zinet home
home home
home ИНТЕЛЛЕКТ-ПОРТАЛ
home Стартовал прием материалов в сборник XХХIX-й научной конференции. Требования к публикациям - в разделе "Объявления".

На главную | Объявления | Отчеты предыдущих конференций | История Украины | Контакты

РЕСУРСЫ ПОРТАЛА:

Тридцать восьмая научно-практическая конференция
(23 - 28 мая 2016 г.)


Тридцать седьмая научно-практическая конференция
(19 - 22 апреля 2016 г.)


Тридцать шестая научно-практическая конференция
(29 декабря 2015 - 5 января 2016 г.)


Тридцать пятая научно-практическая конференция
(24-27 ноября 2015 г.)


Тридцать четвертая научно-практическая конференция
(13-17 октября 2015 г.)


Тридцать третья научно-практическая конференция
(20-27 мая 2015 г.)


Тридцать вторая научно-практическая конференция
(2-7 апреля 2015 г.)


Тридцать первая научно-практическая конференция
(25 февраля - 1 марта 2015 г.)


Тридцатая научно-практическая конференция
(19-25 января 2015 г.)


Двадцать девятая международная научно-практическая конференция
(19-25 ноября 2014 г.)


Двадцать восьмая международная научно-практическая конференция
(08-13 октября 2014 г.)


Двадцать седьмая научно-практическая конференция
(20-25 мая 2014 г.)


Двадцать шестая научно-практическая конференция
(7-11 апреля 2014 г.)


Двадцать пятая юбилейная научно-практическая конференция
(3-7 марта 2014 г.)


Двадцать четвертая научно-практическая конференция
(20-25 января 2014 г.)


Двадцать третья научно-практическая конференция
(10-15 декабя 2013 г.)


Двадцать вторая научно-практическая конференция
(4-9 ноябя 2013 г.)


Первая международная научно-практическая конференция
(14-18 мая 2013 г.)


Двадцать первая научно-практическая конференция
(14-18 мая 2013 г.)


Двадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(20-28 апреля 2013 г.)


Девятнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(26 февряля - 3 марта 2013 г.)


Восемнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(22-26 декабря 2012 г.)


Семнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(22-26 октября 2012 г.)


Шестнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(09-14 апреля 2012 г.)


Пятнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(01 - 07 марта 2012 г.)


Четырнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(12-20 декабря 2011 г.)


Тринадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(28 октября - 09 ноября 2011 г.)


Двенадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(28 мая - 06 июня 2011 г.)


Одинадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(26 апреля - 04 мая 2011 г.)


Десятая научно-практическая конференция
(15-23 марта 2011 г.)


Девятая научно-практическая конференция
(27-31 декабря 2010 г.)


Восьмая научно-практическая конференция
(05-12 декабря 2010 г.)


Седьмая научно-практическая конференция
(28 мая - 7 июня 2010 г.)


Шестая научно-практическая конференция
(1-15 апреля 2010 г.)


Пятая научно-практическая конференция
(20-27 мая 2009 г.)


Четвертая научно-практическая конференция
(10-17 апреля 2009 г.)


Третья научно-практическая конференция
(20-27 декабря 2008 г.)


Вторая научно-практическая конференция
(1-7 ноября 2008 г.)


Первая научно-практическая конференция
(10-15 мая 2008 г.)



НАШИ ПАРТНЕРЫ:

Студия веб-дизайна www.zinet.info



Студия ландшафтного дизайна Флора-МК


Уникальное предложение!



Сайт-визитка - теперь
всего за 200 грн!

подробнее>>>



DEFINING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

 

Sadovnyk R.S.

USA, Milwaukee. Marquette University.

 

The following paper focuses on the definition of the English language. The work explores different aspects of the language and approaches the definition from historical, linguistic, and modern angles. The paper explores the evolution of the language in its many contexts and helps the readership understand how humanity arrived to speaking the English language we know today.

