LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICSLANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS

DEFINITION OF LANGUAGEDEFINITION OF LANGUAGE

Definition with respect to form: Definition with respect to form:

Language is a system of speech symbols. It is realised acoustically (sound Language is a system of speech symbols. It is realised acoustically (sound waves), visually-spatially (sign language) and in written form.waves), visually-spatially (sign language) and in written form.

Speech symbol: entity consisting of a formal element which has been Speech symbol: entity consisting of a formal element which has been assigned a meaning; the correlation between form and meaning is assigned a meaning; the correlation between form and meaning is arbitrary, but conventionalised within a speech community.arbitrary, but conventionalised within a speech community.

Definition with respect to function: Definition with respect to function:

Language is the most important means of human communication. It is Language is the most important means of human communication. It is used to:used to:

convey and exchange information (informative function) convey and exchange information (informative function)

prompt actions (appellative function)prompt actions (appellative function)

commit oneself to do something (obligatory function)commit oneself to do something (obligatory function)

open, hold and end social contact (contact function)open, hold and end social contact (contact function)

convey and exchange artistic/ aesthetic creations (poetic function)convey and exchange artistic/ aesthetic creations (poetic function)

MEANINGS OF THE TERM “LANGUAGEMEANINGS OF THE TERM “LANGUAGE“:“:

It refers to the human language faculty (’faculté de langue’)It refers to the human language faculty (’faculté de langue’)

It refers to a single language system (’langue’)It refers to a single language system (’langue’)

It refers to a concrete utterance (’parole’)It refers to a concrete utterance (’parole’)

DEFINITION OF LINGUISTICSDEFINITION OF LINGUISTICSLinguistics in a broader sense: collective term for sciences which study Linguistics in a broader sense: collective term for sciences which study language. language.

General Linguistics/ Linguistics in a narrower sense: study of systemic General Linguistics/ Linguistics in a narrower sense: study of systemic properties of natural languageproperties of natural language

Systemic properties of language: language is a system, i.e., a series of Systemic properties of language: language is a system, i.e., a series of elements related to each other in order to make the system work.elements related to each other in order to make the system work.

1

Main property of a system: a system has structure (pattern of interrelated Main property of a system: a system has structure (pattern of interrelated elements). elements).

Thus:Thus:

General Linguistics studies the structure of language.General Linguistics studies the structure of language.

The system we describe is not a real object, but a model of reality. It The system we describe is not a real object, but a model of reality. It cannot be true or false, only more or less adequate. cannot be true or false, only more or less adequate.

Linguistics makes use of a descriptivist methodology, i.e., scientific Linguistics makes use of a descriptivist methodology, i.e., scientific methods of clarifying/ describing properties of language without passing methods of clarifying/ describing properties of language without passing value judgments or normative rules (no notion of “incorrect usage“).value judgments or normative rules (no notion of “incorrect usage“).

Linguistics can be studied under two basic approaches:Linguistics can be studied under two basic approaches:

Synchronic linguistics: study of a language at a given point of time. Synchronic linguistics: study of a language at a given point of time.

Diachronic linguistics: study of language change. Diachronic linguistics: study of language change. RESEARCH AREAS OF LINGUISTICSRESEARCH AREAS OF LINGUISTICS

Phonetics (study of the physical production and perception of speech Phonetics (study of the physical production and perception of speech sounds)sounds)

Phonology (study of sound systems)Phonology (study of sound systems)

Morphology (study of word structure)Morphology (study of word structure)

Syntax (study of sentence structure)Syntax (study of sentence structure)

Semantics (study of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences)Semantics (study of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences)

Pragmatics (study of speech acts and language usage)Pragmatics (study of speech acts and language usage)

Sociolinguistics (study of the interrelation between language and Sociolinguistics (study of the interrelation between language and society)society)

Discourse Analysis (study of text structure and function of text and Discourse Analysis (study of text structure and function of text and conversation)conversation)

Linguistic Typology (study of diversity in the languages of the world, Linguistic Typology (study of diversity in the languages of the world, language universals and the parameters of cross-linguistic analysis of language universals and the parameters of cross-linguistic analysis of grammatical systems)grammatical systems)

2

Psycholinguistics (study of language processing in the brain)Psycholinguistics (study of language processing in the brain)

