of scientific knowledge, at least at the level of mandatory phraseological cliches, and the empirical data of specific science. Fifthly, this is a conflict between the increasing pressure of Marrism and common sense"18.

In the 1920s, when “the danger of a new crisis in grammar”19 became apparent and the formal approach was severely criticized, “Russian Syntax...” again found itself in demand and discussed. “In fairness, it should be noted that some of Fortunatov’s followers (the so-called “ultraformalists”), who understood the specifics of the formal approach to language too straightforwardly and sometimes brought Fortunatov’s ideas to the point of absurdity, gave many reasons for criticism. But the main thing was different: a spontaneous rejection of formal grammatical constructions by practical teachers and methodologists of the Russian language overlapped with the general situation in Soviet science in the first half of the 20th century"20. These circumstances were partly the impetus for Peshkovsky to rework his work and improve the concept, but even in this updated form the book continued to excite the philological consciousness of his contemporaries. Why? The Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences preserved the testimony of D.N. Ushakov, who greatly contributed to its publication: “We must admit that the vast majority of teachers do not realize that the name “formal” is a conditional name, perhaps not entirely successful, giving a reason for the ignorant to think that the so-called "formalists" recommend not paying attention to the meanings of words, to the meaning in general, limiting the study of language to one external form. This is a walking misunderstanding based on the simple-minded understanding of the term "formal" in the common sense of "superficial, external ", it is necessary in the interests of methodological work to dispel. It is necessary to tell teachers how the "formalists" first pointed out the neglect of language when teaching the Russian language at school, in particular, which, however, is very important, they eliminated the existing confusion of language with writing and showed the possibility of giving at school, in addition to skills, scientific information about the language in a form accessible to children"21.

The beginning of the 20th century is a time of revolutions in science, a search for ways to improve linguistic research and go beyond established stereotypes. However, the rich potential of the classical traditions of Russian philology was not completely destroyed. Scientists raised by the academic school (including, of course, A. M. Peshkovsky) actively became involved in “language construction”, trying to introduce the generations of the new Russia to humanistic values. This matter required the creation of new manuals on the Russian language for secondary and higher educational institutions to replace the pre-revolutionary “outdated” ones. A certain imbalance in such conditions turned out to be inevitable: many practical manuals of recognized luminaries: F. I. Buslaeva, J. K. Grota, A. G. remained “overboard” for a long time as “reactionary,” “idealistic,” “unscientific.” Preobrazhensky... In such an atmosphere, A. M. Peshkovsky had to take considerable courage to defend the traditions of the Russian linguistic school, to introduce living, rather than artificial, experiments into teaching, and to promote progressive ideas. Despite the fact that he was obviously far from participating in scientific and ideological disputes and did not join any of the then-current groups, his works and especially “Russian Syntax...” became the object of very harsh criticism. Consider, for example, the extremely biased review by E. F. Budde (1914) or the polemical statements of E. N. Petrova in the book “Grammar in Secondary School” (M., 1936). V.V. Vinogradov assessed “Syntax” negatively and accused the author of “hypertrophy,” “eclecticism,” and “syntactic formalism” (1938 and subsequent years)22. However, the views of A. M. Peshkovsky and other scientists who consistently defended the traditions of the “old” academic practice began to be criticized most sharply in the 1930s, when a campaign against the Linguistic Front group was launched23. The most indicative document of this campaign is a book with a characteristic slogan title: “Against bourgeois smuggling in linguistics” (L., 1932), which contained articles and reports by students and followers of N. Ya. Marr: F. P. Filin, A. K. Borovkov , M.P. Chkhaidze and others. Although their main target was the participants of the “Language Front”, they also hit the adherents of “bourgeois newspaper studies”, “the dilapidated rags of Indo-Europeanism”, and the magazine “Russian Language in the Soviet School”. The name of A. M. Peshkovsky appears more than once among the “smugglers”: he is either branded among the “idealists”, then he is credited with “a cheeky, frenzied butchery of Marxist-Leninist principles in matters of methodology”, or he is accused of “complete disorientation of the teaching masses” and “falsification and distortion of Marxism-Leninism”, then they “work” as one of the editors of “Russian Language in the Soviet School”, calling the journal “an organ of “Indo-European” formalistic linguistics” and inviting the leadership of the People’s Commissariat for Education “to make a class-based organizational conclusion in relation to the editors and the author’s list of the magazine,” which “is used as a mouthpiece for Language Front.” A special term was even invented - “Peshkovshchina”!24

