Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Crystal David Encyc.

    Uploaded by

    Valeria Farías
    8 views11 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views11 pages

    Crystal David Encyc.

    Uploaded by

    Valeria Farías

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    65- LINGUISTICS Language has been an object of fascination and a sub- ject of serious enquiry for over 2,000 years. Often, the observations have been subjective and anecdotal, as people reflected on such topics as the nature of mean- ing, ideals of correctness, and the origins of language (G81, 49). But from the earliest periods, there has also been an objective approach, with scholars investigating. aspects of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation in a detailed and organized way. At the end of the 18th cen- tury, the subject attracted an increasing number of spe- cialists (§50), so much so that it rapidly became possible co see the emergence of a new field of scientific research with language analysis as its focus. ‘This approach, first known as philology, dealt exclusively with the historical development of language. In the pre- sent century, the subject has broadened to include the whole range of subject matter represented in this book, and itis now generally called linguistics or linguistic sci- ence). Linguistics today is a widely practised academic discipline, with several domains of application (p. 412) EARLY HISTORY ‘A religious or philosophical awareness of language can, be found in many early civilizations (p. 388). In partic- ular, several of the important issues of language analysis were addressed by the grammarians and philosophers of Ancient Greece, Rome, and India. THE GREEKS The earliest surviving linguistic debate is found in the pages of Plato (c. 427-347 nc). Cratylus is a dialogue about the origins of language and the nature of meaning ~first between Socrates and Hermogenes, then between Socrates and Cratylus. Hermogenes holds the view that language originated as a product of convention, so that the relationship between words and things is arbitrary: ‘for nothing has its name by nature, but only by usage and custom’. Cratylus holds the opposite position, that language came into being naturally, and therefore an intrinsic relationship exists between words and things: ‘there is a correctness of name existing by nature for everything: a name is not simply that which a number of people jointly agree to call a thing.’ The debate is contin- ued at length, but no firm conchusion is reached. ‘The latter position is more fully presented, with divine origin being invoked in support: ‘a power greater than that of man assigned the first names to things, so that they must of necessity be in a correct state.’ By contrast, Aristotle (384-322 nc) in his essay De interpretatione (On interpretation’) supported the former viewpoint. He saw the reality ofa name to lie in its formal properties or shape, its relationship co the real world being secondary and indirect: ‘no name exists by nature, but only by becoming a symbol.” These first ideas developed into two schools of philo- sophical thought, which have since been labelled conven- tionalist, and naturalistic. Modern linguists have pointed out that, in their extreme forms, neither view is valid (p. 101). However, various modified and intermediate posi- tions were also argued at the time, much of the debate inspiring a profound interest in the Greek language. Another theoretical question was discussed in ancient Greece: whether regularity (analogy) ot irregu- larity (anomaly) was a better explanation for the lin- guistic facts of Greek. In the former view, language was seen to be essentially regular, displaying symmetries in its rules, paradigms, and meanings. In the latter, atten- tion was focused on the many exceptions to these rules, such as the existence of irregular verbs or the lack of correspondence between gender and sex (p. 93). Modern linguistics does not oppose the two principles in this way: languages are analysed with reference to both rules and exceptions, the aim being to under- stand the relationship between the two rather than to deny the importance of either one. The historical sig- nificance of the debate is the stimulus it provided for detailed studies of Greek and Latin grammar. In the 3rd century Bc, the Stoics established more formally the basic grammatical notions that have since, via Latin, become uaditional in western thought. They grouped words into parts of speech, ized their variant forms into paradigms, and devised names for them (e.g. the cases of the noun). Dionysius Thrax (c. 100 2c) wrote the first formal grammar of Greek~a work that became a standard for over 1,000 years. ‘The focus throughout the period was entirely on the written language. The word grammar (Greek: gram- matike) in fact originally meant ‘the art of writing’. Some attention was paid to basic notions concerning the articulation of speech, and accent marks were added to writing as a guide to pronunciation, But the main interests were in the fields of grammar and ety- mology, rather than phonetics. A doctrine of correct- ness and stylistic excellence emerged: linguistic standards were set by comparison with the language of the ancient writers (c.g, Homer). And as spoken Greek (the Aoine) increasingly diverged from the literary standard, we also find the first arguments about the undesirable nature of linguistic change (1): the lan- guage had to be preserved from corruption. 