Cognitive Linguistics (study of the interrelation between language and Cognitive Linguistics (study of the interrelation between language and thought)thought)

Computational Linguistics (study of statistical and logical modelling of Computational Linguistics (study of statistical and logical modelling of natural language from a computational perspectivenatural language from a computational perspective

3

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LINGUISTICSTHE DEVELOPMENT OF LINGUISTICS

1786 - William Jones demonstrated that Sanskrit had similarities with 1786 - William Jones demonstrated that Sanskrit had similarities with Greek, Celtic, Latin, Germanic and Persian Greek, Celtic, Latin, Germanic and Persian Comparative linguistics – Indo- Comparative linguistics – Indo-EuropeanEuropean

1822 - Grimm’s law of sound changes1822 - Grimm’s law of sound changes

1892 - Frege’s triangle (real object, concept, symbol; reference and 1892 - Frege’s triangle (real object, concept, symbol; reference and sense)sense)

1916 - Saussure’s 1916 - Saussure’s Cours de linguistique généraleCours de linguistique générale Structuralism Structuralism

1933 – Bloomfield’s (1933 – Bloomfield’s (Introduction to the study of) LanguageIntroduction to the study of) Language Immediate constituency analysisImmediate constituency analysis

1957 – Chomsky’s 1957 – Chomsky’s Syntactic StructuresSyntactic Structures Generative –transformational grammar Generative –transformational grammar

1963 – Roman Jakobson’s 1963 – Roman Jakobson’s Essais de linguistique généraleEssais de linguistique générale Language Language functionsfunctions

1960’s – Austin and Searle’s 1960’s – Austin and Searle’s Speech Act TheorySpeech Act Theory Pragmatics Pragmatics

1976 – Halliday’s 1976 – Halliday’s System and function in language System and function in language Systemic Systemic functional grammarfunctional grammar

DERIVATION FROM SANSKRIT ROOTS AND GRIMM’S LAWDERIVATION FROM SANSKRIT ROOTS AND GRIMM’S LAWSanskrit, meaning 'perfected' or 'refined,' is one of the oldest, if not the Sanskrit, meaning 'perfected' or 'refined,' is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of attested human languages. oldest, of attested human languages.

It belongs to the It belongs to the Indo-AryanIndo-Aryan branch of the branch of the Indo-EuropeanIndo-European family of family of languages. The oldest languages. The oldest fform of Sanskrit is orm of Sanskrit is Vedic SanskritVedic Sanskrit believed to date believed to date back to the 2nd millennium BC. back to the 2nd millennium BC.

Known as "The mother of all languages," Sanskrit is the dominant classical Known as "The mother of all languages," Sanskrit is the dominant classical language of the Indian subcontinent and one of the 22 language of the Indian subcontinent and one of the 22 official languages official languages ofof India. It is also the liturgical language of India. It is also the liturgical language of HinduismHinduism and and BuddhismBuddhism. .

Sanskrit Numbers: Sanskrit Numbers:

1 1 ékaéka4

2 2 dvídví3 3 trítrí4 4 catúrcatúr5 5 pañcapañca6 6 ṣṣááṣṣ7 7 saptá, sáptasaptá, sápta8 8 aaṣṭṣṭá, áá, áṣṭṣṭaa9 9 návanáva

Example of derivation from Sanskrit:Example of derivation from Sanskrit:

From the sanskrit dyaus From the sanskrit dyaus →→ Latin deus, Diana; Greek theos, Zeus; Old Latin deus, Diana; Greek theos, Zeus; Old Teutonic Tiu Teutonic Tiu →→ Tuesday Tuesday

GRIMM’S LAWGRIMM’S LAW

Grimm’s Law shows that the regular shifting of some groups of consonants Grimm’s Law shows that the regular shifting of some groups of consonants took place once in the development of English and the other Low German took place once in the development of English and the other Low German Languages and twice in German and the other High German Languages Languages and twice in German and the other High German Languages from the early phonetic positions documented in the ancient Indo-from the early phonetic positions documented in the ancient Indo-European languages.European languages.

