Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Grammatical Cases ¿WHO IS CHARLES J. FILLMORE?
Charles J. Fillmore (born 1929) is an American linguist, and an Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Fillmore has been extremely influential in the areas of syntax and lexical semantics. He was a proponent of Noam Chomsky's theory of generative grammar during its earliest transformational grammar phase. He was one of the founders of cognitive linguistics, and developed the theories of Case Grammar (Fillmore 1968), and Frame Semantics (1976).
He was one of the first linguists to introduce a representation of linguistic knowledge that blurred this strong distinction between syntactic and semantic knowledge of a language. He introduced what was termed case structure grammar and this representation subsequently had considerable influence on psychologists as well as computational linguists.
Grammar Case is a system of linguistic analysis, focusing on the link between the valence, or number of subjects, objects, etc., of a verb and the grammatical context it requires.
The system was created by the American linguist Charles J. Fillmore in (1968), in the context of Transformational Grammar. This theory analyzes the surface syntactic structure of sentences by studying the combination of deep cases (i.e. semantic roles) -- Agent, Object, Benefactor, Location or Instrument -- which are required by a specific verb.
For instance, the verb "give" in English requires an Agent (A) and Object (O), and a Beneficiary (B); e.g. "Jones (A) gave money (O) to the school (B).
According to Fillmore, each verb selects a certain number of deep cases which form its case frame. Thus, a case frame describes important aspects of semantic valency, of verbs, adjectives and nouns.
Case frames are subject to certain constraints, such as that a deep case can occur only once per sentence.
Some of the cases are obligatory and others are optional. Obligatory cases may not be deleted, at the risk of producing ungrammatical sentences.
A fundamental hypothesis of case grammar is that grammatical functions, such as subject or object, are determined by the deep, semantic valence of the verb, which finds its syntactic correlate in such grammatical categories as Subject and Object, and in grammatical cases such as Nominative, Accusative, etc.
Fillmore puts forwards the following hierarchy for a universal subject selection rule:
Agent < Instrumental < Objective
That means that if the case frame of a verb contains an agent, this one is realized as the subject of an active sentence.
Case grammar is an attempt to establish a semantic grammar. (Most grammars by linguists take syntax as the starting-point).
Using a modified form of valency theory Fillmore suggests that the verb establishes a set of cases in a sentence: these are like slots, which usually need not all be filled. For example, consider these sentences:
1. Mary opened the door with a key.
2. Mary opened the door.
3. A key opened the door.
4. The door opened.
In (1) the semantic cases are: Mary - agent; the door - object; a key - instrument.
In (2) they are as in (1), except that there is no instrument.
In (3) the cases are: a key - instrument; the door - object.
In (4) the only case is the door - object.
In other words, to open requires at the minimum that the object be specified in a sentence.
Dr. Fillmore has been extremely influential in the areas of syntax and lexical semantics. He was a proponent of Noam Chomsky's theory of generative grammar during its earliest transformational grammar phase. He was one of the founders of cognitive linguistics, and developed the theories of Case Grammar (Fillmore 1968), and Frame Semantics (1976).
He was one of the first linguists to introduce a representation of linguistic knowledge that blurred this strong distinction between syntactic and semantic knowledge of a language. He introduced what was termed case structure grammar and this representation subsequently had considerable influence on psychologists as well as computational linguists.
Grammar Case is a system of linguistic analysis, focusing on the link between the valence, or number of subjects, objects, etc., of a verb and the grammatical context it requires.
The system was created by the American linguist Charles J. Fillmore in (1968), in the context of Transformational Grammar. This theory analyzes the surface syntactic structure of sentences by studying the combination of deep cases (i.e. semantic roles) -- Agent, Object, Benefactor, Location or Instrument -- which are required by a specific verb.
For instance, the verb "give" in English requires an Agent (A) and Object (O), and a Beneficiary (B); e.g. "Jones (A) gave money (O) to the school (B).
According to Fillmore, each verb selects a certain number of deep cases which form its case frame. Thus, a case frame describes important aspects of semantic valency, of verbs, adjectives and nouns.
Case frames are subject to certain constraints, such as that a deep case can occur only once per sentence.
Some of the cases are obligatory and others are optional. Obligatory cases may not be deleted, at the risk of producing ungrammatical sentences.
A fundamental hypothesis of case grammar is that grammatical functions, such as subject or object, are determined by the deep, semantic valence of the verb, which finds its syntactic correlate in such grammatical categories as Subject and Object, and in grammatical cases such as Nominative, Accusative, etc.
Fillmore puts forwards the following hierarchy for a universal subject selection rule:
Agent < Instrumental < Objective
That means that if the case frame of a verb contains an agent, this one is realized as the subject of an active sentence.
Case grammar is an attempt to establish a semantic grammar. (Most grammars by linguists take syntax as the starting-point).
Using a modified form of valency theory Fillmore suggests that the verb establishes a set of cases in a sentence: these are like slots, which usually need not all be filled. For example, consider these sentences:
1. Mary opened the door with a key.
2. Mary opened the door.
3. A key opened the door.
4. The door opened.
In (1) the semantic cases are: Mary - agent; the door - object; a key - instrument.
In (2) they are as in (1), except that there is no instrument.
In (3) the cases are: a key - instrument; the door - object.
In (4) the only case is the door - object.
In other words, to open requires at the minimum that the object be specified in a sentence.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Copenhagen school
The Copenhagen School, officially the "Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen (Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague)", was a group of scholars dedicated to the study of structural linguistics founded by Louis Hjelmslev and Viggo Brøndal. In the mid twentieth century the Copenhagen school was one of the most important centres of linguistic structuralism together with the Geneva School and thePrague School.
The Copenhagen School of Linguistics evolved around Louis Hjelmslev and his developing theory of language, glossematics. Together with Viggo Brødal he founded the Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague a group of linguists based on the model of the Prague Linguistic Circle.
In the mid twentieth century the Copenhagen school was one of the most important centres of linguistic structuralism together with the Geneva School and thePrague School.
Within the circle the ideas of Brøndal and Hjelmslev were not always compatible and Hjelmslevs more formalist approach attracted a group of followers, principal among them Hans Jørgen
Uldall and Eli Fischer Jørgensen, who would strive to apply Hjelmslevs abstract ideas of the
nature of language to analyses of actual linguistic data.
In the mid twentieth century the Copenhagen school was one of the most importantcentres of linguistic structuralism together with the Geneva School and thePragueSchool.
In 1989 a group of members of the Copenhagen Linguistic circle inspired by the advances in
cognitive linguistics and the functionalist theories of Simon C. Dik founded the School of Danish
Functional Grammar aiming to combine the ideas of Hjelmslev and Brøndal, and other important
Danish linguists such as Paul Diderichsen and Otto Jespersen with modern functional linguistics.
