~i"'"

I!
;... ,{
'. j
;
.......
INGUI TICS

Language has been an object of fascination and a sub- former viewpoint. He saw the reality of a name to lie in
ject of serious enquiry for over 2,000 years. Often, the its formal properties or shape, its rclation..ship to the
obseArations have been subjective and <1l1ecdotal, as real world being secondary and indirect: -'po name
people [eRected on such topics as the nature of mean- exists by nature, b~~~~ by becoming a symbol.'
ing, ideals of correctness, and the origins of language -'-rFiCsClirsl"TJC;$ developed into two scfiO(Js of philo-
(§§ 1, 49). But from the earliest periods, there has also sophic:l1 thought, which have since been labelled COlllJClI-
been an objective approach, with schobrs investigating tionrllist, and nrlturalistic. Modern linguists have pointed
aspects of grammar, vocabulary, and pronuncialion in a out that, in their extreme forms, neither view is valid (p,
detailed and organized way. At the end of the 18th cen- 10 O. However, various l110dified and intermediate posi-
tury, the subject attracted an increasing number of spe- tions were also argued at the time, much of the debate
cialists (§50), so much so that it rapidly became inspiring a profound interest in the Greek language.
possible to see the emergence of a new field of scientific Another theoretical question was discussed in
. research with language analy.sis as its focus, This lancient Greece: whether regularity (rll1rllog)l) or irregu-
'u~~pproach, first known as- eiJ,i.L~ dealt exclusively »larity (anomaly) was a better explanation for the lin-
Plato (c. 427-c. 347 BC)
- with,the historical development oflanguag,e. In the pre- guistic Facts oFGreek. In the forrn~L",-i~_Y21a~uage was_
~ marble head, lst
sent cemul'y, the subject has broadened to include the ~ to be essentially rcgul~r, displaying symmetries in
..
I whole range of subject matter represented in this book, its rLlle~, paradigms, and meanings, I~l the la_tier, attcl2.-
<1nd it is now generally called linguistics (or linguistic sci- tion was focused on the many exceptions to these
century AD.

ence). Linguistics today is a widely practised academic -rules, such as the existence of irregular verbs or the lack
discipline, with several dOJn<1ins ofapplicatioh (p. 412). of correspondence between gender and sex (I'. 93).
Modern linguistics do~ot op~e tI~e two l~i.!.1..<i12.t£~_
EARLY I--IISTORY in [his way: .languages arc analysed with reFerence to
both rules and exceptions, the aim being to under-
A rel~gious or philosophical awareness of language can stand the relationship between the two rather than to
be found in many early civiliz.ations (p. 388). In partic- deny the importance of either one. The historical sig-
ular, several of the important issues of language analysis nificance of the debate is 'the stimulus it provided for
were ,addressed by the grammarians and philosophers detailed studies of Greek and Latin grammar.
of Ancient Greece, Rome, and India. In the 3rd century BG, \be Stoics established more
:! Formally the basic grammatical notions that have
THE GREEKS since, via Latin, become traditional in western
The earliest surviving linguistic debate is found in the thought. 1:b.9:'.. ~~cd words into parts of~_~~~~
,,
1 pages of Plato (c. 427-347 Be). Cratylus is a dialogue organi~~..~.. ~hejr~ar~1m--f~rms into pii:.<0igm~, and
about the origins ofl.anguage and the nature of meaning devised names for them (e.g. the cases of the noun). Aristotle (384-322 BC) ,:!
- first between Socrates and Hermogenes, then between ~. 100 Be) wrote the first fornul In this 14th-century picture !,
by Francesco Traini(in the ;,
Socrates and Cratylus. Hermogenes holds the view that grammar of Greek- a work that became a standard for church of 5t Catherine, Pisa), .11
language originated as a product of convention, so that over 1,000 years. 5t Thomas Aquinas is being.i
r' : The focus throughout the period was entirely on the shown a book by Aristotle. -! I
1 the rthuionship between words and things is arbitrary:
I, Plato sits on the other side of
'for nothing has its name by nature, but only by usage ~ritten language. The word grammar (Greek: gram-
5t Thomas.
and, custom'. Cratylus holds the opposite position, that matike) in fact originally meant 'the arc of writing'.
langllage came into being naturally, and therefore an Some attention was paid to basic notions concerning
i_ntrinsic relationship exists between words and thi~ the articulation of speech, and accent marks were
'there is a correctness of name existing by nature for added to ~riting as a guide- to pronunciation. But the
everything: a name is not simply that which a number of .,tnain interests were in the fields of grammar and ery:
people jointly agree to call a thing.' The debate is contin- ~, rather than phonetics. A doctrine of correct-
ued at length, but no firm conclusion is re;lChcd. ~s and' stylistic excellence emerged: linguistic
The latter position is more fully presented, with standards were set by comparison with the language of
divine origin being invoked in support: 'a power ~he ancient writers (e.g. Homer). And as ~poken Greek f /
greater than that of man assigned the first names to (the koine) increasingly diverged from the literary, )KJTn.J .
thii'lgs, so that they must of necessity be ill a correct st:lI1dard, we also find the first arguments about the
state.' By contrast, Aristotle (384-322 Be) in his essay ~ll1desirable nature of li'1guistic change (§ 1): tb.£l~
De inrcrpretatione ('On interpretation') supported the g~_~~lad .!:Q~~~~<:!..~~d fro/11 corr:upti~~.
 65 . LINGUISTICS 409