In 1936, after the death of Peshkovsky, E. N. Petrova, analyzing his methodological system and the traditions of the Fortunat school in general, stated that representatives of the latter “declared the form to be the exclusive object of all research on language. The main mistake lies in the one-sided approach to language formalists". Calling A. M. Peshkovsky’s system “anti-scientific,” the author claims that its “program and methodology have nothing in common with the tasks set for the Soviet school on the basis of the Marxist approach to language.” The scientist’s main views are interpreted as follows: “Formalism, the separation of language from thinking, the separation of form from content, the separation of theory and practice, the removal of language science from school, the monopoly of the “research” method.” All this “contradicts the principles of the Soviet school.” As a result, the formal direction is declared “reactionary” and “bourgeois”, but not devoid of originality - and thus even more dangerous: “We must also take into account the wealth of argumentation, the art of external design and the erudition of the formalists, who really knew how to persuade, so now “When reading the same Peshkovsky, it is necessary to exert all vigilance in order to reveal the provisions that expose him”25.

In the second half of the 1940s - the time of the “thaw” in philological science, which was expressed, among other things, in attempts to give an objective assessment of the development of the theory and methodology of linguistics in the Soviet period26 - the discussion flared up with renewed vigor, and again A.M. Peshkovsky. G. P. Serdyuchenko, one of the active participants in the then struggle against “cosmopolitanism” and “chauvinism” in linguistics, published an article in the newspaper “Culture and Life” (June 30, 1949), which spoke about the “irresponsible attitude” of the Ministry of Education and personally Minister A. A. Voznesensky, who did not remove “Russian Language” by V. V. Vinogradov and “Russian Syntax in Scientific Light” from the lists of recommended literature (...) from the “curricula for advanced training courses for language teachers” by A. M. Peshkovsky27. There were, however, other opinions, the presence of which indicated that the original deep ideas of A. M. Peshkovsky organically fit into the general process of development of linguistics. “In the first quarter of the 20th century. in world linguistics there has been a certain tendency to specifically address problems of syntax"28 - and A. M. Peshkovsky was one of the first "navigators" (along with A. A. Shakhmatov and L. V. Shcherba) on the path of systematic comprehension and analysis of the grammatical system .

The same problems, but in a slightly different vein, were discussed in the works of M. M. Bakhtin and his circle of researchers, who polemicized with the “abstract objectivist” A. M. Peshkovsky29. However, in this case, the disputes were already correct, scientific in nature. Indicative here is the book by V. N. Voloshinov “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language” (L., 1929), whose authorship is attributed to M. M. Bakhtin30. However, a detailed presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of the classic work of A. M. Peshkovsky and the linguistic discussion that unfolded around it31, as well as an analysis of studies that continued the tradition of “Russian syntax...”32, is beyond the scope of this article.