English:English:

Voiceless stops (k,t,p) Voiceless stops (k,t,p) →→ voiceless aspirates (h,th,f). Ex. Latin pater voiceless aspirates (h,th,f). Ex. Latin pater →→ English father, Latin English father, Latin cornu,cornu, English English hornhorn

Unaspirated voiced stops (g,d,b) Unaspirated voiced stops (g,d,b) →→ voiceless stops (k,t,p). Ex. Latin decem voiceless stops (k,t,p). Ex. Latin decem →→ English ten, Latin root English ten, Latin root dent-,dent-, English English toothtooth

Aspirated voiced stops (gh,dh,bh) Aspirated voiced stops (gh,dh,bh) →→ unaspirated voiced stops (g,d,b). Ex. unaspirated voiced stops (g,d,b). Ex. Sanskrit Dhar Sanskrit Dhar →→ Draw (+ metathesis) Draw (+ metathesis)

5

GOTTLOB FREGEGOTTLOB FREGE

Anticipating some following developments, the philosopher and logician Gottlob Frege Frege suggested a distinction between real object, concept and symbol.

In In Über Sinn und Bedeutung, Über Sinn und Bedeutung, hehe expanded the distinction between expanded the distinction between reference and sensereference and sense to all linguistic expressions (whether the language in to all linguistic expressions (whether the language in question is natural language or a formal language). question is natural language or a formal language).

One of his primary examples involves the expressions "the morning star" One of his primary examples involves the expressions "the morning star" and "the evening star". Both of these expressions refer to the planet and "the evening star". Both of these expressions refer to the planet Venus, yet they obviously denote Venus in virtue of different properties Venus, yet they obviously denote Venus in virtue of different properties that it has. Thus, Frege claims that these two expressions have the same that it has. Thus, Frege claims that these two expressions have the same reference but different senses. reference but different senses.

The reference of an expression is the actual thing corresponding to it, in The reference of an expression is the actual thing corresponding to it, in the case of "the morning star", the reference is the planet Venus itself. Thethe case of "the morning star", the reference is the planet Venus itself. The sense of an expression, however, is the "mode of presentation" or sense of an expression, however, is the "mode of presentation" or cognitive content associated with the expression in virtue of which the cognitive content associated with the expression in virtue of which the reference is picked out. reference is picked out.

→→Connotation and denotationConnotation and denotation

6

FERDINAND DE SAUSSUREFERDINAND DE SAUSSURE

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

Structuralism looks at the Structuralism looks at the unitsunits of a of a systemsystem and the and the rulesrules that make it work that make it work regardless of content. regardless of content.

In language the units are words (or better, the phonemes of a language) In language the units are words (or better, the phonemes of a language) and the rules are the forms of grammar that order words to produce and the rules are the forms of grammar that order words to produce meaning.meaning.

Rules are generated by the mind itself (universal).Rules are generated by the mind itself (universal).

We could not perceive reality without some sort of “grammar” or system We could not perceive reality without some sort of “grammar” or system to organize it.to organize it.

All systems have three properties in common:All systems have three properties in common:

1) Wholeness. The system functions as a whole, not just as a collection of 1) Wholeness. The system functions as a whole, not just as a collection of independent parts.independent parts.

2) Transformation. The system is not static but capable of change. New 2) Transformation. The system is not static but capable of change. New units can enter the system but are still subjected to the rules of a system units can enter the system but are still subjected to the rules of a system (ex. format – to format).(ex. format – to format).

3) Self-regulation (related to transformation). You can add elements to the3) Self-regulation (related to transformation). You can add elements to the system but you can’t change its basic structure. Transformations never system but you can’t change its basic structure. Transformations never lead to anything outside the system.lead to anything outside the system.

The basic linguistic unit or SIGNThe basic linguistic unit or SIGN has two parts: has two parts: conceptconcept and and sound image, sound image, whosewhose association produces association produces meaning.meaning.

The sound image is not the physical sound but rather the psychological The sound image is not the physical sound but rather the psychological imprint of the sound.imprint of the sound.

A SIGN can also be defined as the combination of a A SIGN can also be defined as the combination of a signifier (sound image) signifier (sound image) and aand a signified (concept). signified (concept).

The SIGN as union of a signifier and a signified has two main The SIGN as union of a signifier and a signified has two main characteristics:characteristics:

1) The bond between sfr and sfd is ARBITRARY. There is no natural, 1) The bond between sfr and sfd is ARBITRARY. There is no natural, intrinsic or logical relation between them. They are related only because a intrinsic or logical relation between them. They are related only because a community has agreed upon it.community has agreed upon it.

