Alexander Matveyevich Peshkovsky 1878 1933 was outstanding. A.M. Peshkovsky - an outstanding linguist - about the mistakes of the methods of teaching the Russian language in schools

O. Nikitin

Many articles have been written about Alexander Matveyevich 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, acquiring over the years with sometimes bizarre methods, "newspeak" and all sorts of innovations, was not lost, but even more established his name in the history of Russian philology. Among the endless vacillations, searches and ideological struggles of the beginning of the 20th century, he was able to pave 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 language knowledge in the learning process. His theories gave birth to a conscious experiment. He equally well mastered strict linguistic skills and at the same time subtly felt 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 The views of A. M. Peshkovsky, in some ways, of course, outdated, but thereby showing the ultimate vulnerability of any hypothesis, are actively discussed; the ideas that he developed, as well as the system of classes he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 even today.

Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky was born in Tomsk. Even in his early years (and this, it seems, no one has noticed so far), he, carried away by natural science research, at the same time experienced in many ways the determining influence of another - the aesthetic environment. Childhood and youth of A. M. Peshkovsky were spent in the Crimea, where in 1897 he graduated from the Feodosia gymnasium with a gold medal and soon entered the natural department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University. In the same place, in the Crimea, in 1893, he met the future poet and critic Maximilian Voloshin, which grew into a close friendship. Their extensive correspondence has not yet been published. Here, for example, is Peshkovsky's confessional letter to Voloshin concerning the issue of "choosing a path", presumably dated by us to the end of the 1890s:

“I am beginning to grow stronger in 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 of my own, that I am fond of final conclusions and riddles - you know that. 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 then read only Pushkin and Lermontov - the rest were all from children's literature. (...) In the gymnasium in the 1st grade, I I was very fond of the Latin language, i.e. I liked the 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 properly attraction of character, and not of reason, I should actually have entered the Faculty of History and Philology. I will also explain my idea to you. For example, that I was fond of poetry, there was no contradiction with natural science, but that I was fond of And since I have come to this conclusion, then the intention to specialize in zoology in the next semester is in full risk of being unfulfilled. In its place is a completely different intention. Instead of spending the whole winter in the first half of the day with zoology and the second with anatomy, as I thought, I would listen only to the 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 to listen to humanitarian sciences from the most diverse fields, that is, in other words, to continue a general education on the basis of natural history. This revolution took place just at the time when I had almost calmed down on the idea of specialization, and therefore, you can imagine what a confusion I have in my head.

In 1899, A. M. Peshkovsky was expelled from the university for participating in student unrest. He continues his natural science education in Berlin; in April 1901, together with M. A. Voloshin, he traveled around Brittany; returning to Russia in 1901, he will return to the university, but already to the Faculty of History and Philology. A year later, he was again expelled "for participation in the student movement"; Peshkovsky is sent to prison for six months. He graduated from alma mater in 1906, and all his subsequent activity was associated with teaching in high schools and universities3.

Peshkovsky is an atypical philologist in the sense that, in the process of rigorous scientific analysis of texts, he did not separate the latter from their creators. And it is no coincidence, probably, on the pages of his most voluminous work - "Russian syntax in scientific coverage" (M., 1914) - there are poetic lines of V. Ya. Bryusov, A. A. Blok, F. K. Sologub, excerpts from works of Pushkin, Nekrasov, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, periodicals of the 1920s. The text was perceived by him not as an empty object of study, but was filled for him with echoes of names, events, speech manners of different eras. Some of his "authors" he knew 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 the linguistic concept of A. M. Peshkovsky with his poems. Alexander Matveyevich presented him with the first edition of "Russian Syntax...", calling himself in the dedicatory inscription "an assiduous reader and admirer" of the poet4. On the pages of the collection "Svitok", where Peshkovsky published the article "Poems and Prose from a Linguistic Point of View", there is also his autograph: "To the esteemed 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 th meeting of the Commission dedicated to the 25th anniversary of its foundation 6.