65 + LINGUISTICS THE ROMANS Roman writers largely followed Greek precedents and introduced a speculative approach to language. On the whole, in their descriptive work on Latin, they used Greek categories and terminology with little change. However, the most influential work of the Roman. period proved to be an exception to this trend: the cod- ification of Latin grammar by Marcus ‘Terentius Varro (116-27 sc) under the headings of etymology, mor- phology, and syntax. De lingua latina (‘On the Latin language’) consisted of 26 books, though less than a quarter of these survive. Varro’s work takes into account several differences between Latin and Greek (e.g. the absence of the definite article in the former). He also held the view (which is remarkably modern) that language is first and foremost a social phe- nomenon with a communicative purpose; only secon datily is it a tool for logical and philosophical enquiry. Especially towards the end of the millennium, sev- eral authors wrote major works in the fields of gram- mar and rhetoric ($12) — notably, Cicero (106-43 Bc) _ on style, and Quintilian (Ist century a) on usage and public speaking. Julius Caesar wrote on grammatical regularity — itis said, while crossing the Alps on a mili- tary campaign. Aelius Donatus (4th century ap) wrote a Latin grammar (Ars maior) that was used right into the Middle Ages, its popularity evidenced by the fact that it was the first to be printed in wooden type, and had a shorter edition for children (the Ars minor). In the 6th century, Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae (‘Grammatical categories) was another influential work that continued to be used during the Middle Ages: it contains 18 books, and remains the most com- plete grammar of the age that we have. ‘The main result of the Roman period was a model of grammatical description that was handed down through many writers in Europe, and that ultimately became the basis of language teaching in the Middle ‘Ages and the Renaissance. In due course, this model became the ‘traditional’ approach to grammar, which continues to exercise its influence on the teaching of English and other modern languages (§§ 1, 62). THE INDIANS During the above period, techniques of minute descriptive analysis were being devised by Indian lin guists, which could have been of great influence had these descriptions reached the western world (some- thing that did not take place until the 19th century). The motivation for the Indian work was quite different from the speculative matters that attracted Greek and Roman thinkers (though they did not ignore those topics). The Hindu priests were aware that their lan- guage had diverged from that of their oldest sacred texts, the Vedas (p. 388), in both pronunciation and grammar, An important part of their belief was that certain religious ceremonies, to be successful, needed to reproduce accurately the original form of these texts. Change was not corruption, as in Greece, but profana- tion. Several ancillary disciplines (Vedanga, ‘limbs of the Vedas), including phonetics, etymology, grammar, and metrics, grew up to overcome this problem. Their solution was to establish the facts of the old language clearly and systematically and thus to pro- duce an authoritative text. The earliest evidence we have of this feat is the work carried out by the grammarian Panini, sometime bevween the Sth and 7th centuries Bc, in the form of a set of 4,000 aphoristic statements known as sitras (threads). The Astadhydy? (Bight -- books), dealing mainly with rules of word forma- tion, are composed in such a condensed style that they have required exten- sive commentary, and a major descriptive tradition has since been established. The work is remarkable for its detailed phonetic descriptions: for example, places of articulation are clearly described, the con- cept of voicing is intro- duced, and the influence of sounds on each other in connected speech is recognized (the notion of sandbi). Several concepts of modern linguistics derive from this tradition. A page fromthe Ashtachyay Paint lation of Sensei in an early 1Sthcam printing. The-samiet Devanagart For left: Cicero, ima ing of 1584 Below: Varro, imam ing of 1584 a0 PART XI + LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION THE MIDDLE AGES Very lite is known about the development oflinguistic ideas in Europe during the ‘Dark Ages’, though itis evi- dent that Latin, as the language of education, provided a continuity of tradition beoween classical and medieval periods. Medieval learning was founded on seven ‘arts, of which three — grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric — formed one division, known as the trivium. Grammar (mainly using Priscian and Donatus) was seen as the foundation for the whole of learning. A. tradition of ‘speculative’ grammars developed in the 13th and 14th centuries, in which grammatical notions were reinter- preted within the framework of scholastic philosophy. “The authors (the ‘Modistae’) looked to philosophy for the ultimate explanation of che rules of grammar. A famous quotation from the period states that it is not the grammarian but ‘the philosopher [who] discovers, grammar’ (philosophus grammaticam invenit). The dif- ferences between languages were