RO MAN S + ~~.~ _ The main remit of the Roman period was a model of
writers largely folrowed Greek pre edents and grammatical description chat was handed down
uced a speculative approach to language. On the through many writcrs in Europe, and that ultimately
in their descriptive work on barin, they used became rhe basis of language reaching in the Middle
and rerminolof-,1'wirh litde change. Ages and the Renaissance. In duc coursc, this model
r'ltPcy{"\rll',,,

e most influential work of the Roman became the 'traditional' appro~ch (0 grammar, which
proved (0 be an exception (O:this (rend: rhe coJ-. contin,lIes (0 exercise irs inHucnce on the teaching of
ion of Latin grammar by Martlls Teremius Vam- ·IVEnglish and other modern languages (§§ 1, G2).
116-27'Dc) lInder (he headings of etymology,~
and s max. lJe lingua latina (,On rhe Larin THE IN 0 IAN S
of 26 books, dlOugh less than a During the above period, techniques of minme A page from the.
survive. Varro's work takes in(O descriptive analysis were bcing d.evised by Indian lin- Ash~adhyayT, P2\r)ini's compi-
ICcoum several differences berween Larin and Greek guists, which could have been of great influence had lation of Sanskrit gr'lmmar,
in an early 19th-century
le.g. (he absence of [he definite article in d1e former). these descriptions reached the wescern world (some- printing. The script is
He also held (he view (which is remarkably modern) thing [hat did not take place until the 19th century). Devanagari.
mar language is first and foremost a social phe- The motivation for the Indian work was quite different
,menon with a communicative purpose; Q..r:lr~s~n- froin the speculative mauers that attracted Greek and
dari!y~ it a tool for logical and philosophical enquiry. Roman thinkers (though they did not ignore [hose
Especialfy'"towards [he end of rhe millennium, sev- topics). The Hindu priests were aware that their lan-
tral authors wrote major works i~ (h~ fi~N~ouranl- guage had diverged from that of their oldest sacred
mar and rhetoric (§ 12)...,. notably, Cice~o (106-43 DC) texts, the Vedas (p. 388), in both pronunciation and
onscyle. and Quinrilian (lS[ celHu~y AD) 011 usage and grall1r~~~-I:. An imponanr parr of their belief was that
public speaking. Julius Caesar wrote on gr;ul1matical cenain religious ceremonics, to be sLlccessful, needed
tegulariry - it is said. wp!l~ Cl".RSS~1g the Alps on a mili- to rcproduce accurately the original form of thesc tcXts.
tary campaign. Aelius ifJi~tll~(:l4th ccnrury AD) wrote Change was not corruption, as in Greece, but profana-
1 Latin grammar (Ars maior) thar was llsed right into rion. Several ancillary disciplines (Vediillga, 'limbs of
(he Middle Ages. irs popularity evidenced by the facr the Vedas'), including phonetics, etymology, grammar,
(hac it was rhe first to be primed in wooden type. and and merrics. grew up to overcome chis problem.
had a shoner edition for children (the An minor). lp Their solution was to establish the facts of the old
the 6th cenrury, Priscian's Institutiones gmmmflticae language clearly and systematically and rhus to pro-
(Grammatical categories') was ~lI1other influential duce an authoritative tex[. The earliest evidence we
work chac conrinucd to be used during the Middle have of this feat is the work carried out by the Far left: Cicero, in an engrav-
Ages: it ~9J1(ains 18 books, and remains the most C0I11-1 grammarian Pjnini, sometime between the ~ ing of 1584