In 1914, another famous work by A. M. Peshkovsky was published - “School and scientific grammar (experience of applying scientific and grammatical principles to school practice).” In it, the author clearly identifies the “contradictions between school and scientific grammar”: the first is “not only school, but also unscientific.” For “school grammar lacks a historical point of view on language”; “there is also no purely descriptive point of view, that is, the desire to truthfully and objectively convey the current state of the language”; “when explaining the phenomena of language, school grammar (...) is guided by an outdated teleological point of view, that is, it explains not the causal relationship of facts, but their expediency, answers not the question “why”, but the question “what for””; “in many cases, the falsity of school-grammatical information is explained not by methodological mistakes, but only by backwardness, the traditional repetition of what has already been recognized as incorrect in science”33. And Peshkovsky sought, first of all, “to give an idea to the widest possible strata of the reading public about linguistics as a special science; to reveal the inconsistency of that imaginary knowledge that the reader received at school and in which he usually believes the more firmly, the less consciously he perceived them at the time; (...) eliminate the blatant confusion of the science of language with its practical applications in the field of reading, writing and the study of foreign languages"34.

It is impossible not to mention here the activities of A. M. Peshkovsky in implementing the first lexicographic project of the Soviet era - the publication of an explanatory dictionary of the Russian literary language (the so-called “Leninsky”) in the early 1920s. We have found evidence of the scientist’s direct participation in the preparatory work. Thus, he was involved in the selection of vocabulary and was a letter editor, compiled a card index with his own hands35, and spoke in working discussions. And although the dictionary never appeared, the experience of collaboration with the most prominent philologists of that time (D. N. Ushakov, P. N. Sakulin, A. E. Gruzinsky, N. N. Durnovo, R. O. Shor, A. M. Selishchev and others) in itself turned out to be very important.

In the 1920s, A. M. Peshkovsky prepared interesting articles on grammar and stylistics for the Literary Encyclopedia, published his main articles and notes on the problems of Russian studies, mainly related to teaching the Russian language at school, as well as works on grammar of a scientific nature . The first in this series is the book “Our Language” (Moscow, 1922), which has gone through more than one edition - a systematic course for schools of the first and second levels and workers’ faculties, the main task of which was “to introduce into the consciousness of students a certain, at least minimal, amount of scientific information about the native language (...) without giving any ready-made information, but only by laying out the material in the proper order and guiding, unbeknownst to the student himself, the process of grammatical comprehension of the material"36.

A. M. Peshkovsky published widely in scientific periodicals, including in the magazines “Print and Revolution”, “Native Language at School”, “Russian Language in the Soviet School”, gave notes on issues of school reform, teaching the Russian language, including in schools for the illiterate. In 1925, a collection of his articles “Methodology of the native language, linguistics, stylistics, poetics” was published. Along with grammatical “studies”, Peshkovsky was interested in the language and style of poetry and prose - a branch of philology, where his contribution also turned out to be very significant. There are very few publications on these topics, but they are very expressive, demonstrating a special vision and subtle analysis of literary texts. We are talking about now almost forgotten articles: “Poems and prose from a linguistic point of view” (1925), “Ten thousand sounds (experience of sound characteristics of the Russian language as a basis for euphonic research)” (1925), “Principles and techniques of stylistic analysis and evaluation artistic prose" (1927), "Rhythm of Turgenev's "Prose Poems" (1928). In them, the author freely operates with the concepts of “blagoritmics”, “sound symbolism”, “melody”, discusses the relationship between rhythm and content, sound repetitions and the like, applies methods of mathematical linguistics and structural analysis. He experiments, groping for the threads of verbal secrecy: he moves away from templates, deviates from the normative view of the verbal sign, but paradoxically remains in line with the grammatical aesthetics of his time. One critic even called this approach “a new theory of prose rhythm.” “There is no doubt that this theory seems to be the most interesting attempt to finally determine what the rhythm of prose is, how it is built and how to analyze it”37. What follows is an interesting and fact-rich analysis of the analytical method of A. M. Peshkovsky, where numerous refutations and objections do not at all challenge the main thing - the undoubted originality of the scientist’s views.

A. M. Peshkovsky’s desire to find the key to a systematic analysis of literary texts undoubtedly reflects the influence of M. A. Voloshin. But not only. These works, in addition to the author's collections, were also published in the works of the literary section of the State Academy of Arts Sciences "Ars Poetica I" (1927), in the almanac "Scroll", in the books of the State Institute of Art History "Russian Speech" (1928), which meant active participation in the life of a diverse artistic environment, that is, a breakthrough from a purely methodical world into a different conceptual space, into the element of verbal experiment.