Among the prominent members of this new generation of the Copenhagen School of Linguistics
were Peter Harder, Elisabeth Engberg Petersen, Frans Gregersen and Michael Fortescue, and
the basic work of the school is "Danish Functional Grammar."
Louis Hjelmslev (October 3, 1899, Copenhagen – May 30, 1965, Copenhagen) was a Danish
linguist whose ideas formed the basis of the Copenhagen School of linguistics. Born into an
academic family, Hjelmslev studied comparative linguistics in Copenhagen, Prague and Paris
(with a.o.Antoine Meillet and Joseph Vendryes).
žHis most well-known book, Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse, or in English
translation, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, first published in 1943, critiques the
then-prevailing methodologies in linguistics as being descriptive, even anecdotal, and not
systematising.
In 1931, he founded the Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague. Together with Hans Jørgen Uldall
he developed a structural theory of language which he called glossematics, which developed the
semiotic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure. Glossematics as a theory of language is
characterized by a high degree of formalism, it is interested only in describing the formal
characteristics of language, and a high degree of logical rigour.
The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen
The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen was founded by Hjelmslev and a group of Danish
colleagues on September 24, 1931. Their main inspiration was the Prague Linguistic Circle,
which had been founded in 1926. It was, in the first place, a forum for discussion of theoretical
and methodological problems in linguistics. Initially, their interest lay mainly in developing an
alternative concept of the phoneme, but it later developed into a complete theory which was
coined glossematics, and was notably influenced by structuralism. Membership of the group
grew rapidly and a significant list of publications resulted, including an irregular series of larger
works under the name Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague.
The Copenhagen School of Linguistics evolved around Louis Hjelmslev and his developing theory of language, glossematics. Together with Viggo Brødal he founded the Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague a group of linguists based on the model of the Prague Linguistic Circle.
In the mid twentieth century the Copenhagen school was one of the most important centres of linguistic structuralism together with the Geneva School and thePrague School.
Within the circle the ideas of Brøndal and Hjelmslev were not always compatible and Hjelmslevs more formalist approach attracted a group of followers, principal among them Hans Jørgen
Uldall and Eli Fischer Jørgensen, who would strive to apply Hjelmslevs abstract ideas of the
nature of language to analyses of actual linguistic data.
In the mid twentieth century the Copenhagen school was one of the most importantcentres of linguistic structuralism together with the Geneva School and thePragueSchool.
In 1989 a group of members of the Copenhagen Linguistic circle inspired by the advances in
cognitive linguistics and the functionalist theories of Simon C. Dik founded the School of Danish
Functional Grammar aiming to combine the ideas of Hjelmslev and Brøndal, and other important
Danish linguists such as Paul Diderichsen and Otto Jespersen with modern functional linguistics.
Among the prominent members of this new generation of the Copenhagen School of Linguistics
were Peter Harder, Elisabeth Engberg Petersen, Frans Gregersen and Michael Fortescue, and
the basic work of the school is "Danish Functional Grammar."
Louis Hjelmslev (October 3, 1899, Copenhagen – May 30, 1965, Copenhagen) was a Danish
linguist whose ideas formed the basis of the Copenhagen School of linguistics. Born into an
academic family, Hjelmslev studied comparative linguistics in Copenhagen, Prague and Paris
(with a.o.Antoine Meillet and Joseph Vendryes).
žHis most well-known book, Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse, or in English
translation, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, first published in 1943, critiques the
then-prevailing methodologies in linguistics as being descriptive, even anecdotal, and not
systematising.
In 1931, he founded the Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague. Together with Hans Jørgen Uldall
he developed a structural theory of language which he called glossematics, which developed the
semiotic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure. Glossematics as a theory of language is
characterized by a high degree of formalism, it is interested only in describing the formal
characteristics of language, and a high degree of logical rigour.
The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen
The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen was founded by Hjelmslev and a group of Danish
colleagues on September 24, 1931. Their main inspiration was the Prague Linguistic Circle,
which had been founded in 1926. It was, in the first place, a forum for discussion of theoretical
and methodological problems in linguistics. Initially, their interest lay mainly in developing an
alternative concept of the phoneme, but it later developed into a complete theory which was
coined glossematics, and was notably influenced by structuralism. Membership of the group
grew rapidly and a significant list of publications resulted, including an irregular series of larger
works under the name Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague.
chomsky
The formalism of context-free grammars was developed in the mid-1950s by Noam Chomsky, and also their classification as a special type of formal grammar (which he called phrase-structure grammars).
A context-free grammar provides a simple and mathematically precise mechanism for describing the methods by which phrases in some natural language are built from smaller blocks, capturing the "block structure" of sentences in a natural way. Its simplicity makes the formalism amenable to rigorous mathematical study. Important features of natural language syntax such as agreement and reference are not part of the context-free grammar, but the basic recursive structure of sentences, the way in which clauses nest inside other clauses, and the way in which lists of adjectives and adverbs are swallowed by nouns and verbs, is described exactly.
In Chomsky's generative grammar framework, the syntax of natural language was described by a context-free rules combined with transformation rules. In later work (e.g. Chomsky 1981), the idea of formulating a grammar consisting of explicit rewrite rules was abandoned. In other generative frameworks, e.g. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (Gazdar et al. 1985), context-free grammars were taken to be the mechanism for the entire syntax, eliminating transformations.
—A formal grammar (sometimes simply called a grammar) is a set of formation rules for strings in a formal language. The rules describe how to form strings from the language's alphabet that are valid according to the language's syntax. A grammar does not describe the meaning of the strings or what can be done with them in whatever context—only their form.
—Formal language theory, the discipline which studies formal grammars and languages, is a branch of applied mathematics. Its applications are found in theoretical computer science, theoretical linguistics, formal semantics, mathematical logic, and other areas.
—A formal grammar is a set of rules for rewriting strings, along with a "start symbol" from which rewriting must start. Therefore, a grammar is usually thought of as a language generator. However, it can also sometimes be used as the basis for a "recognizer"—a function in computing that determines whether a given string belongs to the language or is grammatically incorrect. To describe such recognizers, formal language theory uses separate formalisms, known as automata theory. One of the interesting results of automata theory is that it is not possible to design a recognizer for certain formal languages.
—Parsing is the process of recognizing an utterance (a string in natural languages) by breaking it down to a set of symbols and analyzing each one against the grammar of the language. Most languages have the meanings of their utterances structured according to their syntax—a practice known as compositional semantics . As a result, the first step to describing the meaning of an utterance in language is to break it down part by part and look at its analyzed form (known as its parse tree in computer science, and as its deep structure in generative grammar).
