PROSPECTS FOR IMPROVING THE SCIENTIFIC STYLE OF SPEECH (LINGUOPHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS)

This is an interdisciplinary study. When solving a specific linguistic task, we rely on the scientific and philosophical thesis that a person does not have the so-called “free will” (“freedom of choice”). According to many scientists and philosophers, its presence would suggest the loss of our actions, thoughts and emotions from the cause-effect chain, which seems impossible due to the law of causality, which regards any phenomenon as a consequence of another phenomenon (cause). The great physicist Albert Einstein called the doctrine of free will “completely illogical”, a nonsense, “which must be struggled in every way”. Common people's faith in free will can still be justified by the residual functionality of the illusion: the ability to regulate social relations. Indeed, most human beings incline to Francis Bacon's opinion: what is most useful in action is most true in knowledge. However, the dominance of such a position in the field of scientific activity seems unacceptable. The goal of science is the truth in the classical sense: the correspondence of knowledge to reality, “an adequate reflection of objective reality by a cognizing subject, during which a cognized object is reproduced as it exists outside and independently of consciousness”. This leads to one of the most important characteristics of the scientific style of speech - the objectivity of presentation. It should be noted that this peculiarity contributes not only to the full transfer of information to the target audience, but also to the consolidation (formation) of the scientific worldview - both in the reader/listener and in the author. This is due to the influence of language on thinking. The linguistic phenomenon that resists the antiscientific idea of free will is the category of impersonality. The main content of this concept is “the meaning of grammatical objectlessness in which language and thinking phenomena interact, reflecting relations in the world around us” (Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, 1900). This value allows understanding the reality through language and is realized primarily in the so-called “impersonal sentences”, the most important function of which is to indicate an independent sign not related to the agent (action, condition). They reflect the basic feature of science - the pursuit of objectivity. We find it desirable to fight with the illusion of free will at different levels: legal, pedagogical and so on (having such an influential supporter as Albert Einstein). However, within this study we are only interested in its weakening through language transformations which could potentially affect the Russian scientific style. As can be seen from the previous section, they should be based on the category of impersonality. The most radical and, in our opinion, effective way is to eliminate the category of person from the scientific style. (We propose eliminating it only in verbs, but not in personal pronouns. Since in the latter this category is represented not by a number of grammatical forms, but by the set of lexemes themselves, here it has a special “modality” that does not reflect the illusion of “free will”). At the same time, we consider it necessary to leave the category of gender as a semantic-grammatical opposition in other functional styles and the national language as a whole. We are proposing a number of lexical and grammatical transformations that do not hinder, but rather contribute to fulfilling the most important function of the scientific style - the enrichment of the human mind with objective information about the world. We are convinced that the improvement of thinking through language must be precisely this. Distribution of such or similar grammatical constructions in the scientific style seems inevitable, since they are more conducive to objectivity, generalization and abstraction of presentation. This process should be accelerated whenever possible. Of course, sentences that do not meet the official lexical and grammatical norms