 

Language is the feature that distinguishes humans from animals. Varieties of languages are subsequently among the dominant elements that divide up the human race. The English language is among the most widely studied and spoken languages around the world. The explanation for the popularity of the English language is often rooted in the value that fluency in this particular language represents. The English language is often associated with England and its former colony, the United States of America. The prestige and the fluctuating value of a language are often linked with the success and the economic positionof a country. Therefore, the English language is highly valued because of its association with two very influential world superpowers. Certainly, the reason for the acquisition of the English language is not exclusively a socioeconomic one. People might often study English for the pure enjoyment of learning a second language or for the sake of an expanded intellectual horizon. Whatever the reason is behind the learning of the English language, its importance in the world pool of languages is clearly undeniable.However, many people, who are so eagerly pursuing fluency in the English language, do not bother defining or explaining the object of their studies. The definition of the English language excites most just as much as the unpaid sabbatical. However, in order to properly understandany subject at hand, one must first properly define it. Noah Webster’s1828 edition of An American dictionary of the English languagedefines the subject as, “The language of England or of the English nation, and of their descendants in India, America and other countries” (Webster, 657). Such definition, even though correct, offers a scholar merely a single geographical angle for defining English. A better definition for the English language would encompass a wide array of elements that pertain to the language. The defining elements of the English language include its historical background, structural makeup,and the impact of the speaker. The impact the speaker has on the language or the attitude the speaker has towards the language leads to the emergence of additional defining categories such as cultural or socioeconomic. Although every strategy is sufficient for defining the English language, each element, when taken separately, provides only a partial and incomplete definition. This paper will argue that the combination of the aforementioned strategiesprovides a more or less coherent definition of the English language. Althoughthe English languageis spoken differently throughout the world, it’s possible to define it as the language that originated in England, encompasseselements of both prescriptive and descriptive grammars and, most importantly, depends on theattitude of the speaker or listener.

Varieties of the English language, particularly those of non-native speakers, are often erroneously excluded from how the majority of native speakers define English. Drawing from a personal experience, I contend that my first real encounter with the English language redefined my opinion of ‘knowing’ English. I realized that I could not communicate past some of the learned phrases and those around me quickly made me aware of how far I deviated from the ‘standard.’ At the time I understood the ‘standard’ to be the language that was spoken around me, and I believed the standard to be the same all over the United States. After all, I believed that a standard constituted definite similarity, independent of the geographical location. However, when I went to Atlanta, Georgia I was greeted by “ya’ll” and witnessed what my high school colleagues later defined as the “southern standard.” However, even today, after gaining sufficient fluency, I remain befuddled by what the term Standard English implies. According to Peter Trudgill, an Honorary Professor of Sociolinguistics at the University of East Anglia, Standard English is the language that “has undergone standardization, which means that it has been subjected to a process through which it has been selected, codified, and stabilized, in a way that other varieties have not” (Trudgill, 1). The author in his International English later goes on to explain that “the codification and distinctiveness of Standard English do not extend beyond grammar to any other areas of language use,”including pronunciation and word choice (Trudgill, 3). According to the author’s definition, I then was the only speaker of Standard English in the entire town of Blair, Wisconsin. Although I mispronounced some words, my speech syntax remained grammatically correct, while others resorted to “ain’t” and “gonna.”Despite Trudgill’s authoritative definition, even today I would not claim that eight years ago I spoke or wrote in Standard English. If I were to concur with the author today, I would immediately stop correcting my pronunciation and expanding my vocabulary, for nowhere it has been recorded that I must use the word unoriginal instead of platitudinous. However, the author does make an important point in regards to defining the English language. According to his statements I was not speaking in a dialect, but was actually employing English as my tool of communication. Therefore, a variety of the English language that is spoken by a non-native speaker and that which has not yet been codified into a standard or a dialect remains English, regardless of the means through which such variety has been acquired.It follows then, that eight years ago I spoke in a simple variety of English that was based on British prescriptive grammar, and expanded through the later incorporation of descriptive grammar and my willingness to learn.

The origin and the growth of the English language, territorially specific to England, is animportant historical element for defining the language. Some may argue that Old English and Middle English are not to be included under the definition of the English language. I answer that with a house and foundation metaphor. When a house isbuilt, it always rests on a foundation, and even though a foundation does not constitute a complete house, it is an essential component of any abode. Similarly our understanding and the definition of English will be shaky if deprived of its historical foundation.The Germanic tongue that stood at the foundation of English was the direct descendant from the Centum branch of Indo- European languages. The beginning of the Old English language is usually dated to 449 CE and is tied to the attack on Britons by the Picts and Scots, as recorded in Venerable Bede’s Angelus Saxonum(Crystal, 16). David Crystal, an Honorary Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wales, quotes Bede by saying that “[t]hose who came over were of the three most powerful nations of Germany – Saxons, Angles, and Jutes” (Crystal, 16). However, he continues, “they did not bring with them three ‘pure’ Germanic dialects – Anglian, Saxon, and Juttish – but a wide range of spoken varieties” (Crystal, 19). Therefore, the purity was nonexistent then as it is now (Crystal, 19). It was a ‘natural’ language that varied synchronically, and certainly underwent a diachronic change as well. When a group of German speakers permanently established themselves in England, the language was set on a course of a definite beginning. The loss of inflections, one of the main characteristics of Modern English, began during the era of Old English. As Logan Smith, American essayist and critic, states, “Simplicity of language is, in fact, like other kinds of simplicity, a product of high civilization” (Smith, 5). Thus, during the period of 500 CE to 1066 CE, the Germanic dialect of English language was beginning to run its course towards establishing itself as one of the permanent languages of the country.