thought to be superfi- cial, hiding the existence ofa universal grammar ($14). The Middle Ages also saw the development of west- ern lexicography ($18) and progress in the field of translation, as Christian missionary activity increased. In the East, Byzantine writers continued to expound the ideas of the Greek authors. There was a strong tra- dition of Arabic language work related co the Qur'an (which was not to be translated, p. 388). From around the 8th century, several major grammars and dictionar- ies were produced, as well as deseriptive works on Ara- bic pronunciation. For a long time, these remained unknown in Western Europe. Opportunities for con- tact with the Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew linguistic tra- ditions only came later, as a result of the Crusades. THE RENAISSANCE The rediscovery of the Classical world that came with the ‘revival of learning’, as well as the discoveries of the New World, transformed the field of language study. Missionary work produced a large quantity of linguis- tic material, especially from the Far East. The Chinese linguistic traditions were discovered. Arabic and Hebrew studies progressed, the latter especially in rela- tion to the Bible, In the 16th century, several grammars of exotic languages came to be written (e.g. Quechua in 1560). There was a more systematic study of Euro- pean languages, especially of the Romance family. The first grammars of Italian and Spanish dave from the 15th century. Major dictionary projects were launched in many languages. Academies came into being (p. 4) ‘The availability of printing led to the rapid dissemina- tion of ideas and materials. ‘As we approach modern times, fresh philosophical issues emerged. The 18th century is characteriz. the arguments between ‘rationalists’ and ‘empiricists’ over the role of innate ideas in the development of thought and language. Such ideas provided the basis of certainty in knowledge, according to Cartesian philos- ophy, but their existence was denied by philosophers (such as Locke, Hume, and Berkeley) for whom knowledge derived from the way the mind operated upon external sense impressions, The issue was to resurface in the 20th century (p. 413). Several other important trends have been noted dur- ing the 17th and 18th centuries: the breakdown of Latin as a universal medium of communication, and its replacement by modern languages (§59); the many proposals for universal languages, shorthand systems, and secret codes (§§33, 58); the beginnings of a sys- tematicapproach to phonetics (§27); the development of ‘general’ grammars, based on universal principles, suich as the 17¢h-cencury grammar of Port Royal ($14); and the major elaborations of traditional grammar in schools ($1). Then, as the 19th century approached, the first statement about the historical relationship between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin was made, usher- ing in the science of comparative philology ($50). Part of the opening leaf of the First Grammatical Treatise. The drawing of Snorri Sturluson [above right] is by an Icelandic artist kjurfan Gudjénsson (1921). Ss si sete fin pura 3 p ote a ie Pap ar mah tka ¢ this. Gi Salant oie ae chp oes ee oni ee ‘ : HF id. of oy pen potter ed 65 + LINGUISTICS au TWENTIETH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS The growth of modern linguistics, from the end of the 18h century co the present day, has in large part already been summarized in earlier sections of this vol- ume, The majority of the concepts used in the discus- sion of language history, acquisition, structure, substance, and use stem from this perspective (reflect- ing the background of the author). However, there remain several loose ends ofa historical and theoretical nature that need to be drawn together in this final pare of the book. EUROPE AND AMERICA ‘Two main approaches to language study, one Euro- pean, one American, unite to form the modern subject of linguistics. The firstarises out of the aims and meth- ods of 19th-century comparative philology ($50), with its focus on written records, and its interest in his- torical analysis and interpretation. The beginning of the 20th century saw a sharp change of emphasis, with the study of the principles governing the structure of living languages being introduced by the Genevan lin- guist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). Saussure's early work was in philology, but he is mainly remem- bered for his theoretical ideas, as summarized in the Cours de linguistique générale (Course in general lin guistics)), which is widely held to be the foundation of the modern subject. This book was in fact published posthumously in 1916, and consists of a reconstrue- tion by ewo of Saussure’s students of his lecture notes and other materials. The second approach arose from the interests and preoccupations of American anthropologists, who were concerned to establish good descriptions of the American Indian languages and cultures before they disappeared. Here, there were no written records to rely on, hence historical analysis was ruled out. Also, these languages presented very different kinds of struc- ture from those encountered in the European tradi- tion. The approach was therefore to provide a careful account of the speech patterns of the living languages. ‘A pioneer in this field was Franz Boas (1858-1942), who published the first