—The linguistic formalism derived from Chomsky can be characterized by a focus on innate
universal grammar (UG), and a disregard for the role of stimuli. According to this position,
language use is only relevant in triggering the innate structures. With regard to the tradition,
Chomsky’s position can be characterized as a continuation of essential principles of
structuralist theory from Sauss...ure (Givón 2001). This is particularly the case for Saussure’s
principles of abstractness and arbitrariness. In Chomsky’s formalism, though, the principles of
abstractness of language structure and the arbitrariness between linguistic structure and
meaning are preserved – and the degree of abstractness is increased.
—It is probably not controversial to pair off linguistic formalism from Chomsky and
cognitive psychology. With regard to the tradition, cognitive psychology cannot be
characterized as continuous in the sense outlined for linguistic formalism. Rather, cognitive.
psychology emerged as an antithesis to behavioural psychology (Chomsky, 1959). These
different conditions in history may shed light on the rather simplistic adoption of linguistic
theory into the cognitive approach, and may probably also explain why the assumptions of
linguistic theory are rarely questioned in cognitive approaches to dyslexia. The formalist
propositions regarding innateness and stimuli do fit extensively with the cognitive opposition
to behaviouristic psychology.
FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS: THE PRAGUE SCHOOL
Prague school, school of linguistic thought and analysis established in Prague in the 1920s by Vilém Mathesius
It included among its most prominent members the Russian linguist Nikolay Trubetskoy and the Russian-born American linguist Roman Jakobson; the school was most active during the 1920s and ’30s.
Linguists of the Prague school stress the function of elements within language, the contrast of language elements to one another, and the total pattern or system formed by these contrasts, and they have distinguished themselves in the study of sound systems. They developed distinctive-feature analysis of sounds; by this analysis, each distinctive sound ...
Prince Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetzkoy (Russian; Moscow, April 16, 1890 - Vienna, June 25, 1938) was a Russian linguist and historian whose teachings formed a nucleus of the Prague School of structural linguistics. He is widely considered to be the founder of morphophonology.
Trubetzkoy, like other members of the Prague School, was well aware that the functions of speech are not limited to the expression of an explicit message.
In analysing the function of speech Trubetzkoy followed his Viennese philosopher collage Karl Bühler, who distinguish between the representation of function(that stating facts), the expressive function (that of expressing temporary or permanent characteristics of the speaker), and the conative function (that of influencing the hearer
Trubetzkoy shows that Bühler´s analysis can be applied in phonology.
A phonetic opposition which fulfils the representation function will normally be a phonetic contrast; but distinctions between the allophones of a given phoneme, where the choice is not determinated by the phonemic environment, often play an expressive or conative role.
A manifestation of Prague attitude that language is a tool which has a job to do the fact that members of that School were much preocupied with the aesthetic, literary aspects of language use.
In Chinese, morphemes and syllables are co-terminous, but modern Mandarin has so few phonologically distinct syllables that on averages each syllable is ambiguous as between three or four etymologically distinct morphemes in current use.
Roman Osipovich Jakobson (October 11, 1896, Moscow – July 18, 1982, Boston) is a scholar of Russian origin; he took his first degree, in Oriental languages, at Moscow University
As a pioneer of the structural analysis of language, which became the dominant trend of twentieth-century linguistics, Jakobson was among the most influential linguists of the century.
Influenced by the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, Jakobson developed, with Nikolai Trubetzkoy, techniques for the analysis of sound systems in languages, inaugurating the discipline of phonology.
He went on to apply the same techniques of analysis to syntax and morphology, and controversially proposed that they be extended to semantics (the study of meaning in language).
Jakobson is a phonological Tory. For him, only a small group of phonetic parameters are intrinsically fit to play a linguistically distinctive role.
The system of parameters forms a fixed hierarchy of precedence. The details of the invariant system are not determined by mundane considerations such as vocal-tract anatomy or the need for easily perceived distinctions, but by much “deeper” principles having to do with innate features of the human mind.
Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: List a set of twelve pairs of terms which label the alternative values of what are claimed to be the twelve “distinctive” features’ of all human speech.
Bloomfield: Voicing (say) was distinctive in English and non-distinctive in Mundarin.
Jakobson: “Distinctive” means “able to be used distinctively in a human language”.
The theory is the cetain physically quite distinct articulatory parameters are “psychologically equivalent”, as one might say. For example; “FLAT” : represents interchangeably each of the following articulatory parameter-value: lip-rounding, pharyngalization and retroflex articulation.
Among consonants, the distinction between labial and alveolar stops appears before the distinction between alveolars and velars
All children go through a stage at which, for example, CAT is pronounced as something like TAT.
Stops are acquired before fricatives.
In order to substantiate his belief that the phonological universals he discusses are determined by “deep” psychological principles rather than by relatiely uninteresting facts about oral anatomy or the like, Jakobson devotes considerable space to discussion of synaesthetic effects
Cases where perceptions in one sensory mode (in this case, speech-sound) correlate with perceptions in another mode (Jakobson considers mainly associations of sounds with colours).
One of the claims that is important for Jakobson is that synaesthetic subjects tend to perceive vowels as coloured but consonants as colourless – black, white or grey.
Linguists of the Prague school stress the function of elements within language, the contrast of language elements to one another, and the total pattern or system formed by these contrasts, and they have distinguished themselves in the study of sound systems. They developed distinctive-feature analysis of sounds; by this analysis, each distinctive sound ...
Trubetzkoy
Prince Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetzkoy (Russian; Moscow, April 16, 1890 - Vienna, June 25, 1938) was a Russian linguist and historian whose teachings formed a nucleus of the Prague School of structural linguistics. He is widely considered to be the founder of morphophonology.
Trubetzkoy, like other members of the Prague School, was well aware that the functions of speech are not limited to the expression of an explicit message.
In analysing the function of speech Trubetzkoy followed his Viennese philosopher collage Karl Bühler, who distinguish between the representation of function(that stating facts), the expressive function (that of expressing temporary or permanent characteristics of the speaker), and the conative function (that of influencing the hearer
Trubetzkoy shows that Bühler´s analysis can be applied in phonology.
A phonetic opposition which fulfils the representation function will normally be a phonetic contrast; but distinctions between the allophones of a given phoneme, where the choice is not determinated by the phonemic environment, often play an expressive or conative role.
A manifestation of Prague attitude that language is a tool which has a job to do the fact that members of that School were much preocupied with the aesthetic, literary aspects of language use.
In Chinese, morphemes and syllables are co-terminous, but modern Mandarin has so few phonologically distinct syllables that on averages each syllable is ambiguous as between three or four etymologically distinct morphemes in current use.
Roman Jakobson
Roman Osipovich Jakobson (October 11, 1896, Moscow – July 18, 1982, Boston) is a scholar of Russian origin; he took his first degree, in Oriental languages, at Moscow University
As a pioneer of the structural analysis of language, which became the dominant trend of twentieth-century linguistics, Jakobson was among the most influential linguists of the century.