ple[e grammar of [he age [hac we have. /1 f / fr-I v'\

and[7tIl\cemuries l!lSlin the form of a set of 4,000
. aphoristic statements known as ('threads').
The A~{ddhyiiyj (,Eight
books'), dealing mainly
with rules of word forma-
tion, are composed in
sllch 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, ,wd (he influence
of sOlillds on e:lch other
in cordlectcd speech is
recognized (the notion of
sandhI), Several concepts of
moclen~i linguistics. derive
from this tradition.
 ~Ch-'\ (.,L)ZV) Lo;t- .!~ ~~ /c~
PART XI'
1\
LANGlJAGE AND COMMUNICATION . .

"
l~E 'MIDDLE AGES
.
-
'~~~f{.o
~~ ~y
~1bk~~~~~
. in knowlcdgc·, according to Cartesian philos-
. Very lil~le is known about the dcve opment oflinguistic ophy, but their existence was denied by philoso'phers
ideas in,Europe during the 'Dark Ages', though it is evi- (such as Locis.. H~I!l~e, and ll;.rreley) for whom
dem that Latin=, as the language of education, provided knowledge derivcd rroll~ the way t le mind operated
a c~minuity ~f traditio~ between classical and mec~iev~1 lIpon ext~rnal sense impressions. The ,issue was tp "
periods; Medlevallearnll1g was founded on sevcn...ilW, • resurface 111 the 20th ccntury (p. 413), / b3'~ K Jr /) .
of which three - grammar, dialectic, and rhetor:c - Several other important trends have beenC;;6ted dllr!?J..L~=--',L....:A.'-~--...L..L--"'"
formed one division, known as thetritJill1J1. Grammar ing the 17th and 181h centuries: thc brcakdown of THE FIRST
(mam . Iy usmg. p"flSClan an donaws O) was'seel.l as t Ile L' .
aun as a unlversa I me d'lum 0 f communl<;~tlOn,
.. an d GRAMMARIAN'
foundation for the whole of learning. A tradition of its replacement by modern languages (§59); the many The Prose Edda is a 13th-cen·
'speculative' grammars dcveloped in the 13th and 14th pr<jpo~als for universal languages, shorthand systems, tury textbook on poetic style
and construction, written by
centuries, in which grammatical notions wcre rcinter- and secret codes (§§33, 58); thc beginnings of a sys- the Icelandic chief, Snorri
preted within the framework of scholastic philosophy. tcmatic approach to phonc:tics (§27); thc developmenr Stur~ppended to the
The authors (the 'Modistae') looked to philosophy for of .'general' grammars, based on universal principles, manuscript are four treatises
on grammar, written in the
the ultimate explanation of the rulcs of grammar. A sllch as thc 17th-ccntury grammar ofro~t Royal (§ 14); mid-12th century, the first o(
famol:ls quotation from the period states that it is not and the major elaborations of traditional grammar in which has attracted special
rhe grammarian but 'the philosopher [who] discovers schools (§ 1). Theil, as the 19th CCf1(ury approached, attention because of the
grammar' (phi/osop/ws grammaticam inIJCIlit). The dif- thc first statemcnt about the historical relationship originality of its thought. The
authorship of this 'First
ferences'between languages were thought to be superfi- between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin was made, usher- Grammatical Treatise' is
cial, hiding the existence of a universal grammar (§ 14). ing in the scicnce of comparativc philology (§50). unknown, but the writer has