volume of the Handbook of American Indian Languages in. 1911. Ten years later, another anthropologically oriented book appeared: Language by Edward Sapir (1884-1939). These works proved to be a formative influence on the early devel- opment of linguistics in America. The new direction is forcefully stated by Boas (p. 60): ‘we must insist that a command of the language is an indispensable means of obtaining accurare and thorough knowledge, because much information can be gained by listening to con- versations of the natives and by taking part in their daily life, which, to the observer who has no command of the language, will remain entirely inaccessible’. SAUSSUREAN PRINCIPLES Some of Saussure's most central ideas were expressed in the form of pairs of concepts: itis possible to assess the state of the game by study- ing the position of the pieces on the board. c Langage vs langue vs parole The many senses of the word ‘language’ prompted Saus- sure to introduce a three- fold set of terms, the last two of which were central to | his thinking. Langage isthe faculty of speech present in D all normal human beings due to heredity - our ability to talk to each other. This faculty is composed of two aspects: langue (the lan- guage system) and parole {the act of speaking). The former isthe totality of a language, which we could in theory discover by examin- ing the memories of all the language users: ‘the sum of word-images stored in the minds of individuals’. Parole is the actual, concrete act of speaking on the part of a person -a dynamic, social activity ina particular time and place. Diachrony vs synchrony He sharply distinguished historical (‘diachronic’) and non-historical (‘synchronic’) approaches to language study. The former sees lan- guage as a continually changing medium; the lat- ter sees it as a living whole, existing asa state’ at a par- ticular moment in time. In his diagram, AB represents a synchronic ‘axis of simul- taneities’ —a language state atsome point in time; CD is a diachronic ‘axis of succes- sions’ - the historical path the language has travelled. In this view, itis always necessary to carry out some degree of synchronic work before making a diachronic study: before we can say how a language has changed from state X to state Y, weneed to know something about X and ¥. Correspondingly, a syn- chronic analysis can be made without referring to history. Saussure illustrates this point using an analogy with a game of chess: if we walk into a room while a chess game is being played, | ib ‘gation | Signifiant vs signifié Saussure recognized two sides to the study of mean- ing, but emphasized that the relationship between the ‘two is arbitrary (p. 408), His labels for the two sides are signifiant (‘the thing that signifies’, or sound image’) and signifié ‘the thing signt- fied’, or concept’). This rela- tionship of signified to signi- fier Saussure cals a linguistic sign. The sign isthe basic unit ‘of communication within a ‘community: angue isseen as a'system of signs’. ipaageals | ¥ She + can + go B) He wil un | 1 may sit | | You might { we. te eee | Syntagmatic and asso- ciative (or paradigmatic) Asentence is a sequence of signs, each sign contribut- ing something to the mean- ing of the whole. When the signs are seen as linear sequence, the relationship between them is called syn- tagmatic, as in She + can+ go. When a sign thats pre- sentis seen as contrasting with other signs in the lan- guage, the relationship is ‘alled associative (in later studies, paradigmatic), asin. | She vs He, can vs will, go vs unin the above sentence. | These two dimensions of structure can be applied to phonology, vocabulary, or any other aspect of lan- guage. The resultis a con- ception of language as vast network of interre- lated structures and mutu- ally defining entities—2 linguistic system, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) Edward Sapir (1884-1939) 412 PART XI + LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION LATER DEVELOPMENTS Both European and American approaches developed rapidly. In Europe, Saussure’ ideas were taken up by several groups of scholars (especially in Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, France, and Denmark), and schools of thought emerged based on Saussurean principles (notably, the Linguistic Circle of Prague, which was founded in 1926). The field of phonology ($28) was, the first to develop, with later progress coming in such areas as grammar and style, Saussure’s influence con- tinues to be strong today, with his notion of a language ‘system’ becoming the foundation of much work in semiotics and structuralism (pp. 79, 403). In America, the development of detailed procedures for the study of spoken language also led to progress in phonetics and phonology, and especial attention was paid to the distinctive morphology and syntax (S16) of the American Indian languages. The first major state- ment synthesizing the theory and practice of linguistic analysis was Language by Leonatd Bloomfield (1887-1949), which appeared in 1933, This book dominated linguistic thinking for over 20 years, and stimulated many descriptive studies of grammar and phonology. In due course, the Bloomfieldian approach came to be called ‘structuralist’, because of the various kinds of technique it employed to identify and classify features of sentence structure (in particular, the anal sis