7

This makes it possible to separate sfr and sfd or to change the relationship This makes it possible to separate sfr and sfd or to change the relationship between them. A single sfr can be associated with more than one sfd thus between them. A single sfr can be associated with more than one sfd thus producing ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning (Ex. producing ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning (Ex. I gained a pound)I gained a pound)

There may be some kinds of signs that seem less arbitrary than others, likeThere may be some kinds of signs that seem less arbitrary than others, like onomatopoeic words in natural language or other types of semiotic onomatopoeic words in natural language or other types of semiotic systems (systems of signs) like pantomine, sign language or gestures, but systems (systems of signs) like pantomine, sign language or gestures, but they are still conventional and agreed upon by a community.they are still conventional and agreed upon by a community.

2) The second characteristic of the SIGN is that the sfr exists in TIME, and 2) The second characteristic of the SIGN is that the sfr exists in TIME, and time is LINEAR. You can’t say or write two words at a time. So language time is LINEAR. You can’t say or write two words at a time. So language operates in a linear sequence, in a chain.operates in a linear sequence, in a chain.

LINGUISTIC VALUELINGUISTIC VALUE

According to Saussure, no ideas preexist language, it shapes ideas and According to Saussure, no ideas preexist language, it shapes ideas and makes them expressible. Language is not a substance, but a form, a makes them expressible. Language is not a substance, but a form, a structure. structure.

Thought and sound are like the front and back of a piece of paper, you can Thought and sound are like the front and back of a piece of paper, you can distinguish between them but you can’t separate them.distinguish between them but you can’t separate them.

Saussure refers to the system of language as a whole as Saussure refers to the system of language as a whole as Langue Langue and to and to individual utterances as individual utterances as Parole.Parole.

It takes a community to set up the relations between any particular sound It takes a community to set up the relations between any particular sound image and any particular concept in order to form specific paroles. An image and any particular concept in order to form specific paroles. An individual can’t fix the VALUE for any combination.individual can’t fix the VALUE for any combination.

VALUE is the collective meaning assigned to a sign on the basis of the VALUE is the collective meaning assigned to a sign on the basis of the difference with all the other signs in the signifying system.difference with all the other signs in the signifying system.

Saussure distinguishes between VALUE and SIGNIFICATION.Saussure distinguishes between VALUE and SIGNIFICATION.

SIGNIFICATION or meaning is the relationship established between a sfr SIGNIFICATION or meaning is the relationship established between a sfr and a sfd.and a sfd.

VALUE, by contrast, is the relation between various SIGNS in the signifying VALUE, by contrast, is the relation between various SIGNS in the signifying system (which are all interdependent).system (which are all interdependent).

The most important relation between signifiers in a system, the one that The most important relation between signifiers in a system, the one that creates VALUE is DIFFERENCE. One sfr has meaning in a system not creates VALUE is DIFFERENCE. One sfr has meaning in a system not because it is connected to a particular sfd, but because it is NOT any other because it is connected to a particular sfd, but because it is NOT any other sfr (binary opposites)sfr (binary opposites)

8

Everything in the system is based on the relations between its units.Everything in the system is based on the relations between its units.The most important of them, according to Saussure, is the SYNTAGMATIC The most important of them, according to Saussure, is the SYNTAGMATIC one (axis of contiguity) as opposed to a PARADIGMATIC relation (axis of one (axis of contiguity) as opposed to a PARADIGMATIC relation (axis of substitution). substitution).

SIGNS SIGNS are stored in our memory in associative groups, but associative are stored in our memory in associative groups, but associative relations do not belong to the structure of language itself, while relations do not belong to the structure of language itself, while syntagmatic relations are a product of this structure.syntagmatic relations are a product of this structure.

9

ROMAN JAKOBSONROMAN JAKOBSON

Roman Jakobson was a Roman Jakobson was a RussianRussian thinker who became one of the most thinker who became one of the most influential influential linguistslinguists of the of the 20th century20th century by pioneering the development of by pioneering the development of the the structural analysisstructural analysis of of languagelanguage, , poetrypoetry, and , and artart..

The linguistics of the time was overwhelmingly The linguistics of the time was overwhelmingly neogrammarianneogrammarian and and insisted that the only scientific study of language was to study the history insisted that the only scientific study of language was to study the history and development of words across time. and development of words across time.