The 1920s were the most productive period in the scientific activity of A. M. Peshkovsky, who expressed and implemented a number of ideas during this period that found practical application in school and university and remained in memory as “a treasure trove of subtle observations on the Russian language”38. There are very few publications by A. M. Peshkovsky in the 1930s, but they are also very indicative. Thus, in 1931 in Prague, in the materials of the Prague Congress of Slavic Philologists (1929), the article “Scientific achievements of Russian educational literature in the field of general issues of syntax” was published. The scientist considers the main achievement to be “the persistent pursuit [by the authors of the textbooks in question] of a certain view of the very nature of grammatical form. This view boils down to the fact that this nature is twofold, external and internal, and that every form is located, so to speak, at the junction of its external and internal sides"39. What follows is an interesting development of the topic taken. There were also works “Reform or Settlement” (1930), “New Principles in Punctuation” (1930), “On the Terms “Methodology” and “Methodology” in the Newest Methodological Literature” (1931). The article “On grammatical analysis” (1934) was published posthumously. As can be seen even from the names, Peshkovsky continued to be interested in problems at the intersection of linguistics and language teaching methods. All of them are of great practical importance. At the same time, the scientist put forward several valuable theoretical ideas that were developed in subsequent decades. These ideas go far beyond the scope of purely syntactic research, having as their subject a wider range of language creation - psychology, philosophy and sociology of linguistics in general, poetics, and the culture of philological construction. It is not for nothing that A. M. Peshkovsky (together with L. V. Shcherba) is called an experimenter in linguistics: “In particular, he considered it important for a linguist to conduct experiments on himself using introspection”40. Here it is appropriate to quote V. G. Kostomarov’s statement about the work of V. V. Vinogradov “The Russian Language (grammatical teaching about the word)”: “The lesson taught by the book “Russian Language” and the entire work of V. V. Vinogradov is clear (...) : a formal, systematic and structural description of the Russian (...) language is flawed without a fundamentally consistent appeal to the functioning and, in modern terms, the “human dimension” - i.e. anthropology, history, psychology, cultural studies, in which in the foreground stands the great Russian fiction, the work of A. S. Pushkin and its other peak geniuses"41. This idea is also consonant with the scientific work of A. M. Peshkovsky, who found himself at the crossroads of old and new models of language learning and sought to comprehend the mystery of the relationship between the “objective” and “normative” in speech.

Bibliography

1. Department of Manuscripts of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House). F. 562, op. 3, units hr. 963, l. 42 rev.-43 rev. (autograph undated).

2. Bulakhov M. G. East Slavic linguists. Biobibliographical dictionary. T. 3. Mn., 1978. P. 126.

3. Vasilenko I. A., Paley I. R. A. M. Peshkovsky - an outstanding Soviet linguist and methodologist // Peshkovsky A. M. Selected works. M., 1959. P. 5.

4. OR RSL. F. 386, unit. hr. 1255, l. IV.

5. Ibid. Unit hr. 1256.

6. Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 502, op. 3, units hr. 71, l. 21-39. See the publication of these materials: Nikitin O. V. The Moscow dialectological commission in the memoirs of D. N. Ushakov, N. N. Durnovo and A. M. Selishchev (unknown pages of the history of the Moscow linguistic school) // Questions of linguistics. 2002. N 1. P. 91-102.