At the dawn of the 20th century, a new direction was born in philology, which turned to the richest experience of the classics and adopted the tradition of live research and expeditionary work, based no longer on disparate "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 an important role. At the same time, they were also the center of a philological experiment, where many individual methods were tested and urgent 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 Teachers of the Russian Language in a Secondary School (Moscow) with a report "The Role of Expressive Reading in Teaching Punctuation Marks"; after the revolution, he taught at the Department of Comparative Linguistics at the 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; in the same period, he heads the Moscow Permanent Commission of Russian Language Teachers, participates in the work of special scientific commissions under the People's Commissariat of Education and Science and Glavnauka, in various meetings and conferences on the 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 "Nikitinsky subbotniks" - a literary society that brought together many talented poets, prose writers, playwrights. In N 3 of the collection "Svitok", published by the society, an article by A. M. Peshkovsky side by side with publications by L. Grossman, K. Balmont, O. Mandelstam and other well-known authors. Here, in a lively creative atmosphere of poetic and stylistic searches, 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 dealing 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 Fyodorovna Nikitina

A cup and tea are only accidentally consonant, starting with "cha";

But it is no coincidence that both of you have found their shelter.

A. Peshkovsky "7.

We have 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 dated March 8, 1925, he expressed "deep gratitude for the offer made to me", "consent to the ballot" and "desire to work in the Society"8. The mentioned proposal, signed by the famous philologists P. N. Sakulin, N. K. Piksanov and others, has also survived9.

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 Literature and Languages of European Peoples, noting in their appeal that "A. M. Peshkovsky should be considered a major scientist, author of outstanding works, combining broad scientific interests with high useful social and pedagogical activity"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 "Repeated course of the Russian language" (M.-L., 1927), argues a lot in publications on the problems of teaching the Russian language, publishes reviews of the books of his colleagues, prepares materials for the "Dictionary of the language of A. S. Pushkin" and compiles a new spelling dictionary for elementary and secondary schools11.

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

"The main feature of A. M. Peshkovsky was his restless passion, the focus of inquisitive thoughts on the new, selfless honesty in the performance of his duty, the desire to bring the greatest benefit to the Motherland. It was this that prompted him first, in his student years, to take part in the revolutionary movement, then for a long time seek his own path in science, in order to finally settle on philology, then take an ardent part in the construction of the Soviet school and wage an uncompromising struggle for advanced ideas in linguistics and methods of the Russian language"14.

In his chosen field, Alexander Matveyevich was an enthusiast, a pioneer and a great worker. Today, without it, it is impossible to imagine the Russian philological culture of the 20th century. The scientific heritage of A. M. Peshkovsky outlived his time and is now again at the center of linguistic searches and discussions. We now turn to a brief discussion 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 response. The young scientist declared himself a bright, integral, methodologically thought-out research, intended "for self-education and school." The book was awarded the Academy of Sciences Prize (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... wrote: "The scientific foundation of the book was primarily the university courses of Prof. F. F. Fortunatov and V. K. Porzhezinsky"15. However, he was by no means limited 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, that is, the school of Professor and Academician F. Fortunatov, who recently died Mr. Peshkovsky's system is mainly based on Fortunatov's ideas, and he was also influenced by the works of Potebnya and Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky. last scientist. Without going into particular, let's say that in raising the question of the reform of the teaching of syntax, the Russian school is most of all indebted to D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskii; credit must be given to him by all that he has done in the way of the destruction of the logical point of view in syntax; but true grammatical hoo, or, - which is the same, - the Russian syntax still did not receive a true 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: “We note (...) as a novelty for such general works on syntax, the attention paid to 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 invariably be present in his works in the future.