However, it must be noted that that the growth of the language was not promoted linguistically, but more politically and socially. The evolvement of the language correlated with the economic and social developments on the island. Around the 7th century people were beginning to employ prose, yet the majority of people continued with their extensive use of oral verse traditions. Among some notable developments during the Old English ‘reign’ is King Offa’s solidification of power through language, which coincided with the emergence of England as a dominant medieval power. Also, during the reign of the 9th century king Alfred the Great, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began to be compiled as a year by year account of England and its history. In the later periods, the histories were translated into English, and the Chronicle continued well into the 16th century. The Old English period in the history of the English language did not produce a standard, and none of the dialects, Northumbrian, Mercian, West Saxon, or Kentish, were taught or fixed. However, as we peal the layers of the English language history, we recognize the importance of each layer as the foundation for the subsequent phase or development of the language.

The English language’s graduation to the status of Middle English was marked by a number of significant linguistic developments.The Norman Conquest in 1066 marks the beginning of the Middle English period. Logan Smith, in The English Language,contends that “If the Norman Conquest had but an indirect influence on the development of English grammar, on the other part of the language, the vocabulary, its effect was so great as almost to transform the character of our speech” (Smith, 17).The Norman Conquest abundantly enriched the English Language by a multitude of French words. The similarity between the English and French lexis is because “both [are] from the common ancestry of the two languages and from the extensive loaning of words between the two languages over the years” (Taylor, 85).Charles Barber, in The English Language: a historical introduction,adds to the significance of the Conquest by talking about the introduction of new spelling-convention into the language (Barber, 151). He states that “the Norman scribes disregarded traditional English spelling, and simply spelt the language as they heard it, using many of the conventions of Norman French” (Barber, 151). Also due to the Norman bureaucracy, the period was marked by the rise of written records. The Peterborough Chronicle emerged as the unofficial supplement to his earlier predecessor and fulfilled a similar role. “Nowhere else [but in the Chronicle is] the transition between Old and Middle English so visible” (Crystal, 117). Middle English was also characterized by being diglossically rich, by the disappearance of the [y] sound, and the emergence of the[oi] sound. The period also witnessed changes in morphology that gave rise to modern notions of suffixes and prefixes. Therefore, Middle English considerably contributed to the emergence of what we now perceive as the standard. However,a contemporary native English speaker mightargue thatMiddle English and its predecessor are not comparable tothe Modern English language,simply because we cannot understand the language in its earlier forms. I answer that with a reference to my earlier mentioned high school experience. I was not understood, even though I clearly spoke what Trudgill defined as Standard English. Even though we may not entirely understand the writings of the two periods, we are able to trace the evolutionary process of Old English into the Modern English of Great Britain. If we are to eliminate the historical process of its development and date the English language from the competition of Dr. Johnson’s dictionary in 1755, then we might as well naively believe that coffee and pecan pies are born fresh every night on the store shelves. Others, less naïve, will recognize thatOld English and Middle English were the two necessary components that paved the way for the emergence of Early Modern English.