Influenced by the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, Jakobson developed, with Nikolai Trubetzkoy, techniques for the analysis of sound systems in languages, inaugurating the discipline of phonology.
He went on to apply the same techniques of analysis to syntax and morphology, and controversially proposed that they be extended to semantics (the study of meaning in language).
Jakobson is a phonological Tory. For him, only a small group of phonetic parameters are intrinsically fit to play a linguistically distinctive role.
The system of parameters forms a fixed hierarchy of precedence. The details of the invariant system are not determined by mundane considerations such as vocal-tract anatomy or the need for easily perceived distinctions, but by much “deeper” principles having to do with innate features of the human mind.
Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: List a set of twelve pairs of terms which label the alternative values of what are claimed to be the twelve “distinctive” features’ of all human speech.
Distinctive
Bloomfield: Voicing (say) was distinctive in English and non-distinctive in Mundarin.
Jakobson: “Distinctive” means “able to be used distinctively in a human language”.
The theory is the cetain physically quite distinct articulatory parameters are “psychologically equivalent”, as one might say. For example; “FLAT” : represents interchangeably each of the following articulatory parameter-value: lip-rounding, pharyngalization and retroflex articulation.
CHILDREN’S ACQUISITION OF LANGUAGE
Among consonants, the distinction between labial and alveolar stops appears before the distinction between alveolars and velars
All children go through a stage at which, for example, CAT is pronounced as something like TAT.
Stops are acquired before fricatives.
In order to substantiate his belief that the phonological universals he discusses are determined by “deep” psychological principles rather than by relatiely uninteresting facts about oral anatomy or the like, Jakobson devotes considerable space to discussion of synaesthetic effects
Cases where perceptions in one sensory mode (in this case, speech-sound) correlate with perceptions in another mode (Jakobson considers mainly associations of sounds with colours).
One of the claims that is important for Jakobson is that synaesthetic subjects tend to perceive vowels as coloured but consonants as colourless – black, white or grey.
Readiness to acknowledge that a given language might include a range of alternative “systems”, “registers” or “styles”; where American Descriptivists rended to insist on treating a language as a single unitary system.
Consider, as a very crude example of the problem, the treatment of non-naturalized foreign loan-words.
Nasal vowels are not usual in English, so a Descriptivist would find it difficult to justify the omission of /Ʒ/ from a phonemic analysis of English
ROMAN JAKOBSON
Functions of Language
Grammatical Forms
Descriptive Structuralism is frequently referred to as Binarist. This orientation is its strength and weakness. The strength resides in elementary calculability, an impersonal, objective, exhausting of possibilities: given any A, B pair, however defined, the presence or absence of a value for each, however defined, can be calculated. With values of + or - :
A: + - + -
B: + + - -
Its weakness is identical with that of Plato’s technique of the Division: in the conceptual world, we rarely know enough about any pair to establish exclusive values beyond the most generic; in the empirical world, factual relations are just as complex.
Stable States
Synchronic linguistic description proceeds on the counter-factual assumption of constant and stable forms paired with meanings within an unchanging speech-community, some forms are never observable in isolated utterance. This justifies the distinction of free and bound forms, when both are established as linguistic forms. Constructed linguistic forms have at least two, so A’ linguistic form which bears a partial phonetic-semantic resemblance to some other linguistic form is a complex form and the common parts are constituents or components, while A’ linguistic form which bears no partial phonetic-semantic resemblance to any other form is a simple form or morpheme .
Basic and Modified Meaning
The meaning of a morpheme is a sememe (the meaning of a morpheme), constant, definite, discrete from all other sememes: the linguist can only analyze the signals, not the signalled, so that is why linguistics must start from the phonetics, not the semantics, of a language. The total stocks of morphemes is a language’s lexicon.
A simple feature of grammatical arrangement is a taxeme; meaningful units of grammatical form are tagnemes and their meanings are called episememes. Tagmemes can consist of several taxemes. Statements of its lexical and grammatical forms completely describe an utterance.
Sentence Types
Order can imply (but is not exhausted by) position, which can be functional; a form alone is in absolute position, with another, in included position. Sentences relate through order, position, and, within a sentence, are distinguished by modulation, pratactic arrangement, and features of selection.
Languages show full and minor sentence types distinguished by taxemes of selection.
Words
Since the word is a free form, freedom of occurrence largely determines our attitude towards parts of a language. But even with our typographic conventions, we are inconsistent in distinguishing words and phrases, and in other languages, it is difficult to keep them apart.
Syntax
Grammar deals with constructions under morphology and syntax, syntax takes as its construction those in which noone of the immediate constituents is a bound form. The free forms (words and phrases) of a language appear in larger free forms (phrases), arranged by taxemes of modulation, phonetic modification, selection and order.
Forms resultant from Free Forms
Free forms combining can be said to produce a resultant phrase, of which the form-class of one member may be determinative of the phrase’s grammatical behavior: in such a case, the construction is called endocentric, otherwise, it is exocentric when the phrase or construction does not follow the grammatical behavior of either constituent.
Order
Is most important in languages, grammatically and/or stylistically
Parts of Speech
Most languages show a smaller number, and in such languages, syntactic form classes tend to appear in phrases rather than words.
Leonard Bloomfield
It starts with the term scientific…
Language interests everyone.
a) Outside speakers b) Inside speakers
c) Speech relating the two
Sapir concluded that a minimum for human language is formation and expression of concrete and relational ideas .
Language can be seen as the totality of mutually effective substitute responses.
Mentalism differs from materialism by distinguishing langue from parole. It opposes wholes or parts to material and formal principles; mind to brain; understanding to experiencing.
Mentalism is dualistic because it recognizes mental and material.
Behaviorism is monistic: It admits only a single kind of data (material) .
When one speaks a sentence, the form it takes is due to the utterances which the speaker, since infancy has heard from other members of his community.
1.It is dualistic because it considers both mental and material kinds of data
2.It is monoistic because only considers a single kind of data(material)
The study, use and spread of language
Bloomfield proposes that the empirical science of language should study a real rather than a fancied object.
Language conceived as a normative ideal does not constitute an empirical object; language as a universal phenomenon can only be established inductively; one can
observe actual speech----and its actual effects on hearers---without preconceptions, so the Behaviorist approach provides a model.
Speech communities are best observed behavioristically. Density of communication can be empirically observed, quantified, and correlated with geography, social stratification, occupation, success in cooperation, and consequences in describable speech differences.
There are behavioral correlates for determining traditional concerns about language:
(1)The literary standard
(2)The colloquial standard
(3)The provincial standard
(4)Sub-standard
(5)Local dialect
The phoneme. Sound-production can be described empirically. Phonetics is the branch of science that deals with it.