Jakobson, on the other hand, had come into contact with the work of Jakobson, on the other hand, had come into contact with the work of Ferdinand de SaussureFerdinand de Saussure, and developed an approach focused on the way in , and developed an approach focused on the way in which language structure served its basic function - to communicate which language structure served its basic function - to communicate information between speakers.information between speakers.He was one of the founders of the "He was one of the founders of the "Prague schoolPrague school" of linguistic theory." of linguistic theory.

According to Jakobson, language must be investigated in all the variety of its functions.

An outline of those functions demands a concise survey of the constitutive factors in any speech event, in any act of verbal communication.

The ADDRESSER [speaker, author] sends a MESSAGE [the verbal act, the signifier] to the ADDRESSEE [the hearer or reader]. To be operative the message requires a CONTEXT [a referent, the signified], seizable by the addresses, and either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a CODE [shared mode of discourse, shared language] fully, or at least partially, common to the addresser and the addressee (in other words, to the encoder and decoder of the message); and, finally, a CONTACT, a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication.

ThusThus Jakobson distinguishes six communication functions, each associated Jakobson distinguishes six communication functions, each associated with a dimension of the communication process:with a dimension of the communication process:

DimensionsDimensions 1 1 contextcontext 2 2 messagemessage3 3 sendersender --------------- 4 --------------- 4 receiverreceiver 5 5 channelchannel 6 6 codecode

FunctionsFunctions

1 1 referentialreferential (= contextual information) (= contextual information)10

2 2 aestheticaesthetic (= auto-reflection) (= auto-reflection)

3 3 emotiveemotive (= self-expression) (= self-expression)

4 4 conativeconative (= vocative or imperative addressing of receiver) (= vocative or imperative addressing of receiver)

5 5 phaticphatic (= checking channel working) (= checking channel working)

6 6 metalingualmetalingual (= checking code working) (= checking code working)

Jakobson's three main ideas in linguistics play a major role in the field to Jakobson's three main ideas in linguistics play a major role in the field to this day: this day: linguistic typologylinguistic typology, , markednessmarkedness and and linguistic universalslinguistic universals. .

The three concepts are tightly intertwined: The three concepts are tightly intertwined:

typology is the classification of languages in terms of shared grammatical typology is the classification of languages in terms of shared grammatical features (as opposed to shared origin) features (as opposed to shared origin)

markedness is (roughly) a study of how certain forms of grammatical markedness is (roughly) a study of how certain forms of grammatical organization are more "natural" than others, and organization are more "natural" than others, and

linguistic universals is the study of the general features of languages in thelinguistic universals is the study of the general features of languages in the world.world.

11

LEONARD BLOOMFIELDLEONARD BLOOMFIELD

DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICSDESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICSAccording to Bloomfiled, the task of linguists is to collect data from the According to Bloomfiled, the task of linguists is to collect data from the native speakers of a language and analyse it by studying its phonological native speakers of a language and analyse it by studying its phonological and syntactic patterns.and syntactic patterns.

A sentence can be analysed in terms of its A sentence can be analysed in terms of its immediate constituentsimmediate constituents down to down to its smallest constituents. its smallest constituents.

Constituents can be either substituted by similar ones or redistributed to Constituents can be either substituted by similar ones or redistributed to form other sentences.form other sentences.

Tree diagramsTree diagrams

Central to Bloomsfield’s theory of syntax were the notions of form classes Central to Bloomsfield’s theory of syntax were the notions of form classes and constituent structure.and constituent structure.

Form classes are sets of forms (whether simple or complex, free or bound),Form classes are sets of forms (whether simple or complex, free or bound), any one of which may be substituted for any other in a given construction any one of which may be substituted for any other in a given construction or set of constructions throughout the sentences of the language.or set of constructions throughout the sentences of the language.

The smaller forms into which a larger form may be analyzed are its The smaller forms into which a larger form may be analyzed are its constituents, and the larger form is a construction.constituents, and the larger form is a construction.

A constituent is one of two or more grammatical units that enter A constituent is one of two or more grammatical units that enter syntactically or morphologically into a syntactically or morphologically into a constructionconstruction at any level. at any level.