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

In the 1920s, when "the danger of a new crisis in grammar"19 emerged and the formal approach was severely criticized, "Russian Syntax..." was once again in demand and discussed. "It must be noted in fairness that individual followers of Fortunatov (the so-called "ultraformalists"), who too straightforwardly understood the specifics of the formal approach to the language 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 practicing teachers and methodologists of the Russian language were superimposed on the general situation in Soviet science in the first half of the 20th century"20. These circumstances were partly the impetus for the fact that Peshkovsky revised his work and improved the concept, but even in such an 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 contributed a lot to its publication: “It must be admitted 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 to pay attention to the meanings of words, to the meaning in general, limiting themselves in the study of the language to one external form. This is a walking misunderstanding based on an ingenuous understanding of the term "formal" in the general everyday sense of "superficial, external ", should be dispelled in the interests of methodological work. It is necessary to tell the teachers how the "formalists" for the first time pointed out the neglect of the language when teaching the Russian language at school, in particular, which, however, is very important, eliminated the existing confusion of language with writing and showed the possibility of giving already 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 upheavals in science, the search for ways to improve linguistic research and go beyond the existing stereotypes. However, the richest potential of the classical traditions of Russian philology has not been completely destroyed. Scholars brought up by the academic school (among them, of course, A. M. Peshkovsky) were actively involved in the "language building", striving to accustom the generations of the new Russia to the humanistic values. This case also required the creation of new manuals on the Russian language for secondary and higher educational institutions to replace the pre-revolutionary "outdated" ones. A well-known bias in such conditions turned out to be inevitable: for a long time many practical guides of recognized luminaries remained "overboard" as "reactionary", "idealistic", "unscientific": F. I. Buslaev, Ya. K. Grot, A. G. Preobrazhensky... In such an atmosphere, A. M. Peshkovsky had to take a lot of courage to uphold the traditions of the Russian linguistic school, to introduce live, not artificial experiments into teaching, and to propagate progressive ideas. Despite the fact that he was obviously far from participating in scientific and ideological disputes and did not belong to any of the then groupings, his works and especially "Russian Syntax ..." became the object of very harsh criticism. What are, for example, the extremely tendentious review of E. F. Budde (1914) or the polemical statements of E. N. Petrova in the book Grammar in Secondary School (Moscow, 1936). V. V. Vinogradov (1938 and subsequent years) negatively assessed "Syntax" and accused the author of "hypertrophy", "eclecticism", "syntactic formalism". 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 was launched against the Linguistic Front group23. The most indicative document of this campaign is a book with a characteristic title-slogan: "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 the members of the Yazykfront became their main target, the adherents of "bourgeois newspaper science", the "dilapidated rags of Indo-Europeanism", and the magazine "Russian language in the Soviet school" also got it. The name of A. M. Peshkovsky appears more than once among the "smugglers": he is either stigmatized among the "idealists", then he is attributed to him "cheekly frantic butchering with Marxist-Leninist attitudes in matters of methodology", then he is accused of "complete disorientation of the masses of teachers" and "falsifications and distortions of Marxism-Leninism", then they "study" as one of the editors of the "Russian language in the Soviet school", calling the journal "an organ of" Indo-European "formalist linguistics" and suggesting the leadership of the People's Commissariat for Education "to make a class organizational conclusion in relation to the editorial board and the author's magazine list", which is "used as the mouthpiece of the 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 Fortunatov school in general, stated that the representatives of the latter "declared the form the monopoly object of all research on language. The main mistake lies in a one-sided approach to language formalists". Calling the system of A. M. Peshkovsky "anti-scientific", the author claims that its "program and methodology have nothing in common with the tasks that are set for the Soviet school on the basis of the Marxist approach to language." The main views of the scientist 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 the school, the monopoly of the "research" method." All this "contradicts the attitude of the Soviet school." As a result, the formal trend is declared "reactionary" and "bourgeois", but not devoid of originality - and thus even more dangerous: "We must also take into account the richness of argumentation, the art of external design and the erudition of formalists who really knew how to convince, so even now Reading the same Peshkovsky, it is necessary to exert all vigilance in order to reveal the positions that expose him.

In the second half of the 1940s - the time of the "thaw" in philological science, 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 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 of the "irresponsible attitude" of the Ministry of Education and personally Minister A. A. Voznesensky, who did not remove V. V. Vinogradov’s “Russian language” and A. M. Peshkovsky 27. There were, however, other opinions, the presence of which testified that the original deep ideas of A. M. Peshkovsky organically fit into the general process of the development of linguistics. in world linguistics, a certain tendency has appeared to specifically address the 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 systemic 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 argued with the "abstract objectivist" A. M. Peshkovsky29. However, in this case, the disputes were already correct, scientific in nature. Indicative here is V. N. Voloshinov's book "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 A. M. Peshkovsky's classic work 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 well-known work by A. M. Peshkovsky, "School and Scientific Grammar (the experience of applying scientific and grammatical principles to school practice)", was published. In it, the author clearly indicates "the contradictions between school and scientific grammar": the first "is not only school, but also unscientific." For "there is no historical point of view on language in school grammar"; "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 connection 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 blunders, 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 the imaginary knowledge that the reader has received at school and in which he usually believes the more firmly, the less consciously he perceived them at one time; (...) to eliminate the blatant confusion of the science of language with its practical applications in the field of reading, writing and studying foreign languages"34.