of sentences into their constituent parts, p. 96). Ie also represented 2 behaviourist view of linguistics, notably in its approach to the study of meaning (p. 101). However, its appeal diminished in the 1950s, when there was a sharp reaction against the limitations of structural linguistic methods, especially in the area of grammar (p. 96). This extract from an obituary of Bloomfield, writcen by Bernard Bloch in the journal Language in 1949 (p. 93), summarizes this scholar’s achievement: There can be no doube that Bloomfield’s greatest contribu- tion to the study of language was to make a science of it. Others before him had worked scientifically in linguistics, but no one had so uncompromisingly rejected all prescien- tific methods, or had been so consistently careful, in writing about language, to use terms that would imply no tacit reliance on factors beyond the range of observation ... Irwas Bloomfield who taught us the necessity of speaking about language in the style that every scientist uses when he speaks about the object of his research: impersonally, precisely, and in terms that assume no more than actual observation dis- closes to him. Bloomficld’s opposition to unscientific impressionism in language studies is neatly summarized by the wry comment he made on one occasion: ‘IF you want to compare two languages, it helps ro know one of them! SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT Many different approaches to linguistics emerged in the middle decades of this century, some of which have attracted 2 great deal of support. The distinguishing feature of five of these approaches is outlined below. (For corresponding developments within the field of generative linguistics, Which has been dominant since the 1960s, see p. 413.) Functional sentence perspective ‘An approach used by the Prague School of linguists to analyse utterances in terms of their information content, and still widely used in the Czech Republic and other coun- tries of eastern Europe. The semantic contribution of each major element in a sentence is rated with respect to the ‘dynamic’ role it plays in communication, Dependency grammar Atype of formal grammar developed in the 1950s, notably by the French linguist, Lucien Tesniere (1893-1954). It explains grammatical relationships by setting up ‘depen- dencies’ (or valencies’) between the elements of a con- struction, Tagmemics A theory developed since the 1950s by the American lin- | guist, K.L, Pike (1912-), which focuses particularly an the | need to relate linguistic forms’ and ‘functions’. Acentral | notion is the contrast between the ‘emic' units, which are | functionally contrastive in a language (such as phoneme and morpheme), and the ‘etic’ units that give them physi- cal shape (cf. phonetics, §28). Stratificational grammar Atheory devised by the American linguist. M. Lamb (1929- Jin the 1960s that views language asa system of, related layers (‘strata’) of structure systemic linguistics A theory developed since the 1960s by the British linguist M.A. K. Halliday (1925-) in which grammar isseen asa network of ‘systems’ of interrelated contrasts; particular attention is paid to the semantic and pragmatic aspects of analysis (8817, 21) and also to the way intonation is used in the expression of meaning (829). John Rupert Firth (1890-1960) (below, left) J.R. Firth, Profes- sor of General Linguistics in the University of London from 1944 to 1956, was.a key figure in the development of British linguistics. A central notion in his approach is that the patterns of language that appear at a particular level of description (613) cannot be explained using a single analytic system. Dif- ferent systems may need to be set up at different places, in order to handle the range of contrasts involved (an approach known as polysystemicism). Leonard Bloomfield CHOMSKY 181957, Avram Noam Chom, Prosorof Lingus tesa the Mansachusces nut of Technology (0928-),pblshed Snare Srucrrs whic proved to bea turning poin in 20ccentay inguin this and subseqdene publications, he deloped the conception of «generative grammar (p. 97), which dzparted racy fom the srucualion and bchavourism ofthe previous decades Faliranals of sentences wer shown to be nadequae in varius Fepects mainly beste they lel to ee fee decount thedfereneeberveen surface’ and deep le th of grammatiel struc. At sures lec sic Sentencs a obi eer ple an fb ay to lesecan be analysedinan ential way, bur om the Doine of view of thir underlying mening the owe sentences diverge: i the fist, John wants co plese someone dl in the send, someone cl is nvlied in plsing John. A major ain of generative grammar ‘astoprovidea means onalsing sentence tat ook scout of thisundetynglerlofsrucure “Toschi thissim, Chomsky dew afandameal i ‘inci ina Susie angen par) ete persons knowlege of che ree of ngage ate he 2c ofthat language nelson, Theis he ‘fered to as compere, the sods perma Lingus, he age shoud be conceal with he saudy of compeene, and 0% rei a peor mmance-somcthingtha was charac of pees sien seirelance on samples or corpos) of ‘pesh inthe frm ofacollctionfape recon). Sichsimpiretnadoquatebecsethefeuld ee only ating faconof the senencsiisposblewmy ina language they ao conned mary nonunion changes of plan and oer rsa eon Ses srs wse ther eompeence ro go fr beyond the inion ofany cor by bing bee crea and enna Senne and testy pebrmance eo. The

    You might also like