Early Modern English witnessed a number of linguistic changes brought by the Great Vowel Shift andthe invention of the printing press. During the Great Vowel Shift, long tense vowels were “moving up,” and the subsequent high vowels were becoming diphthongized. For example [a] would move up to the spot of [e] in the vowel ladder, and continue rising until [i] would get knocked off and become a diphthong, as in [bait]. The Great Vowel Shift that took place between the 15th and 18th centuriesgave rise tothe emergence of an early ‘standard.’ The cause for the shift is often explained by the shift in pronunciation forms, which subsequently led to the linguistic segregation between the aristocracy of London and the peons of the country.London’s aristocratic elites, by separating themselves from the “rustic and barbaric” country folk, were implicitly beginning to define a local standard. Also during this period, William Caxton set up his printing press in Westminster. Although the Great Vowel Shift added to an already existent problematic circumstance of variation, it,along with Caxton’s contribution to written English, began the implicit process of standardization. Matthew Giancarlo additionally suggests that the Great Vowel Shift served as the gateway to understanding the prior “obscure and inaccessible” literary works of Chaucer, Langland, and Gower (Giancarlo, 28). Therefore,the developments in thehistory of the English language led the people to an expanded linguistic horizon and a better understanding of the subject, “the” English language. Also, the history of the language answers many questions including the ‘why and what’ in regards to the standard, and begins to account for the variation. The history of the language explains how a variation emerged even among the British speakers, and how the language became further dissected in the colonies and how almost every colony looked up to the linguistic standard of the Crown.It is crucial to recognize that the history of the English language plays directly into the definition of the English language.

The English language is alsodefined by the learned grammatical rules and descriptive grammar. My early introduction to the English language began with the learning of grammar rules that I ought to follow. I was strongly warned against the error of constructing a sentence using English words and Ukrainian grammar rules. Thus, I could not introduce myself to a native English speaker by saying, “I Rodion.” My only option was to obey the rules and insert the necessary “am” between the “I” and my first name. I wasn’t aware of it at the time, but the grammar that I employed as the foundation for simple sentence construction is classified as prescriptive grammar. Later I was introduced to the concept of descriptive grammar, and understood it as “the grammar that underlies the actual usage of speakers of the language” (Huddleston, 47). At the time, I saw little difference between the two, and could not understand the reason behind using a different grammar from the one I learned in school. I valued the attained knowledge of prescriptive grammar and understood it to be a vital component to the definition of English. C.H. Ward in his “manual” to teaching What is Englishstresses the importance of prescriptive grammar even more when he defines it as the “cure” for the disease of Ignorantiasyntacticalis(Ward, 130). Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, on the other hand, argues for descriptive grammar to be the dominant form. V.J. Cook in Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and Second Language Learningexplains Chomsky’s position by defining descriptive grammar in the context of universal grammar (Cook, 1). According to Cook, universal grammar, in Chomsky’s terms, is a certain a priori knowledge acquired independent of experience (Cook, 1). The author explicates this idea through the example of an individual, who knows the right grammatical constructions through either experience or knowledge of prescriptive grammar. However, when the same individual hears a poorly constructed sentence, he knows that it is wrong. Therefore, his knowledge of what he can’t say must derive from elsewhere other than experience or prior learned grammatical rules (Cook, 1). Therefore, it has been argued that descriptive grammar reigns superior over its prescriptive counterpart. Additionally it has been claimed that while descriptive grammar accounts for variation in style, prescriptive grammar treats such variation incorrectly (Huddleston, 48). Huddleston cites an example of people being led astray by their prescriptive beliefs when they consider “From whom did you hear that?” superior and more correct than “Who did you hear it from” (Huddleston, 48). By weighing the variation in style on the scale of “correctness,” prescriptive grammarians open themselves up to objectives from advocates of descriptive linguistics. This, again, suggests that prescriptive rules are inferior to descriptive grammar. From this emerges a dangerous implication that the English language is in large defined by the structural element of descriptive grammar.

Although descriptive grammar encompasses a lot more than prescriptive grammar, I argue that both represent the equally unique structural components of the English language. My definition of the English language excruciatingly had to depend on prescriptive grammar, because that was my only resource of learning the language while in Ukraine. I did not have a “natural” inclination to recognize the “wrong” syntax and back then, defined the language exclusively as the combination of lexis and grammar. However, when I arrived in America I was forced to “upgrade” my English to the level of informal vernacular, and it would not have been possible without descriptive grammar. It is important to note that I would not have been able to bypass the prescriptive grammar stage, for in that case I would lack the necessary foundation for the acquisition of descriptive linguistics. Also, it should be noted that both prescriptive and descriptive grammars are guilty of their own follies and neither is inferior or superior to the other. The downside of prescriptive grammar has already been mentioned. Descriptive linguistics offers somewhat of a hypocritical view that holds that “non-standard varieties are different from the standard (and each other) simply because they have different set of rules, and that it is impossible on purely linguistic grounds to make any evaluative judgments on these systems” (Rhys, 208) I realize that a Standard English might be an abstraction, and literally non-existent. However, I find it absurd for a non-standard variety to claim immunity from any linguistic assessment. First of all, these “non-standard varieties” are varieties of the English language and thus borrowed the base for their “variety status” from some sort of a standard. Therefore, the existence of a different set of rules was based or formulated against some sort of a common set of English rules. Also, if those varieties are linguistically recognized, then there should be a certain possibility for their assessment. Thus, it has been shown that prescriptive and descriptive grammars are equal due to flaws that each possesses. Additionally, their importance and equality have been proven through the necessity of theircontribution to the English language, which makes them a crucial component in the definition of English.