7. OR RSL. Nikitin subbotniks. Folder 7, unit. hr. 5. Autograph.

8. Ibid. Folder 10, units. hr. 14, l. 1 (autograph). Attached to the application is a handwritten list of printed works, of which two are especially highlighted by the author: “Russian syntax in a scientific sense” (as in A. M. Peshkovsky - O. N.) 1914 and 1920. and "School and Scientific Grammar" (5th ed., 1925)"

9. Ibid. L. 2.

10. Belov A. I. A. M. Peshkovsky as a linguist and methodologist. M., 1958. P. 12.

11. He never finished this work. "A. M. Peshkovsky intended to coordinate the spelling of words in the dictionary with a large spelling and grammatical reference book, prepared under his own editorship for publication in the publishing house "Soviet Encyclopedia". But the edition of the large reference book was not completed by him. (...) After After the death of A. M. Peshkovsky, the dictionary and spelling work was completed by Prof. D. N. Ushakov, whose spelling dictionary was published already in 1934." (Belov A.I. Op. op. pp. 11-12).

12. http://mos-nj.narod.ru/1990_/nj9105/nj9105_a.htm

13. Romanyuk S.K. From the history of Moscow lanes. M., 2000. P. 365.

14. Vasilenko I. A., Paley I. R. Decree. op. P. 6.

15. Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. Ed. 7th. M., 1956. P. 7.

16. Ushakov D. N. Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage... (review). M., 1914; It's him. School and scientific grammar... M., 1914 // Russian Gazette. April 22, 1915 N 91. P. 6. In this regard, it is interesting to note that D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky had a very positive attitude towards “Russian Syntax...” and wrote to the author in 1915: “I am reading your book , and I like her more and more" (OR IRLI. R. III, op. 1, item 1560, l. 1).

17. Ibid.

18. Apresyan Yu. D. “Russian syntax in scientific coverage” in the context of modern linguistics // Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. 8th ed., add. M., 2001. P. III.

19. Shapiro A. B. A. M. Peshkovsky and his “Russian syntax in scientific coverage” // Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. Ed. 7th. M., 1956. P. 5.

20. Klobukov E. V. “Russian syntax in scientific coverage” by A. M. Peshkovsky (on the enduring relevance of grammatical classics) // Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. Ed. 8th. M., 2001. P. 12.

21. Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 502, op. 1, units hr. 123, l. 1.

22. V.V. Vinogradov dedicated a separate chapter to A.M. Peshkovsky in the book “Modern Russian Language” (Issue 1. M., 1938. pp. 69-85) and then more than once returned to the assessment of his syntactic views (Belov A.I. Op. op., pp. 22-24).

23. Alpatov V. M. The history of one myth: Marr and Marrism. Ed. 2nd, add. M., 2004. P. 95-101, etc.

24. Petrova E. N. Methodological face of the magazine “Russian language in the Soviet school” // Against bourgeois propaganda in linguistics. Collection of the team of the Institute of Language and Thinking of the USSR Academy of Sciences. L., 1932. P. 161.

25. Petrova E. N. Grammar in secondary school: Methodological essays. M.-L., 1936. P. 28, 34-35, 42.

26. See, for example: Chemodanov N. S. Soviet linguistics // Russian language at school. 1947. N 5. P. 3-8; Abakumov S.I. Works of Soviet Russianists (so! - O.N.) for 30 years // Ibid. pp. 9-19. The last article evaluates the formal school and views of A. M. Peshkovsky, who “to a large extent overcomes Fortunatov.” See also the analysis of methodological trends in the article by L. I. Bazilevich “Russian language as a subject of teaching in Soviet secondary school (1917-1947)” // Russian language at school. 1947. N 5. P. 20-35. In it, A. M. Peshkovsky is called “an outstanding methodologist of the Russian language,” and his book “Our Language,” built “by the method of observation” and much criticized by apologists of Marrism, is “of significant interest.”

27. Quote. according to the editor: Alpatov V. M. The history of one myth: Marr and Marrism. M., 2004. P. 157.

28. Alpatov V. M. Voloshinov, Bakhtin and linguistics. M., 2005. P. 169.

29. Thus, M. M. Bakhtin’s work “The Formal Method in Literary Studies” became widely known, where the historical significance of the formal method was analyzed, which, in the author’s opinion, played a “fruitful role.” (Bakhtin M.M. Freudianism. Formal method in literary criticism. Marxism and philosophy of language. Articles. M., 2000. P. 348).