What phonetics provides is an objective record of gross acoustic features, only part of which are distinctive for particular languages, while phonology, or practical phonetics, determines which features are the distinctive ones.
Phonetic basis. This predominantly phonetic account ‘may be viewed as a kind of basis which may be modified in various ways’.
Modification, presumes some standard from which a departure is made, and the criteria for establishing the base can vary, legitimately or inconsistently.
For instance, it might be inconsistent to shift, in phonology, from subjective, or objective production to subjective reception or objective disturbance of the air, or from objective measurement to subjective standards.
Ethnography of Speech
The role of speech in human behavior has always been honored in anthropological principle, if sometimes slighted in practice. The importance of its study has been declaimed, surveyed with insightful detail, and accepted as a principle of field work.
That the study of speech might be crucial to a science of man has been a recurrent anthropological theme.
Is a qualitative method aimed to learn and understand cultural phenomena which reflect the knowledge and system of meanings guiding the life of a cultural group, but revealing more of basic processes because more out of awareness, less subject to overlay by rationalization. Some anthropologists have seen language, and hence linguistics, as basic to a science of man because it provides a link between the biological and sociocultural levels. Some have seen in modern linguistic methodology a model or harbinger of a general methodology for studying the structure of human behavior.
Thus, “the statement that talk is not anywhere valued equally in all social contexts suggests a research strategy for discovering and describing cultural or subcultural differences in the value of speaking.
Speaking is one among other symbolic resources which are allocated and distributed in social situations according to distinctive culture patterns”
Concept of Ethnography
Is a qualitative method aimed to learn and understand cultural phenomena which reflect the knowledge and system of meanings guiding the life of a cultural group, but revealing more of basic processes because more out of awareness, less subject to overlay by rationalization. Some anthropologists have seen language, and hence linguistics, as basic to a science of man because it provides a link between the biological and sociocultural levels. Some have seen in modern linguistic methodology a model or harbinger of a general methodology for studying the structure of human behavior.
The Ethnography was pioneered in the field of socio-cultural anthropology but has also become a popular method in various other fields of social sciences—particularly in sociology, communication studies, history. —that studies people, ethnic groups and other ethnic formations, their ethnogenesis, composition, resettlement, social welfare characteristics, as well as their material and spiritual culture.
It is often employed for gathering empirical data on human societies and cultures. Data collection is often done through participant observation, interviews, questionnaires, etc. Ethnography aims to describe the nature of those who are studied (i.e. to describe a people, anethnos) through writing
The Ethnography of communication (EOC) is a method of discourse analysis in linguistics, which draws on the anthropological field of ethnography. Unlike ethnography proper, though, it takes both language and culture to be constitutive as well as constructive.
In their book Qualitative Communication Research Methods, communications scholars Thomas R. Lindlof and Bryan C. Taylor (2002) explain "Ethnography of communication conceptualizes communication as a continuous flow of information, rather than as a segmented exchange of messages“. According to Deborah Cameron (2001), EOC can be thought of as the application of ethnographic methods to the communication patterns of a group.
EOC can be used as a means by which to study the interactions among members of a specific culture or, what Gerry Philipsen (1975) calls a "speech community." Speech communities create and establish their own speaking codes/norms.
The meaning and understanding of the presence or absence of speech within different communities will vary. Local cultural patterns and norms must be understood for analysis and interpretation of the appropriateness of speech acts situated within specific communities.
It is often employed for gathering empirical data on human societies and cultures. Data collection is often done through participant observation, interviews, questionnaires, etc. Ethnography aims to describe the nature of those who are studied (i.e. to describe a people, anethnos) through writing
Ethnography of communication or Speaking
The Ethnography of communication (EOC) is a method of discourse analysis in linguistics, which draws on the anthropological field of ethnography. Unlike ethnography proper, though, it takes both language and culture to be constitutive as well as constructive.
In their book Qualitative Communication Research Methods, communications scholars Thomas R. Lindlof and Bryan C. Taylor (2002) explain "Ethnography of communication conceptualizes communication as a continuous flow of information, rather than as a segmented exchange of messages“. According to Deborah Cameron (2001), EOC can be thought of as the application of ethnographic methods to the communication patterns of a group.
EOC can be used as a means by which to study the interactions among members of a specific culture or, what Gerry Philipsen (1975) calls a "speech community." Speech communities create and establish their own speaking codes/norms.
The meaning and understanding of the presence or absence of speech within different communities will vary. Local cultural patterns and norms must be understood for analysis and interpretation of the appropriateness of speech acts situated within specific communities.
Thus, “the statement that talk is not anywhere valued equally in all social contexts suggests a research strategy for discovering and describing cultural or subcultural differences in the value of speaking.
Speaking is one among other symbolic resources which are allocated and distributed in social situations according to distinctive culture patterns”
The London School
Linguistic description evolves a standard language since eleventh century.
In the sixteenth century the practical linguistic was flourished in England.
lexicography- it is the invention of shorthand systems, spelling reform, and the creation of artificial ‘philosophical languages.’
They induce in their practitioners a considerable degree of sophistication about matters linguistics.
Sweet was among the early advocates of the notion of the phoneme, which was a matter of practical importance as the unit which should be symbolized in an ideal system of orthography.
Daniel Jones stressed the importance for language study of through training in the practical skills of perceiving, transcribing, and reproducing minute distinctions of speech- sound.
He invented the system of cardinal reference-points which made precise and consistent transcription possible in the case of vowels.
Firth´s theory allows for an unlimited variety of systems, the more distinct systems a given description recognizes the more complex that description will be.
Languages do not display too great a variety of phonological ‘systems’: thus we do not on the whole find languages with quite different kinds and numbers of consonants before each distintic vowel.
Trubetzkoy assumes that the range of sounds found in the special neutralizing environment will be related in a regular way to the range found in other environments.
It was founded in 1916.
London linguistics was a brand of linguistics in which theorizing was controlled by healthy familiarity with realities of alien tongues.
A Firthian phonologycal analysis recognizes a number of ‘systems’ of prosodies operating at various points in structure which determine the pronunciation of a given form in interaction with segment-sized phonematic units.
The terminological distinction between ‘prosodies’ and ‘phonematic units’ could as well be thought of as ‘prosodies’ that happen to be only one segment long.
In Firthian terms the syllable plays an essential role as the domain of a large number of prosodies.
Like the polysystemic principle, prosodic analysis is a good dissolvent of pseudoquestions, in this case questions about the direction of dependencies which are in fact mutual.
The concept of the prosodic unit in phonology seems, so attractive and natural that it is surprising to find that it is not more widespread. In fact just one American Descriptivists, Zellig Harris, did use a similar notion; but Harris’s ‘long components’ though similar to Firth’s prosodies, are distinct and theoretically less attractive.