The Middle Ages also saw the development of west- ~ ~ (') J. J. D/lAi)A come to be known as the
ern lexicography (§ 18) and progress in the field of -~U~ --...-.., .
'first grammarian'.
This early exercise in
translation, as Christian missionar), activit}' increased. spelling reform (p. 217) sum·
Part of the opening leaf of the First Grammatical Treatise. The
In the East, Bp',antinc writers continlled (() expound drawing of Snorri Sturluson [above right) is by an Iceiandic marizes and illustrates the
the ideas of the Greek authors. There was a strong tra- artist Kjurfan Gu()j6nsson (1921). principies needed to improve
the use of the Latin alphabet
dition of Arabic language work .relatcd to thc ur'an for writing Old Icelandic. It is
(which was not to be translated, p. 388). from arounc the only work of this period
the 8th century. several major grammars and dictionar- to draw attention to the
ies were produced, as well as descriptive works on Ara- problems involved in apply-
ing Latin letters to a vernacu·
bic pronunciation. For a long rime, these remained lar language. It contains
unknown in Western Europe. Opportunities for con- several acute phoneticobser.
tact with the Greek, Arabic, and Hcbrew linguistic tra- vations, and, in its emphasis
on finding symbols to express
dici~nly came later, as a result of the Crusades.
sound contrasts, anticipates '
\~/I(p/l{ - Af-~C& ~ the basis 0 ( 20th-century .
. THE~ENAISSANCE\~~~~~ phonological theory (§28). '~
'. l,
, The rediscovery of the ClaSSical world that came with
A translation of part oft he '.1
the' Fc.vi val oflearni ng', as well as the discoveries of (he opening page (E. Haugen,
New World, transformed the field of language study. 1972):
Missionary work produced a large quantity oflinguis-
tic npterial, especially fr~)/11 the Far East. Thc Chinese I have written an alphabet. ':'
for us Icelanders also, in ~
linguistic traditions were discovercd. Arabic and order that it might become -.~
Hebrew studies progressed, the latter especially in rela- easier to write and read... .~
I have used all the Latin let· ,. r
tion to (he Bible. In the 16th century, several grammars
ters that seemed to fit our .'!~ l
of exotic languages came to bc written (e.g. QlIcch~ language well and could be m
in 1560). There was a more systematic study of Euro- rightly pronounced, as well ;Ml~.:.
pean languages, especially of the Romance family. The as some other letters that :1 ~
first grammars of Icalian and Spanish date from the seemed needful to me, whllt
those were taken out that ~~I
15th century. Major dictionary projects were launched did not suit the sounds o( out·
in many languages. ~cademies came into being (p. 4), language. Some of the (on- 'i n
The availability of printing led to the rapid dissemina- sonants of the Latin aIPhabrl.i''.
tion of ideas and matcrials. were rejected, and some neW
ones added. No vowels wert
As we approach modern timcs, Frcsh philosophical rejected, but a good many )j
issues emerged. The J 8th century is charactcrized by were added, since our lan"
the arguments between 'rationalists' and 'SJllpiricists' guage ha~ the greatest num . :)~
over the role of innate ideas in the development of ber of vowel sounds. .fl
:'~
M
thought and language. Such ideas provided the basis of