An immediate constituent is any one of the largest grammatical units that An immediate constituent is any one of the largest grammatical units that make up a construction. Immediate constituents are often further reduciblemake up a construction. Immediate constituents are often further reducible into ultimate constituents.into ultimate constituents.

Example:Example:

The sentence The sentence You eat bananasYou eat bananas contains the following immediate contains the following immediate constituents:constituents:

–– youyou –– eat bananaseat bananas

And ultimate constituents: And ultimate constituents:

–– youyou –– eateat

12

–– bananabanana –– -s-s

One reason for giving theoretical recognition to the notion of constituent is that it helps to account for the ambiguity of certain constructions. A classic example is the phrase "old men and women," which may be interpreted in two different ways according to whether one associates "old" with "men and women" or just with "men." Under the first of the two interpretations, the immediate constituents are "old" and "men and women"; under the second, they are "old men" and "women." The difference in meaning cannot be attributed to any one of the ultimate constituents but results from a difference in the way in which they are associated with one another. Ambiguity of this kind is referred to as syntactic ambiguity. Not all syntactic ambiguity is satisfactorily accounted for in terms of constituent structure.

13

NOAM CHOMSKYNOAM CHOMSKY

TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMARTRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR

In the early 1960s, Noam Chomsky developed the idea that each sentence In the early 1960s, Noam Chomsky developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation - a Deep Structure and a in a language has two levels of representation - a Deep Structure and a Surface structure. Surface structure.

The Deep Structure is (more or less) a direct representation of the basic The Deep Structure is (more or less) a direct representation of the basic semantic relations underlying a sentence, and is mapped onto the Surface semantic relations underlying a sentence, and is mapped onto the Surface Structure (which follows the phonological form of the sentence very Structure (which follows the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via ''transformationsclosely) via ''transformations''.''.

Chomsky believed that there would be considerable similarities between Chomsky believed that there would be considerable similarities between the Deep Structures of different languages, and that these structures the Deep Structures of different languages, and that these structures would reveal properties, common to all languages, which were concealed would reveal properties, common to all languages, which were concealed by their Surface Structures. by their Surface Structures.

However, this was perhaps not the central motivation for introducing Deep However, this was perhaps not the central motivation for introducing Deep Structure. Structure.

Deep Structure was devised largely for narrow technical reasons relating toDeep Structure was devised largely for narrow technical reasons relating to early semantics. Chomsky emphasizes the importance of modern formal early semantics. Chomsky emphasizes the importance of modern formal mathematical devices in the development of grammatical theory.mathematical devices in the development of grammatical theory.

Though transformations continue to be important in Chomsky's current Though transformations continue to be important in Chomsky's current theories, he has now abandoned the original notion of Deep Structure and theories, he has now abandoned the original notion of Deep Structure and Surface Structure. Surface Structure.

Initially, two additional levels of representation were introduced (Logical Initially, two additional levels of representation were introduced (Logical Form and Phonetic Form), and then in the 1990s Chomsky sketched out a Form and Phonetic Form), and then in the 1990s Chomsky sketched out a new program of research known as ''Minimalist'', in which Deep Structure new program of research known as ''Minimalist'', in which Deep Structure and Surface Structure no longer appeared and LF and PF remained as the and Surface Structure no longer appeared and LF and PF remained as the only levels of representation.only levels of representation.

Terms such as"transformation" can give the impression that theories of Terms such as"transformation" can give the impression that theories of transformational generative grammar are intended as a model for the transformational generative grammar are intended as a model for the processes through which the human mind constructs and understands processes through which the human mind constructs and understands sentences. Chomsky is clear that this is not the case: a generative sentences. Chomsky is clear that this is not the case: a generative grammar models only the knowledge that underlies the human ability to grammar models only the knowledge that underlies the human ability to speak and understand. speak and understand.

One of Chomsky's most important ideas is that most of this knowledge is One of Chomsky's most important ideas is that most of this knowledge is innateinnate, with the result that a baby can have a large body of prior , with the result that a baby can have a large body of prior knowledge about the structure of language in general, and need only knowledge about the structure of language in general, and need only

14

actually ''learn'' the idiosyncratic features of the language(s) it is exposed actually ''learn'' the idiosyncratic features of the language(s) it is exposed to. to. Chomsky was not the first person to suggest that all languages had certainChomsky was not the first person to suggest that all languages had certain fundamental things in common, but he helped to make the innateness fundamental things in common, but he helped to make the innateness theory respectable after a period dominated by behaviourist attitudes theory respectable after a period dominated by behaviourist attitudes towards language.towards language.