It is a characteristic of the Firthian approach to be much more concerned with the ‘systems’ of choices between alternatives which occur in a language than with the details of how particular alternatives are realized.
Thus Henderson makes a formal statement of the possible combinations of her Vietnamese prosodies, but she discusses the phonetic realization of the prosodies informally, tacitly suggesting that aspect of her exposition is not part of the analysis proper.
Nowhere in Chomsky and Halle’s Sound pattern of English will one find a statement of the pattern of possible phonological shapes of English syllables or words.
Firth insisted that sound and meaning in language were more directly related that they are ussually taken to be.
For Firth, a phonology was a structure of system of choices were systems of meaning.
Firth meant that each individual choice point in grammar had its own individual semantic correlates, and this just cannot be taken seriously.
¢Linguistics of the London School have done much more work on the analysis of intonation that have Americans of any camp and the Brithis work.
To understand Firth’s notion of meaning, we muste exmine the linguistic ideas of his colleague Bronislaw Malinowski, professor of Anthropology at the London School.
The most important aspect of Malinowski´s theorizing, as distinct for his purely ethnographic work, concerned the functioning of language.
For Malinowski, to think of language as a ‘means of transfusing ideas from the head of the speaker to that of the listener’ was a myth: to speak, particulary in a primitive culture, is not to tell but to do.
Word are tools, and the ‘meaning’ of a tool is its use.
Firth accepted Malinowski’s viwe of language. Firth uses the word ‘meaning’, wich occurs frequently in his writings, in rather bizarre ways.
Firthian phonology, it is primarily concerned with the nature and import of the various choices which one makes in deciding to utter one particular sentence out of the infinitely numerous sentencesthat one’s language makes available
To make this clearer, we may contrast the systemic approach with Chomsky´s approach to grammar. A Chomskyan grammar defines the class of well-formed senteces in a language by providing a set of rules for rewriting symbols as other symbols.
In the sixteenth century the practical linguistic was flourished in England.
Practical Linguistics
Orthoepy- it is the codification and teaching the correct pronunciation. lexicography- it is the invention of shorthand systems, spelling reform, and the creation of artificial ‘philosophical languages.’
They induce in their practitioners a considerable degree of sophistication about matters linguistics.
Phonetics
Henry Sweet based his historical studies on a detailed understanding of the working of the vocal organs. He was concerned with the systematizing phonetic transcription in connection with problems of language-teaching and of spelling reform.Sweet was among the early advocates of the notion of the phoneme, which was a matter of practical importance as the unit which should be symbolized in an ideal system of orthography.
Daniel Jones stressed the importance for language study of through training in the practical skills of perceiving, transcribing, and reproducing minute distinctions of speech- sound.
He invented the system of cardinal reference-points which made precise and consistent transcription possible in the case of vowels.
Linguistics
J.R. Firth turned linguistics proper into a recognized, distinct academic subject. Firth said that the phonology of a language consist of a number of system of alternative possibilities which come into play at different points in phonological unit such a syllable, and there is no reason to identify the alternants in one system with those in another.
A phonemic transcription, represent a fully consistent application of the particular principles of orthography on which European alphabetic scripts happen to be more or less accurately based.
A phonemic transcription, represent a fully consistent application of the particular principles of orthography on which European alphabetic scripts happen to be more or less accurately based.
Firth´s theory allows for an unlimited variety of systems, the more distinct systems a given description recognizes the more complex that description will be.
Languages do not display too great a variety of phonological ‘systems’: thus we do not on the whole find languages with quite different kinds and numbers of consonants before each distintic vowel.
Trubetzkoy assumes that the range of sounds found in the special neutralizing environment will be related in a regular way to the range found in other environments.
School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas)
It was founded in 1916.
London linguistics was a brand of linguistics in which theorizing was controlled by healthy familiarity with realities of alien tongues.
A Firthian phonologycal analysis recognizes a number of ‘systems’ of prosodies operating at various points in structure which determine the pronunciation of a given form in interaction with segment-sized phonematic units.
The terminological distinction between ‘prosodies’ and ‘phonematic units’ could as well be thought of as ‘prosodies’ that happen to be only one segment long.
Like the polysystemic principle, prosodic analysis is a good dissolvent of pseudoquestions, in this case questions about the direction of dependencies which are in fact mutual.
The concept of the prosodic unit in phonology seems, so attractive and natural that it is surprising to find that it is not more widespread. In fact just one American Descriptivists, Zellig Harris, did use a similar notion; but Harris’s ‘long components’ though similar to Firth’s prosodies, are distinct and theoretically less attractive.
It is a characteristic of the Firthian approach to be much more concerned with the ‘systems’ of choices between alternatives which occur in a language than with the details of how particular alternatives are realized.
Thus Henderson makes a formal statement of the possible combinations of her Vietnamese prosodies, but she discusses the phonetic realization of the prosodies informally, tacitly suggesting that aspect of her exposition is not part of the analysis proper.
Nowhere in Chomsky and Halle’s Sound pattern of English will one find a statement of the pattern of possible phonological shapes of English syllables or words.
Firth insisted that sound and meaning in language were more directly related that they are ussually taken to be.
For Firth, a phonology was a structure of system of choices were systems of meaning.
Firth meant that each individual choice point in grammar had its own individual semantic correlates, and this just cannot be taken seriously.
¢Linguistics of the London School have done much more work on the analysis of intonation that have Americans of any camp and the Brithis work.
To understand Firth’s notion of meaning, we muste exmine the linguistic ideas of his colleague Bronislaw Malinowski, professor of Anthropology at the London School.
The most important aspect of Malinowski´s theorizing, as distinct for his purely ethnographic work, concerned the functioning of language.
For Malinowski, to think of language as a ‘means of transfusing ideas from the head of the speaker to that of the listener’ was a myth: to speak, particulary in a primitive culture, is not to tell but to do.
Word are tools, and the ‘meaning’ of a tool is its use.
Firth accepted Malinowski’s viwe of language. Firth uses the word ‘meaning’, wich occurs frequently in his writings, in rather bizarre ways.
Firthian phonology, it is primarily concerned with the nature and import of the various choices which one makes in deciding to utter one particular sentence out of the infinitely numerous sentencesthat one’s language makes available
To make this clearer, we may contrast the systemic approach with Chomsky´s approach to grammar. A Chomskyan grammar defines the class of well-formed senteces in a language by providing a set of rules for rewriting symbols as other symbols.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Descriptivists
The descriptivist approach to linguistic science is most closely associated with the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield (1887 - 1949). Descriptivism originated in America at the beginning of this century and was a major paradigm for research right up until the 1960s. The inspiration for descriptivism was the urgent need to produce a lasting record of the native languages of North America, since many of them were under immediate threat of extinction. To this end, the American anthropologist Franz Boas spearheaded an early survey and published the results in the classic Handbook of American Indian Languages, in 1911. Nowadays, it is no surprise to learn that linguists study all manner of strange and exotic languages from around the world. Yet it was only with the pioneering work of Boas that such languages were accorded equal status with more familiar objects of study like Latin, Greek and German. In this respect, descriptivism represented a sharp break with the traditions of European linguistics.