It is impossible not to mention here the activities of A. M. Peshkovsky in the implementation of the first lexicographic project of the Soviet era - the publication of an explanatory dictionary of the Russian literary language (the so-called "Lenin") in the early 1920s. We have found evidence of the most direct participation of the scientist in the preparatory work. So, he was engaged in the selection of vocabulary and was a letter editor, compiled a card index with his own hand35, and spoke in working discussions. And although the dictionary never appeared, the experience of cooperation 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) turned out to be very important in itself.

In the 1920s, A. M. Peshkovsky prepared the most interesting articles on grammar and style 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 (M., 1922), which has survived more than one edition, is a systematic course for schools of I and II levels and workers' schools, the main task of which was "to introduce into the minds of students a certain, at least minimal, amount of scientific information about the native language (...) without giving a single ready-made information, but only putting the material in the proper order and guiding the process of grammatical comprehension of the material imperceptibly for the student himself"36.

A. M. Peshkovsky published a lot in scientific periodicals, including the journals "Print and Revolution", "Native Language at School", "Russian Language in the Soviet School", made notes on school reform, teaching the Russian language, including in schools for the illiterate. In 1925, a collection of his articles entitled Methodology of the Native Language, Linguistics, Stylistics, and 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 was also very significant. There are very few publications on these topics, but they are very expressive, demonstrating a special vision and the most 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 Characterization 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 Poems in Prose" (1928). In them, the author freely operates with the concepts of "good rhythm", "sound symbolism", "melody", discusses the relationship between rhythm and content, sound repetitions and the like, uses the methods of mathematical linguistics and structural analysis. He experiments, groping for the threads of verbal secret speech: he moves away from patterns, deviates from the normative view of the verbal sign, but, paradoxically, keeps in line with the grammatical aesthetics of his time. One critic even called this approach "a new theory of rhythm in prose." "Undoubtedly, 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 a most interesting and fact-rich analysis of the analytical method of A. M. Peshkovsky, where numerous refutations and objections by no means dispute the main thing - the undoubted originality of the scientist's views.

In the desire of A. M. Peshkovsky to find the key to the systematic analysis of artistic texts, the influence of M. A. Voloshin undoubtedly affects. But not only. These works, in addition to author's collections, were also published in the works of the literary section of the State Academy of Art 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 the 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, which found practical application at school and university and remained in memory as "treasuries of the finest observations on the Russian language"38. There are very few publications by A. M. Peshkovsky in the 1930s, but they are also very revealing. So, 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 Questions of Syntax" was published. The scientist considers the main achievement to be "the persistence [by the authors of the textbooks under consideration] of a certain view of the very nature of the grammatical form. This view boils down to the fact that this nature is twofold, external and internal, and that any form is placed, so to speak, at the junction of its external and internal sides"39. What follows is an interesting development of the theme taken. There were also works "Reform or regulation" (1930), "New principles in punctuation" (1930), "On the terms "methodology" and "methodology" in the latest methodological literature" (1931). Posthumously published the article "On grammatical analysis" (1934). As you can see even from the titles, Peshkovsky continued to be interested in problems that are 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 framework of purely syntactic research, having as their subject a wider range of language creation - the psychology, philosophy and sociology of linguistics in general, poetics, the culture of philological construction. No wonder 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 with the help of introspection”40. Here it is appropriate to quote the statement of V. G. Kostomarov about the work of V. V. Vinogradov "Russian language (grammar doctrine of the word)": "The lesson taught by the book" Russian language "and all the work of V. V. Vinogradov is clear (...) : a formal, systemic and structural description of the Russian (...) language is flawed without a fundamentally consistent appeal to the functioning and, to put it in a modern term, the "human dimension" - that is, anthropology, history, psychology, cultural studies, in which in the foreground stands the great Russian fiction, the work of A. S. Pushkin and its other pinnacle 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 secret of the relationship between "objective" and "normative" in speech.