He goes so far as to suggest that a baby need not learn any actual ''rules'' He goes so far as to suggest that a baby need not learn any actual ''rules'' specific to a particular language. All languages are presumed to follow the specific to a particular language. All languages are presumed to follow the same set of rules, but the effects of these rules and the interactions same set of rules, but the effects of these rules and the interactions between them vary depending on the values of certain universal linguistic between them vary depending on the values of certain universal linguistic ''parameters''. ''parameters''.

This is a very strong assumption, and is one of the reasons why Chomsky's This is a very strong assumption, and is one of the reasons why Chomsky's current theory of language differs from most others.current theory of language differs from most others.In the 1960s, Chomsky introduced two central ideas relevant to the In the 1960s, Chomsky introduced two central ideas relevant to the construction and evaluation of grammatical theories. The first was the construction and evaluation of grammatical theories. The first was the distinction between ''competence'' and ''performance''. distinction between ''competence'' and ''performance''. Chomsky noted the obvious fact that people, when speaking in the real Chomsky noted the obvious fact that people, when speaking in the real world, often make linguistic errors. He argued that these errors in linguisticworld, often make linguistic errors. He argued that these errors in linguistic performanceperformance were irrelevant to the study of linguistic were irrelevant to the study of linguistic competencecompetence (the (the knowledge that allows people to construct and understand grammatical knowledge that allows people to construct and understand grammatical sentences).sentences).

Consequently, the linguist can study an idealised version of language, Consequently, the linguist can study an idealised version of language, greatly simplifying linguistic analysis. greatly simplifying linguistic analysis. The second idea related directly to the evaluation of theories of grammar. The second idea related directly to the evaluation of theories of grammar. Chomsky made a distinction between grammars that achieved ''descriptiveChomsky made a distinction between grammars that achieved ''descriptive adequacy'' and those that went further and achieved ''explanatory adequacy'' and those that went further and achieved ''explanatory adequacy''. adequacy''.

A descriptively adequate grammar for a particular language defines the A descriptively adequate grammar for a particular language defines the (infinite) set of grammatical sentences in that language; that is, it (infinite) set of grammatical sentences in that language; that is, it describes the language in its entirety. describes the language in its entirety.

A grammar that achieves explanatory adequacy has the additional A grammar that achieves explanatory adequacy has the additional property that it gives an insight into the underlying linguistic structures in property that it gives an insight into the underlying linguistic structures in the human mind; it does not merely describe the grammar of a language, the human mind; it does not merely describe the grammar of a language, but makes predictions about how linguistic knowledge is mentally but makes predictions about how linguistic knowledge is mentally represented. represented. In the 1980s, Chomsky proposed a distinction between ''I-Language'' and In the 1980s, Chomsky proposed a distinction between ''I-Language'' and ''E-Language'', similar but not identical to the competence/performance ''E-Language'', similar but not identical to the competence/performance distinction. distinction.

15

I-Language is the object of study in syntactic theory; it is the mentally I-Language is the object of study in syntactic theory; it is the mentally represented linguistic knowledge that a native speaker of a language has, represented linguistic knowledge that a native speaker of a language has, and is therefore a mental object. and is therefore a mental object.

E-Language includes all other notions of what a language is, for example E-Language includes all other notions of what a language is, for example that it is a body of knowledge or behavioural habits shared by a that it is a body of knowledge or behavioural habits shared by a community. Chomsky argues that such notions of language are not useful community. Chomsky argues that such notions of language are not useful in the study of innate linguistic knowledge, i.e. competence.in the study of innate linguistic knowledge, i.e. competence.Chomsky argued that the notions "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" Chomsky argued that the notions "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" could be defined in a useful way by saying that the intuition of a native could be defined in a useful way by saying that the intuition of a native speaker is enough to define the speaker is enough to define the grammaticalnessgrammaticalness of a sentence. of a sentence.

This is entirely distinct from the question of whether a sentence is This is entirely distinct from the question of whether a sentence is meaningful. It is possible for a sentence to be both grammatical and meaningful. It is possible for a sentence to be both grammatical and meaningless, as in Chomsky's famous example "colourless green ideas meaningless, as in Chomsky's famous example "colourless green ideas sleep furiously". sleep furiously".