The initial surprise, which never ceased to impress descriptivists, was the enormous range of linguistic diversity they unearthed. Seemingly, each new language they came across possessed quite unique structures and categories. For example, it was discovered that in Kwakiutl, a language indigenous to British Columbia, verbs are not inflected to indicate the time of action, as in most European languages, but to indicate whether or not the speaker actually witnessed an event in person, or only learned of it from another person, from the available evidence, or even from a dream. Remarkably, these differences of perspective are encoded in the syntax of the language. In English we would require long, possibly unwieldy phrases to convey what, in Kwakiutl, would be encoded in the grammar via verb inflections.
In order to cope with the barrage of alien concepts and constructions in their analyses, descriptivists made strenuous efforts to set aside their preconceptions about language. Methods of analysis appropriate for Latin and Greek could easily give a distorted picture when applied to a native American language. A fundamental aim was to devise an objective approach, a set of ‘discovery procedures’, which could be applied to any language, in order to interpret it correctly and produce an accurate description. This technique failed in its assumption that any set of procedures or techniques of analysis are entirely independent of the object studied. In fact, it will always be the case in any science that the methods of investigation employed will reflect to some extent the expectations and prejudices of the scientist.
In contrast with current preoccupations in linguistics (see universal grammar), a notable feature of descriptivism is its disdain for the idea that certain universal linguistic concepts and categories are inherent in all human languages. Bloomfield asserted the opposing ‘infinite diversity’ view with the observation that the very next language one came across might well contradict any universal tendencies hitherto observed, and that it was therefore futile to study languages with a view to discovering underlying universal characteristics. MS
Further reading R.A. Hall, Leonard Bloomfield: Essays on His Life and Work; , D. Hymes and , J. Fought, American Structuralism.
The initial surprise, which never ceased to impress descriptivists, was the enormous range of linguistic diversity they unearthed. Seemingly, each new language they came across possessed quite unique structures and categories. For example, it was discovered that in Kwakiutl, a language indigenous to British Columbia, verbs are not inflected to indicate the time of action, as in most European languages, but to indicate whether or not the speaker actually witnessed an event in person, or only learned of it from another person, from the available evidence, or even from a dream. Remarkably, these differences of perspective are encoded in the syntax of the language. In English we would require long, possibly unwieldy phrases to convey what, in Kwakiutl, would be encoded in the grammar via verb inflections.
In order to cope with the barrage of alien concepts and constructions in their analyses, descriptivists made strenuous efforts to set aside their preconceptions about language. Methods of analysis appropriate for Latin and Greek could easily give a distorted picture when applied to a native American language. A fundamental aim was to devise an objective approach, a set of ‘discovery procedures’, which could be applied to any language, in order to interpret it correctly and produce an accurate description. This technique failed in its assumption that any set of procedures or techniques of analysis are entirely independent of the object studied. In fact, it will always be the case in any science that the methods of investigation employed will reflect to some extent the expectations and prejudices of the scientist.
In contrast with current preoccupations in linguistics (see universal grammar), a notable feature of descriptivism is its disdain for the idea that certain universal linguistic concepts and categories are inherent in all human languages. Bloomfield asserted the opposing ‘infinite diversity’ view with the observation that the very next language one came across might well contradict any universal tendencies hitherto observed, and that it was therefore futile to study languages with a view to discovering underlying universal characteristics. MS
Further reading R.A. Hall, Leonard Bloomfield: Essays on His Life and Work; , D. Hymes and , J. Fought, American Structuralism.
Pragmatics
A branch of linguistics concerned with the use of language in social contexts and the ways in which people produce and comprehend meanings through language.
A branch of linguistics concerned with the use of language in social contexts and the ways in which people produce and comprehend meanings through language.
- "What does pragmatics have to offer that cannot be found in good old-fashioned linguistics? What do pragmatic methods give us in the way of greater understanding of how the human mind works, how humans communicate, how they manipulate one another, and in general, how they use language?
"The general answer is: pragmatics is needed if we want a fuller, deeper, and generally more reasonable account of human language behavior.
"A more practical answer would be: outside of pragmatics, no understanding; sometimes, a pragmatic account is the only one that makes sense, as in the following example, borrowed from David Lodge's Paradise News:'I just met the old Irishman and his son, coming out of the toilet.'
'I wouldn't have thought there was room for the two of them.'
'No silly, I mean I was coming out of the toilet. They were waiting.'
- "What does pragmatics have to offer that cannot be found in good old-fashioned linguistics? What do pragmatic methods give us in the way of greater understanding of how the human mind works, how humans communicate, how they manipulate one another, and in general, how they use language?
"The general answer is: pragmatics is needed if we want a fuller, deeper, and generally more reasonable account of human language behavior.
"A more practical answer would be: outside of pragmatics, no understanding; sometimes, a pragmatic account is the only one that makes sense, as in the following example, borrowed from David Lodge's Paradise News:'I just met the old Irishman and his son, coming out of the toilet.'
'I wouldn't have thought there was room for the two of them.'
'No silly, I mean I was coming out of the toilet. They were waiting.'
Social Language Use (Pragmatics)
You have invited your friend over for dinner. Your child sees your friend reach for some cookies and says, "Better not take those, or you'll get even bigger." You're embarrassed that your child could speak so rudely. However, you should consider that your child may may not know how to use language appropriately in social situations and did not mean harm by the comment.
An individual may say words clearly and use long, complex sentences with correct grammar, but still have a communication problem - if he or she has not mastered the rules for social language known as pragmatics . Adults may also have difficulty with pragmatics, for example, as a result of a brain injury or stroke.
Pragmatics involve three major communication skills:
- Using language for different purposes, such as
- greeting (e.g., hello, goodbye)
- informing (e.g., I'm going to get a cookie)
- demanding (e.g., Give me a cookie)
- promising (e.g., I'm going to get you a cookie)
- requesting (e.g., I would like a cookie, please)
- Changing language according to the needs of a listener or situation, such as
- talking differently to a baby than to an adult
- giving background information to an unfamiliar listener
- speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground
- Following rules for conversations and storytelling, such as
- taking turns in conversation
- introducing topics of conversation
- staying on topic
- rephrasing when misunderstood
- how to use verbal and nonverbal signals
- how close to stand to someone when speaking
- how to use facial expressions and eye contact
These rules may vary across cultures and within cultures. It is important to understand the rules of your communication partner.