'~
1'~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.:...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:d

·;1
.(

~
 /
/ 65 . LINGUISTICS 411
/

/ TWENTIETH-CENTURY
SAUSSUREAN PRINCIPLES
Some of Saussure's most it is possible to assess the tionship of signified to signi-
LINGUISTICS central ideas were state of the game by study- fier Saussure calls a linguistic
expressed In the form of ing the position of the sign. The sign is the basic unit
The growth of modern linguistics, from the end of (h; ii 1 pairs of concepts: pieces on the board. of communication within a
community: langue'is seen as
18ch cemury to the present day, has in large part C Langage vs langue vs a 'system of signs'.
already been summarized in earlier sections of this vol- parole
ume. The majority of the concepts used in the discus- The many senses of the word S}'lleagmaeic
sion of language history, acquisition, structure, ~Ianguage' prompted Saus-

n- sure to Introduce a three- She + can ... go

substance, and lise stem from chis perspective (reflect- A - - - - + - - - - 13
Ie fold set of terms, the last
ing the 'background of the aLHhor). However, there two of which were central to
~]\
remain several loose ends of a historical and theoretical his thinking. Langage is the r .g
nacure chac. need to be drawn together in chis final part faculty of spe'ech present in £ g
of the book. '
o all normal human beings \ .':fl He will run
due to heredity - our ability' C
rd may· .' sir
Diachrony vs synchrony to talk to each other. This l c...
EUROPE AND AMERICA He sharply distinguished faculty is composed of two You mighe see
historical ('diachronic') and aspects£Q~l.~!.(the lan-
Two main approaches to language study. one Euro- non-historica I (' synchron ic') guage system) and paro/~ cec'. cec. ere .
.,;.;.~~, one American. unite (Q form the modern subject approaches to language (the act of speaking). Th'e '
",linguistics. The first arises ou[ of the aims and meth- study. The former sees lan- former is the to~tli~ of a Syntagmatic and asso-
's ods of 19th-century comparative philology (§50), guage as a continually language, wh,c we could In ciative (or paradigmatic)
changing medium; the lat- theory discover by examin- A sentence is a sequence of
with its focus on written records, and its interest in his- ter sees it as a living whole, ing the memories of all the signs, each sign contribut-
lorical analysis and interpreracion. The beginning of existing as a 'state' at a par- language users: 'the sum of ing something to the mean-
(he 20ch'century saw a sharp change of emphasis, with ticular moment in time. In word-images stored in the ing of the whole. When the
I
(he study of the principles governing [he structure of his diagram, AS represents minds of individuals'. Parole signs are seen as a linear
"

e. a synchronic 'axis of simul- is the actual, concrete act of sequence, the relationship
living languages being introduced by the Genevan lin- taneities' - a language state speaking on the part of a between them is called syn-
t;
guist, ~_rdi!.1and de Saussure (1857-1913). Saussure's at some point in time; CD is person - a dynamic, social tagmatic, as in She.+ can +
early work was in philology. but he is mainly remem- a diachronic 'axis of succes- activity in a particular time go. When a sign that is pre-
sions' - the historical pa th and place. sent is seen as contrasting
bered for his rheoredcal ideas, as summarized in the the language has travelled. with other signs in the lan-
COlm de linguistique generate ('Course in general lin- In this view, it is always guage, the relationship is
guiscics'), which is widely held to be rhe foundation of necessary to carry out some called associative (in later
the modern subject. This book was in fan published degree of synchronic work studies, paradigmatiC), as in
before making a diachronic She vs He, can vs will, go vs
posthumously in 1916, and consists of a reconstruc~ study: before we can say run in the above sentence.
lion by two of Saussure's students of his lecture notes how a language has These two dimensions of
and other materials. changed from state X to Signifiant vs signifie structure can be applied to
The second approach arose from the interests and state y. we need to know Sau5sure recognized two phonology, vocabulary, or
something about X and Y. sides to the study of mean- any other aspect of lan-
preoccupations of American anthropologists, who Correspondingly, a syn- ing, but emphasized that the guage. The result is a con-
:j!1!Ie concerned co establish good descriptions of the chronic analysis can be relationship between the ception of language as a
, _terican Indian. languages and culcures before they made without referring to two is arbitrary (p. 408). His vast network of interre-
history. Saussure illustrates labels for the two sides are la ted structures and mutu-
disappeared. Here, (here were no wrincn records (Q this point using an analogy signifiant ('the thing that ~ally defining entities •. a
rely on, hence hiscorical analysis was ruled our. Also; with a game of chess: if we SignifieS', or 'sound image') ~ linguistic system.
Ihese languages presenced very differenc kinds of srruc, walk into a room while a and signifie ('the thing signi- ~ JJ-..ec 'L<.d
lUre from those encouncered in (he European tradi- chess game is being played, tied', or 'concept'). This rela- ~.:;:
tion. The approach was therefore to provide a careful,
aceo,une o~ the speech pa([ern~~,,1Lyj,~gllages.YL
Apioneer in (his field was F(lI1Z nQlS~nif)E::1942)lUJ; 1)
who published the first volume of (he Handbook Of
American Indian Languages in 191 J. Ten years later,
another anchropoiogically orielHed book appeared:'
Lftnguage by Edward Sapir (1884-1939). These works!>o pI
proved to be a formative influence 0/1' [he early devel-
opment oflinguistics in America. The new direccion is
foreeful1y'sraced by noas (p. 60): 'we must insist that a.
command of [he language is an indispensable means of
obtaining accurate and thorough knowledge, because
much information can be gained by listening to con-
versa(ions of [he natives and by raking part in cheir
daily Ijfe, which. co the observer who has no command
of the language, will remain encirely inaccessible'. ,.
-_~~' ............ ~ _:..... ~)17 '. .:- ~\ -.
- - - - - - - . ~l--", ~~~:.--.-- \
 PART XI, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION

~
b.ATER DEVELOPMENTS
Both European and American approaches developed
rapidly..ln Europe, Saussure's ideas werc taken up by
severa I groups 0 f sc110Iars (espccia II yin Swi tzer Iand,
Czechoslovakia, France, and Denmark), and schools of
th ough t emerged bascd on Saussll rean pri /lci pies
(notab,ly, the Linguistic Circle of Praguc, which was
founded in 1926). The field of phonolob,), (§28) was
the first 'to develop. with later IJwgress coming in sllch
areas as grammar and style. Saussurc's influcncc con-
tinues [0 be strong [Oday, with his notion ofa languagc
'system' becoming the foundation of mllch work in
'
semiotics an d strllcrura Iism (pp. 79, l1(3),
In America. thc developmcnt or detailed procedures
for t 1le ,study 0 f spoken Ianguagc also It:d to progress in
SCHOOLS OFTHOUGHT
----
Manydifferent approaches to linguistics emerged in the
middle decades of this century, some of which have attracted
a great deal of support. The distinguishing feature offive of
these approaches is outlined below. (For corresponding
developments within the field of generative linguistics,
which has been dominant since the 19605, see p. 413.)
Functional sentence perspec~!~_~_
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 ra, te,d with r~sect to the Roman Jakobson
'dy~amic' rq,le it plays in,c"o m~uniciPt'on
"UQ..~ ~ ttU.-
• ::l1£~'L'U:
'TV 1896-1982) Jakobson was
Dependency grammar
A type of f~grammar developed in the 1950s. notably
. one of the founders of the
Prague School of linguistics
by the French linguist. lucien ~esniere (1893-1954). It and a major contributor to

e'
phonetiCs and phonology, and especial attemion was, explains grammatical relationships by setting up 'depen- many fields of study in
paid to thc distinctive morphology and s)'n tax (§ 16) of denci~s' (or ~') betwe~n the elements of a con- Slavonic languages and gen·
f':::-"he American Indian languages. Thc first major state- structlOn" • iL cI
erallinguistics. In 1941 he

, ment sYnthesizing the theory and practicc of linguistic T<lqmemics -~ ~~ L~ moved to America, where he
held professorial posts at ,
analysis was Language by Leonard Bloomfield A theory developea since the 1950s by th AmeriqD lin- Columbia and Harvard V,l1.\.t'{::,
guist, K. l. Pike (1912-), which focuses particularly on the
(1887-1949), which appeared in 1933. This book needtorelatelinguistic'forms'and'functions'.Acentral between 1946 and 1967,
===-
dominated linguistic thinking for over 20 years, and notion is the contrast between the'~ units, which are
stimulated many descriptivc studics of grammar and functionally contrastive in a language (such as phoneme
ei" I ~ a d morpheme), and the 'etic' units that give them physi-
pI1Ono Jog)'. I n d u~ course, t I1.C ~ lOOI1lIIC dian appr~ac 1 ~ (d. phoneti~ §m-r~ ~ ~ -
came to
· d fl'
be callcd strucrufallst, b(~callsc of {hc various
. I .. .
~f"
•
Str~tl Icatlona grammar
::U~J'
Jlk<..1 'kao' ~' ,
kJIl so tcc lnlqUC It emp oyed to Idclltlfy and claSSify
>.