The English language is also defined through and by the attitude the speaker or listener holds towards the language. Many of us already have some sort of an idea of what constitutes the English language. I recall when I was in sixth grade and our school had visitors from Washington, D.C. I remember complimenting one of the speakers on the quality of his language by saying that his English was good. He returned my compliment with the reminder that he was American. Back then I could not even begin to understand the difference between British English and American English. My encounter reveals two different attitudes towards the English language. Our guest, apparently, was not speaking English, and probably thought that a proper compliment should label his tongue as American. On the other hand, there was me who defined English as the language of America and Great Britain alike.The attitude or disposition of the speaker or listener, as it has been shown, plays a vital role when attempting to define English. The most obvious example is the creation of abstract varieties between majority and minority groups. Barbara L. Speicher, in Critical Thoughts on Teaching Standard English, argues precisely against the misconception that allows “the dominant groups [to] succeed in attributing the status of language to their own variety while ascribing the status of dialect to those of others” (Specher, 147). Throughout the article the author explicates on some of the common issues that pertain to the relationship of speakers to the language. In order to define Standard English, the author states, “What is needed is reliable, current data on variation and change in the language of educated speakers” (Speicher, 153). Speicher merges the speaker and the language together, simultaneously refuting any possible English definition that does include the speaker. Additionally, by simply looking at the origin and the background of the English language, it becomes evident that people began to careabout the “standard” or “non-standard” varietieswhen the language became invested with socioeconomic ideas of prestige and class. As Lynda Mugglestone says, proper pronunciation began to be concatenated with one’s position in society and served as a marker of a standard (Mugglestone, 154). Thus, it is the speaker who perceives the language in a certain way and assigns it a token value. In short, the speaker defines the language as either a commodity, or a reflection of one’s intelligence. The definition of the English language depends greatly on the speaker, because without the speaker’s input the language is no more than a myriad of basic symbols and sounds.

It is nearly impossible to formulate a coherent definition of the English language. However, it is necessary to individually examine the elements that comprise the language in order to better understand the subject. A better understanding of the subject will lead humanity to evaluation of their own actions in regards to the English language. Ten years ago I could not fathom that I would be able to speak English as fluent as I do today. However, I made a worthy investment and am able to enjoy the fruits and rewards of being a polyglot. I always defined and associated the English language with either the United States or Great Britain. Even though I could never imagine living in either of the countries, I believed that by learning the language I would have a weak but definite association with the culture of either. Thus, defining the English language is tantamount to defining the intellectual and cultural horizons of a country where such language is spoken. Although the task might be nearly impossible, the necessity to try is mandatory.

 

Works Cited

1.      Barber, Charles. "Middle English." The English Language: a Historical Introduction. New York: Cambridge UP, 1993. 151. Print.

2.      Cook, V. J. "Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and Second Language Learning." Applied Linguistics 6.1 (1985): 1. Oxford Jorunals. Web. 21 Apr. 2010. <http://http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/6/1/2>.

3.      Crystal, David. The Stories of English. London: Allen Lane, 2004. Print.

4.      Giancarlo, Matthew. "The Rise and Fall of the Great Vowel Shift? The Changing Ideological Intersections of Philology, Historical Linguistics, and Literary History." Representations 76 (2001): 27-60. Jstor. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3176139>

5.      Huddleston, Rodney D. "Descriptive Grammar vs Prescriptive Grammar." Introduction to the Grammar of English. New York: Cambridge UP, 1984. 47-49. Print.

6.      Mugglestone, Lynda. "Accent as Social Symbol." Changing English. New York: Routledge, 2007. 154. Print.

7.      Rhys, Martin, and Linda Thomas. "Dialect Variation in English." Changing English. New York: Routledge, 2007. 208. Print.