30. Alpatov V. M. Voloshinov, Bakhtin...

31. This was the subject of, for example, the article by S. I. Bernstein “Basic concepts of grammar in the coverage of A. M. Peshkovsky” (see: Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. 6th edition. M., 1938. P. 7-42) and the book by A. I. Belov “A. M. Peshkovsky as a linguist and methodologist” (M., 1958).

32. Extensive literature on this issue is given in the book: Bulakhov M. G. Decree. op. pp. 133-135.

33Peshkovsky A. M. School and scientific grammar (experience of applying scientific grammatical principles to school grammar). Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional M., 1918. P. 44-53.

34. Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. Ed. 6th. M., 1938. P. 4.

35. Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 502, op. 3, units hr. 96, l. 17.

36. Peshkovsky A. M. Our language. A book on grammar for 1st level schools. A collection of observations on language in connection with spelling and speech development. Vol. 1. 2nd ed., add. M.-L., 1923. P. 6.

37. Timofeev L. The rhythm of verse and the rhythm of prose (about the new theory of the rhythm of prose by Prof. A. M. Peshkovsky) // On the literary post. 1928. N 19. P. 21.

38. Statement by the future academician L. V. Shcherba about the book by A. M. Peshkovsky “Russian syntax in scientific light” (Collections “Russian Speech”, published by the Department of Verbal Arts. New series. II / State Institute of Art History. Leningrad, 1928 . P. 5).

39. Peshkovsky A. M. Scientific achievements of Russian educational literature in the field of general issues of syntax. Dept. Ott. Praha, 1931. P. 3.

40. Alpatov V. M. History of linguistic teachings. Tutorial. 3rd ed., rev. and additional M., 2001. P. 232.

41. Kostomarov V. G. Preface to the fourth edition // Vinogradov V. V. Russian language (grammatical teaching about the word). 4th ed. M., 2001. P. 3.

O. Nikitin Many articles have been written about Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky (1878-1933), an outstanding linguist and teacher, and his methodological experiments, carried out at the dawn of the “linguistic age,” have long become a philological tradition. On

Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky (1878-1933)

Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky is one of the most remarkable linguists of the 20th century. He worked for many years in Moscow gymnasiums and, wanting to introduce his students to real, scientific grammar, he wrote a witty monograph full of subtle observations, “Russian Syntax in Scientific Light” (1914), in which he seemed to be talking with his students. Together with them he observes, gives, reflects, experiments.

Peshkovsky was the first to prove that intonation is a grammatical means, that it helps where other grammatical means (prepositions, conjunctions, endings) are not able to express meaning. Peshkovsky tirelessly and passionately explained that only conscious mastery of grammar makes a person truly literate. He draws attention to the enormous importance of linguistic culture: “The ability to speak is the lubricating oil that is necessary for any cultural-state machine and without which it would simply stop.”

Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba(1880-1944) - a famous Russian linguist who had a wide range of scientific interests: he did a lot for the theory and practice of lexicography, attached great importance to the study of living languages, worked a lot in the field of grammar and lexicology, studied little-known Slavic dialects. His work “On Parts of Speech in the Russian Language” (1928), in which he identified a new part of speech - words of the state category - clearly showed what grammatical phenomena are hidden behind the terms “noun” and “verb” that are familiar to most. .

L.V. Shcherba is the creator of the Leningrad phonological school. He was one of the first to turn to linguistic analysis of the language of works of art. He is the author of two experiments in the linguistic interpretation of poems: “Memories” by Pushkin and “Pine” by Lermontov. He trained many wonderful linguists, including V.V. Vinogradov.

Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov(1895-1969) - Russian philologist, academician, student of A.A. Shakhmatov and L.V. Shcherba. He created fundamental works on the history of the Russian literary language, on grammar, and works on the language of fiction; studied lexicology, phraseology, lexicography.

Sergei Ivanovich Ozhegov(1900--1964) - a wonderful Russian linguist-lexicographer, known primarily as the author of the “Dictionary of the Russian Language”, which probably every family now has and which is now called: “Ozhegovsky Dictionary”. The dictionary is compact and at the same time quite informative: it contains more than 50 thousand words, each of them is given an interpretation, accompanying grammatical and stylistic notes, and illustrations of the use of the word are given. Therefore, the dictionary has gone through more than 20 editions.

S.I. Ozhegov was not only a born lexicographer, but also one of the largest historians of the literary language. He has written numerous articles on issues of speech culture, the history of words, and the development of Russian vocabulary at a new stage in the development of society.

PESHKOVSKY Alexander Matveevich (August 11, 1878, Tomsk – March 27, 1933, Moscow) – linguist; representative of the formal grammar school; specialist in the field of grammar theory and methods of teaching it; prof. 1st Moscow State University (1921–24), 2nd Moscow State University (1926–32).

In 1897 he graduated from the gymnasium in Feodosia with a gold medal and in the same year he entered the natural sciences department of physics and mathematics. Faculty of the Imperial Moscow University (IMU). In 1899 he was expelled for participating in student unrest; continued the natural scientist. education in Berlin. In 1901 he entered history and philology. Faculty of the IMU, graduated in 1906. He taught Russian and Latin in private gymnasiums in Moscow (1906–14), and was a lecturer at the Higher Pedagogical Courses named after. DI. Tikhomirov (1914); prof. department Comparative Linguistics University in Ekaterinoslavl (Dnepropetrovsk) (1918–21), Higher Literary and Artistic Institute (1921–24). The grammatical concept of P. was formed on the basis of the principles of the school of F.F. Fortunatov, however, the ideas of A.A. also had a significant influence. Potebni. Among the problems and concepts that received an original interpretation in P.’s works were the principles of a systematic approach to language; differentiation of psychological and linguistic categories; experimental methodology in grammar and stylistics; “the semantic side of speech” and grammar; meaning and form (words and phrases), systematic representation of grammatical categories (their meaning and structure); the doctrine of objectivity and predicability; concepts of words, lexemes (the term was introduced by P.); phrases; syntagmas; description of intonation in syntax; functional interpretation of the concept of speech style. The name P. is associated with the disclosure of the system of linguistic representation of expressed content and the identification of the specifics of linguistic meanings in the field of grammar. P.’s works influenced the formation of structural and functional directions of linguistic research, retained their relevance for the problems of cognitive linguistics, for the development of functional aspects of grammar, for the theory of grammatical meanings (the variety of types of “unification of forms from the side of meaning” “using: 1) a single meaning ; 2) a single complex of homogeneous values; 3) a single complex of heterogeneous meanings, equally repeated in each of the forms”).

From: Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M., 1914; School and scientific grammar. Experience in applying scientific and grammatical principles in school practice. M., 1914; Methods of the native language, linguistics, stylistics, poetics. M.; L., 1925; Questions of native language methodology, linguistics and stylistics. M.; L., 1930.

Years of life

1878 - 1933

Historical stage

Second Moscow State University

Project of the Museum of History of Moscow State Pedagogical University
The author of the project is T.K. Zharov
© Museum of History of Moscow State Pedagogical University, 2012
Comments and suggestions on the biographies of scientists of the MVZhK-2nd Moscow State University-MGPI-MGPI named after. IN AND. Please send Lenin-MPGU to the address: museum@mpgu.edu

O. Nikitin

"Dear Evdoxia Fedorovna Nikitina

Cup and tea are only coincidentally consonant, starting with “cha”;

But it is no coincidence that you both found your home.

A. Peshkovsky"7.

Bibliography