lr'A theory devised by the American lingUist S. .lamb

features of sentence structurc (in particubr, the analy- 1929-) in the 1960s that views language as a system of
sis of sentences into thcir constituent parts, p. 96). It r~l~ I~a') of structure.
also represented a behaviourist view of linguistics. ystemic linguistics
notably in its approach to the study of meaning (p. A theory developed since the 1960s by the British linguist
o) H .. I d' . 'h I' 15
1 1. owever, Its appea .11l1111JS. C( IJ1 t.1C. 19. Os,
M . A. K. Halliday (1925-) in which grammar is seen as a
~t\'Vorkof '~ems' of interrelated contrasts; particular
when there was a sharp reaction agall1st the IJlnltatlons attention is paid to the semantic and .8!J!gmatic.aspects of
of strucrurallinguistic methods, especially in thc area analysis (§§ 17,21) and also to the way intC!,'1atiO.Q. is used in
of grammar (p. 96). the expression of meaning (§~9).
louis Hjelmslev
This extract from an obituary ofBloomficJd, written (1899-1965) The leading the-
by Bernard Bloch in the journal Language in 1949 (p. 3: 13-'1, • oretician o,f th~ C?pen:ta~en
14-t..:.,. .
~ [If)'3) , summarizes this scholar's achicvemcnt: John Rupert.J1r;1b.-(1890-1960) (below, left) J. R. Firth, Profes- School of lingUistiCS, HJelm-
sor of General Linguistics In the University of london from slev propounded a formal
There can be no doubt that Bloomfield's greatest cOIHribu- 1944 to 1956, was a key figure in the development of British ~pproach to language study "
to
cion t~e study of langu\lge was to make a science of it. linguistics. A central notion in his approach is that the patterns In th.e 19305 known as~ :'
Others bef~)fe him had worked ~cientifically in linguistics;
of language that appear at a particular level of description mattG. .:l
(§ 13) cannot be explained using a single analytic system. Dif·
but no one had so uncompromisingly rejected all prescien- ferent systems may need to be set up at different places, in
tific methods, or had been so consistently careful, in writing order to handle the range of contrasts involved (an approach
about la'~guage, to use terms that would imply no tacit known as po/ysystemicism).
reliance on factors beyond the range of observation ... h was
Bloomfield who taught us the necessity of speaking abollt '" leonard Bloomfield

language in the style that every sciemist uses when he speaks

about the'object of his research: impersonally. precisely, and
in terms that assume no more than actual observation dis-
closes CO him.

Bloomfield's opposition to 1I1lSCielltiricilllpressiollisI11

in bngu~ge studics is nearly summarizcd by thc wry
comment ,he madc on one occasion: 'If YOll want to
compare two languages, it helps to know OIlC of thcrn!' D'aniel Jones (1881-1967)
The leading British phonetl·
cian in the first half of this
century, Jones was Professor
of Phonetics at the University
of L0!ldon from 192119 1949,
~ Q-.eLc4 crf f Cu;~ei:~l
,R.a,1V,e1 HYl.J) 'l:~ etL(,.l.VL.