8.      Smith, Logan P. The English Language. 2nd ed. London: Oxford UP, 1952. Print.

9.      Speicher, Barbara L., and Jessica R. Bielanski. "Critical Thoughts on Teaching Standard English." Curriculum Inquiry 20.2 (2000): 147-69. Jstor. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. <http://jstor.org/stable/3202094

10.  Taylor, Insup, Similarity Between French and English Words - A Factor to Be Considered inBilingual Language Behavior? , Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5:1 (1976:Jan.) p.85

11.  Trudgill, Peter, and Jean Hannah. "Standard English in the World." International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English. 5th ed. London: Hodder Education, 2008. 1-3. Print.

12.  Ward, C. H. "Why Study Grammar?" What Is English? Scott, Foresman and Company, 1925. 130. Print

13.  Webster, Noah. "English." An American Dictionary of the English Language. Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam, 1869. 567. Print.



Первая научно-практическая конференция
"Инновационный потенциал украинской науки - ХХI век"
(10-15 мая 2008 г.)


(отчет)
Вторая научно-практическая конференция
"Инновационный потенциал украинской науки - ХХI век"
(1-7 ноября 2008 г.)
(отчет)
Третья научно-практическая конференция
"Инновационный потенциал украинской науки - ХХI век"
(20-27 декабря 2008 г.)
(отчет)
Четвертая научно-практическая конференция
(10-17 апреля 2009 г.)
(отчет)
Пятая научно-практическая конференция
(20-27 мая 2009 г.)
(отчет)
Шестая научно-практическая конференция
(1-15 апреля 2010 г.)
(отчет)
Седьмая научно-практическая конференция
(28 мая - 7 июня 2010 г.)
(отчет)
Восьмая научно-практическая конференция
(05-12 декабря 2010 г.)
(отчет)
Девятая научно-практическая конференция
(27-31 декабря 2010 г.)
(отчет)
Десятая научно-практическая конференция
(15-23 марта 2011 г.)
(отчет)
Одинадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(26 апреля 04 мая 2011 г.)
(отчет)
Двенадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(28 мая - 06 июня 2011 г.)
(отчет)
Тринадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(28 октября - 09 ноября 2011 г.)
(отчет)
Четырнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(12-20 декабря 2011 г.)
(отчет)
Пятнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(01-07 марта 2012 г.)
(отчет)
Шестнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(09-14 апреля 2012 г.)
(отчет)
Семнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(22-26 октября 2012 г.)
(отчет)
Восемнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(22-26 декабря 2012 г.)
(отчет)
Девятнадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(26 февраля - 3 марта 2013 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцатая научно-практическая конференция
(20-28 апреля 2013 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать первая научно-практическая конференция
(13-18 мая 2013 г.)
(отчет)
Первая международная научно-практическая конференция
"Перспективные направления отечественной науки - ХХI век"
(13-18 мая 2013 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать вторая научно-практическая конференция
(4-9 ноября 2013 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать третья научно-практическая конференция
(10-15 декабря 2013 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать четвертая научно-практическая конференция
(20-25 января 2014 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать пятая юбилейная научно-практическая конференция
(3-7 марта 2014 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать шестая научно-практическая конференция
(7-11 апреля 2014 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать седьмая научно-практическая конференция
(20-25 мая 2014 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать восьмая научно-практическая конференция
(08-13 октября 2014 г.)
(отчет)
Двадцать девятая научно-практическая конференция"
(19-25 ноября 2014 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцатая научно-практическая конференция
(19-25 января 2015 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать первая научно-практическая конференция
(25 февраля - 1 марта 2015 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать вторая научно-практическая конференция
(2 - 7 апреля 2015 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать третья научно-практическая конференция
(20 - 27 мая 2015 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать четвертая научно-практическая конференция
(13 - 17 октября 2015 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать пятая научно-практическая конференция
(24 - 27 ноября 2015 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать шестая научно-практическая конференция
(29 декабря 2015 - 5 января 2016 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать седьмая научно-практическая конференция
(19 - 22 апреля 2016 г.)
(отчет)
Тридцать восьмая научно-практическая конференция
(23 - 25 мая 2016 г.)
(отчет)

На главную | Объявления | Отчеты предыдущих конференций | История Украины | Контакты

Copyright © Zinet.info. Разработка и поддержка сайта - Студия веб-дизайна Zinet.info