Bibliography

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

2. Bulakhov M. G. East Slavic linguists. Biobibliographic dictionary. T. 3. Mn., 1978. S. 126.

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

4. OR RSL. F. 386, item ridge 1255, l. IV.

5. Ibid. Unit ridge 1256.

6. Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 502, op. 3, units ridge 71, l. 21-39. See the publication of these materials: Nikitin O. V. 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. S. 91-102.

7. OR RSL. Nikitinsky Subbotniks. Folder 7, unit ridge 5. Autograph.

8. Ibid. Folder 10, unit ridge 14, l. 1 (autograph). The application is accompanied by a handwritten list of printed works, of which two are specially highlighted by the author: "Russian syntax in scientific terms" (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. S. 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 grammar reference book, which was being prepared under his own editorship for publication by the Soviet Encyclopedia publishing house. 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. Decree. Op. P. 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. S. 365.

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

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

16. Ushakov D. N. Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage ... (review). M., 1914; He is. School and scientific grammar ... M., 1914 // Russian Vedomosti. April 22, 1915, N 91. P. 6. In this regard, it is curious to note that D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky reacted very positively to "Russian Syntax ..." and wrote to the author in 1915: "I read your book , and I like her more and more" (OR IRLI. R. III, op. 1, item 1560, fol. 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. S. 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. S. 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. S. 12.

21. Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 502, op. 1, unit ridge 123, l. one.

22. V. V. Vinogradov devoted a separate chapter to A. M. Peshkovsky in the book "Modern Russian Language" (Issue 1. M., 1938. P. 69-85) and then repeatedly returned to the assessment of his syntactic views (Belov A. I. Decree op. pp. 22-24).

23. Alpatov V. M. History of one myth: Marr and Marrism. Ed. 2nd, add. M., 2004. S. 95-101 and others.

24. Petrova E. N. The methodological face of the journal "Russian language in the Soviet school" // Against bourgeois propaganda in linguistics. Collection of the brigade of the Institute of Language and Thought of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. L., 1932. S. 161.

25. Petrova E. N. Grammar in high school: Methodical essays. M.-L., 1936. S. 28, 34-35, 42.

26. See, for example: Chemodanov N.S. Soviet linguistics // Russian language at school. 1947. N 5. S. 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 the 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 the Soviet secondary school (1917-1947)" // Russian language at school. 1947. No. 5. S. 20-35. In it, A. M. Peshkovsky is called "an outstanding methodologist of the Russian language", and his book "Our Language", built "according to the method of observation" and criticized by the apologists of Marrism, is "of considerable interest."

27. Op. by ed.: Alpatov V. M. History of one myth: Marr and Marrism. M., 2004. S. 157.

28. Alpatov V. M. Voloshinov, Bakhtin and Linguistics. M., 2005. S. 169.

29. Thus, the work of M. M. Bakhtin "The Formal Method in Literary Criticism" gained wide popularity, where he analyzed the historical significance of the formal method, which, in the author's opinion, played a "fruitful role." (Bakhtin M. M. Freidism. Formal method in literary criticism. Marxism and philosophy of language. Articles. M., 2000. P. 348).

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

31. For example, the article by S. I. Bernshtein "Basic concepts of grammar in the coverage of A. M. Peshkovsky" was devoted to this (see: Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. Ed. 6th. M., 1938. S. 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 AM School and scientific grammar (the experience of applying scientific and grammatical principles to school grammar). Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional M., 1918. S. 44-53.

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

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

36. Peshkovsky A. M. Our language. Grammar book for schools of the 1st level. Collection for observations of language in connection with spelling and speech development. Issue. 1. 2nd ed., add. M.-L., 1923. S. 6.

37. Timofeev L. The Rhythm of Verse and the Rhythm of Prose (On the New Theory of Prose Rhythm by Prof. A. M. Peshkovsky) // At the Literary Post. 1928. N 19. S. 21.

38. The statement of the future academician L. V. Shcherba about the book by A. M. Peshkovsky "Russian syntax in scientific coverage" (Collections "Russian speech", published by the Department of verbal arts. New series. II / State Institute of Art History. L., 1928 pp. 5).

39. Peshkovsky A. M. Scientific achievements of Russian educational literature in the field of general questions of syntax. Dep. ott. Praha, 1931, p. 3.

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

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

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.mj.rusk.ru/