~~4~'
 65 . LINGUISTICS

J1vrs KY The essence of the ~pproach is summarized by

957. Avram Noam Chomsky, Professor ofLinguis- Chomsky in a 1986 book (Knowledge of Language. p.
at che. Massachusetts Institute of Technology xxvi) as providing an answer to rhe question 'How
928- ). published Syntactic Structures, which proved' comes it [hat human beings, whose conracts with ehe
be a turning poim in 20th-century linguistics. In world are brief and personal and limited, are nevenhe-
and subsequent publications, he developed (he less able to know as much as they do know?' By study-
)flc(~D[l'lon of a generative grammar (p. 97), which ing the human language faCllley, it should be possible
radically from the strucmralism and to show how a pe'rson cons(J"uc(s a knowledge system
lOurism of [he previolls decades. Earlit:r analyscs' our of everyday experience, :lnd (hus move some way
sentences were shown to be inadequate in variolls towards solving this problem.
, mainly because they failed to eake inro A major feature ofChomsky's approach was the tech-
iccount the difference between 'surface' and 'deep' lev- nical apparaeus he devised to make ehe notion of com-
ds of grammatical structure. At a surface level, sllch petenceexplicit - the system of rules and symbols thar
$encences as John is eager to please and John is easy to provides a formal representation of the underlying syn-
pkasecan be analysed in an idemical way; but from the tactic, semanric, and phonological structure of sen- Noam Chomsky
paine of view of their underlying meaning, the two tences (aspects of this apparatLls have been referred to
sentences diverge: in the first, John wants (0 please: in earlier sections, pp. 97, 107, 164), A primary notion
~one else'; in the second. someone else is involved - the transformational rule (p. 97) - led [0 the
I" yleasing John. A major aim of generative grammar: approach being commonly referred to as transforma-
was to provide a means of analysing sentences that (Ook' tionalgrammar(or TC), Since the 1950s, much of lin-
accouni: of chis underlying level of structure. guistics has been taken lip with proposals [0 develop
To achieve chis aim, Chomsky drew a h.ll1damemal dis- the form of generative grammars, and the original the-
unction (simil~u to Sallssurc's langlleand jJrlrole) between a ory has been reformulatcd several times. During rhe
person's knowledge of the rules of a language and the same period, also, there have been several proposals for
acrualllse of thac language in real situations. The fim he alternative models of grammatical analysis to those
referred to as competeneei the second as per{orman{f expounded by Chomsky and his associates. some of
linguistics, he argued, should be concerned with the I which have aHracted considerable sllppon, As a conse-
study of competence, ao_d not restrict itself to perfor-. quence, linguistic theory, (he core of scientific Ian-
mance-something that was characteristic of previolls lin-' guage study. is now a lively and cOlHroversial field.
guisticstudies in their reliance on samples (or 'corpora') of ~dt:.. afJ~ . ' raJ ~-~4( d-o::. h.eu.~
speech(e.g.in[heformofacollectionoftaperecordil~ ~. 6V\. '1J a~ Vb ()
~~~mpieswereinadequarebecau~ilieycollidpro~de ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
onlyariny fraction of thesenrences it i's possible to say in a SOME THEORETICAL CONSEQUENCES OF GENERATIVE THEORY
language; they also comained many nOI1-fiuencies,' Since the 1960s, several generative grammar. Fur- formal approach to gram-
changes o. f plan, and other errors of performance. Speak-: fresh theoretical approaches ther levels of phrase struc- mar. This particular theory
to grammatical analysis have ture are recognized, and adopts a pragmatic view of
ers use their competence (0 go f.1r beyond rhe linlir;1rions emerged, most of which can distinguished using differ- language as social interac-
~~ny corpus, by being able to creare and recognize novel be seen as a development ent numbers of bar symbols, tion (§21), ancrsets up 'func-
..!nces, and to idemify performance errors. The of Chomsky's proposals - q1\:1 tional' units of a praglnatic
descriptio!) of [he rules governing [he strucrure of [his tOhreams.a reaction against Montagtfu grammar and sy'ntactic kind within
This ap~ach derives from l~ence.Jt:uctuxe,. II _
competence was rhus (he more imporranr goal. the work of the American v~;/...{(J1~~ fi.'->.. ?
Chomsky's proposals were intended to discover the ~grammar logician Richard Montague Realistic grammar
meneal realities underlying (he way people use lan- The American linguist, (1930-70), and is based on Grammatical analyses
Charles Fillmore (1929-), the study ofloqicallan· should be 'psychologically
guage: competence is seen as an aspect 0 f our genera I devised a theory which guages, A close correspon- real', according to this
psychological capacity. Linguistics was (hus envisaged focuses on the ~~mantic rol~s dence is set up between the approach, Formal patterns
asa memalistic discipline - a view chac conrrasted with (or 'cases') played by ele- categories of syntax and should be related to the .
me behavioural bias of previous 20rh-cenwry work in ments of sentence st~re. semantics. ~' ~ psychological factors that
.I I . f I jf !?,~~ i¥~-4.. 'CV\ " r o underlie linguistic
Ihe su bjecc, an d connecre d WI[ 1 (lC alms 0 severa ear- Relationar grammar ~neralized phras ~ct behaviour, such as compre-
liee linguists (such as rhe Pore-Royal grammarians. p. This approach views gram- structure grammar hension and mem~
84). Ie was also argued char linguistics should not sim- matical relations (e.g. 'sub- This theory does not recog- ~,-..... ---- Cer
ly limit itself to the descri)nion of competence, I n the ject', 'object') a?entri" nize the role of transforma- Network grammar JI'
P rather than the orma cate- tions in a generative This kind of grammar has 0
long term, [here was a still more powerful target: to gories (e.g. 'noun phrase', grammar. Instead, it focuses de't,£loped out of research
provide a grammar capable of evaluating the adequacy. 'verb phrase') of earlier on developing the phrase (..r"~trnto ~:&ificial intelligence,
of differem accoums of competence. anu of going generative theory (§16). structure dimension to aiming to simulate the way I
grammatical analysis (p. 96), in which people understand
beyond (he study of individual languages to the nature X-bar ()<) theory the sentences of a lan-
of human language as a whole (by discovering 'Iinguis- The theory provides an guage.
tic universals', (§§14, 38). In [his way, it was hoped, alternative account of
' phrase structure within a
linguistics woul d be a b Ie [0 ma k e a contribution [0 oLlr ~'-
undemanding of the namre of (he human mind.

'"

,~ ....-., .. ------~-----------