An individual with pragmatic problems may:
- say inappropriate or unrelated things during conversations
- tell stories in a disorganized way
- have little variety in language use
It is not unusual for children to have pragmatic problems in only a few situations. However, if problems in social language use occur often and seem inappropriate considering the child's age, a pragmatic disorder may exist. Pragmatic disorders often coexist with other language problems such as vocabulary development or grammar. Pragmatic problems can lower social acceptance. Peers may avoid having conversations with an individual with a pragmatic disorder.
“A rich and adaptable instrument”
M.A.K. Halliday
“A rich and adaptable instrument”
In an educational context the problem for linguistics is to elaborate some account of language that is relevant to the work of the English teacher.
It is not necessary, to sacrifice a generation of children, or event one class roomful, in order to demonstrate that particular preconceptions of language are inadequate or irrelevant. In place of a negative and somewhat hit and miss approach, a more fruitful procedure is to seek to establish certain general positive criteria of relevance. These will relate, ultimately, to the demand that we make of language in the course of our lives.
We tend to underestimate both the total extend and the functional diversity of the part played by language in the life of the child.
Perhaps the simplest of the child´s models of language, and one of the first to be evolved, is what we may call the instrumental model. The child becomes aware that language is used as a mean s of getting things done.
Language as an instrument of control has another side to it, since the child is well aware that language is also a means whereby others exercise control over him. Closely related to the instrumental model, therefore is the regulatory model of language. This refers to the use of language to regulatory behavior of others.
A single incident has little significance; but such general types or regulatory behavior; through repetition and reinforcement determine the child´s specific awareness of language as a means of behavioral control.
Closely related to the regulatory function of language it its function in social interaction , and the third of the models that we may postulate as forming part of the child´s image of language is the interactional model.
Language is used to define and consolidate the group , to include and to exclude, showing who is the one of us and who is nor, no impose status, and to contest status that is imposed and humor, ridicule, deception, persuasion, all the forensic and theatrical arts of language are bought into play .
Again there is a natural link here with another use of language, from which the child derives what we may call the personal model. This refers to his awareness of language as a form of his own individuality, in the process whereby the child becomes aware of himself, and in particular in the higher stages of the process, the development of his personality language playas an essential role. We are not talking here merely of expressive language, language used for the direct expression of feelings and attitudes, but also of the personal element in the interactional function of language since the shaping of the self trough interaction with others is very much a language-mediated process.
The child was heuristic model of language derived from his knowledge of how language has enable him to explore his environment.
The heuristic refers to language as a means of investigating reality a way of learning about things. This scarcely needs comment since every child makes quite obvious that is what language is for by his habit of constantly asking questions.
Imaginative models of language; and this provides some further elements of the metalanguage with words like story make up and pretend.
Language in its imaginative functions is not necessarily about anything at all; the child´s linguistically created environment does not have to be a make believe copy of the world of experience, occupied by people, things and events.
The dominant model it is very easily for the adult, when he attempts to formulate his ideas about the nature of language, to be simple unaware of most of what language means to the child; this is not because he no longer uses language in the same variety of different functions, but because only one of these functions in general, is the subject of conscious attentions, so that the corresponding models is the only to be externalized.
Pragmatics
For Charles Morris that pragmatics is the science of the relation of signs to their interpreters. Pragmatics is concerned not with language as system or product per se, but rather with the interrelationships between language form, messages and languages users.
In the code-model, communication is seen as an encoding-decoding process, when a code is system that enables the automatic pairing of messages (meanings, internal to senders and receivers), and signals (what physically transmitted, (sound, smoke visual, writing) between the sender and the receiver.
The code mode has the merit of describing one way in which communication can be achieved.
Pragmatic perspectivse on language use.
Pragmatic meaning
One task of pragmatics is to explain how participants in a dialogue such as the one above move from the decontextualized meanings of the words and phrases to a grasp of their meaning in context
Assigning reference in context
The process of Assigning reference also involves the interpretations of “deictic expression”. These are linguistic items that point to contextually salient referents without naming them explicitly.
Assigning sense in context
These observations show that contextual meaning (reference and sense) is not fully determined by the words are used: there is a gap between the meaning of the words used by the speaker and the thought that the speaker intends to express by using those words on a particular occasion.
Inferring illocutionary force
This theory which was generated by the philosopher John Austin (1975) and developed Josh Searle views language as a form of action, that when we speak, we do things like make requests, make statements, offer apologies and so on.
Working out implicated meaning.
Deriving an interpretations that satisfies the Co-operative principles is effected through the maxims which the communicator is presumed to abide by:
Truthfulness: (communicators should do their best to make contributions which are true).
Informativeness: (communicators should do their best to be adequately informative)
Relevance: (communicators should do their best to make contributions which are relevant)
Style: (communicators should do their best to make contributions which are appropriately short and clearly expressed)
Explaining the impact of social factors.
Leech proposes a set of “politeness maxims” such as the modesty maxim and the agreement maxim which operate in conjunction with the co operative maxims. They are worded as rules (for example minimize praise of self, maximize agreement between self and other), but in fact they aim to describe the interactional principles that underlie language use.
The pragmalinguistic perspective focuses on the linguistics strategies that are used to convey a given pragmatic meaning, whereas the sociopragmatic perspective focuses on the socially based assessments, beliefs and interactional principles that underlie peoples’ choice of strategies.
A sociopragmatic perspective focuses on the social judgment associated with such a scenario, for example what the relationship between the participants is and the social acceptability of reaching for food in such context.
Conversational patterns and structure.
An approach that starts from the commonsense observation that people take turns in conversation, and that relies on descriptions of naturally occurring data discover the rules involved in the patterning of conventional exchanges. The utterances in pair are ordered, in that the first member of a pair requires a second member.
The role of context
Context plays a major role in the communication process, and so important task for pragmatic theory is to elucidate this process, it is widely accepted that the following features of the situational context have a particularly crucial influence on people´s use of language:
The participants: their roles, the amounts of power differential between them, the degree of distance-closeness between them the number of people present.
The message content: how costly or beneficial the message is to the hearer and/or speaker, how face threatening it is whether it exceeds or stays within the rights and obligations of the relationship.
The communicative activity: how the norms of the activity influence language behavior such as right to talk questions, discourse structure, and level of formality.
Unfortunately, context is sometimes taken to be concrete aspects of the environment in which an exchange takes place and that have bearing on the communication process.
One of the main problems of pragmatic is to explain the constant updating of contextual assumptions in the course of a communicative exchange.
Pragmatics research: Pragmatics and methods
There a re two broad approaches to pragmatics, a cognitive-psychological approach and a social-psychological approach.
Cognitive pramatics are primarily intereted in exploring the relation between the decontextualized, linguistic meaning of utterances, what speakers mean by their utterances on given occassions, and how listeners interpreter those utterances on those given occasions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)