But such sentences manifest a linguistic problem distinct from that posed But such sentences manifest a linguistic problem distinct from that posed by meaningful but ungrammatical (non)-sentences such as "man the bit by meaningful but ungrammatical (non)-sentences such as "man the bit sandwich the", the meaning of which is fairly clear, but which no native sandwich the", the meaning of which is fairly clear, but which no native speaker would accept as being well formed.speaker would accept as being well formed.

Much current research in transformational grammar is inspired by Much current research in transformational grammar is inspired by Chomsky's minimalism, outlined in his book Chomsky's minimalism, outlined in his book The Minimalist ProgramThe Minimalist Program (1995). The new research direction involves the further development of (1995). The new research direction involves the further development of ideas such as ''economy of derivation'' and ''economy of representation'' ideas such as ''economy of derivation'' and ''economy of representation''

Economy of derivation is a principle stating that transformations only occurEconomy of derivation is a principle stating that transformations only occur in order to match ''interpretable features'' with ''uninterpretable features''. in order to match ''interpretable features'' with ''uninterpretable features''. An example of an interpretable feature is the plural inflection on regular An example of an interpretable feature is the plural inflection on regular English nouns. The word ''dogs'' can only be used to refer to several dogs, English nouns. The word ''dogs'' can only be used to refer to several dogs, not a single dog, and so this inflection contributes to meaning, making it not a single dog, and so this inflection contributes to meaning, making it ''interpretable''. ''interpretable''.

English verbs are inflected according to the grammatical number of their English verbs are inflected according to the grammatical number of their subject (e.g. "Dogs bite" vs "A dog bites), but in most sentences this subject (e.g. "Dogs bite" vs "A dog bites), but in most sentences this inflection just duplicates the information about number that the subject inflection just duplicates the information about number that the subject noun already has, and it is therefore ''uninterpretable''. noun already has, and it is therefore ''uninterpretable''.

Economy of representation is the principle that grammatical structures Economy of representation is the principle that grammatical structures must exist for a purpose, i.e. the structure of a sentence should be no must exist for a purpose, i.e. the structure of a sentence should be no larger or more complex than required to satisfy constraints on larger or more complex than required to satisfy constraints on grammaticalness (note that this does not rule out complex sentences in grammaticalness (note that this does not rule out complex sentences in general, only sentences that have superfluous elements in a narrow general, only sentences that have superfluous elements in a narrow syntactic sense). syntactic sense).

16

Both notions are somewhat vague, and indeed the precise formulation of Both notions are somewhat vague, and indeed the precise formulation of these principles is a major area of controversy in current research. these principles is a major area of controversy in current research.

17

MICHAEL HALLIDAYMICHAEL HALLIDAY

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICSSYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS

Halliday (1975), like Saussure, sees language as a social and cultural Halliday (1975), like Saussure, sees language as a social and cultural phenomenon as opposed to a biological one, like Chomsky.phenomenon as opposed to a biological one, like Chomsky.

Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language centred Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language centred around the notion of language function. around the notion of language function.

While it accounts for the syntactic structure of language, SFL places the While it accounts for the syntactic structure of language, SFL places the function of language as central, differently from more structural function of language as central, differently from more structural approaches, which place the elements of language and their combinations approaches, which place the elements of language and their combinations as central. as central.

SFL starts from the social context, and looks at how language both acts SFL starts from the social context, and looks at how language both acts upon, and is constrained by, this social contextupon, and is constrained by, this social context. .

A central notion of SFL is A central notion of SFL is stratificationstratification: language is analysed in terms of : language is analysed in terms of four strata: Context, Semantics, Lexico-Grammar and Phonology-four strata: Context, Semantics, Lexico-Grammar and Phonology-Graphology.Graphology.

Context concerns Field (what is going on), Tenor (the social roles and Context concerns Field (what is going on), Tenor (the social roles and relationships between the participants), and Mode (aspects of the channel relationships between the participants), and Mode (aspects of the channel of communication, e.g., monologic/dialogic, spoken/written, +/- visual-of communication, e.g., monologic/dialogic, spoken/written, +/- visual-contact, etc.).contact, etc.).Systemic semantics includes what is usually called 'pragmatics'. SemanticsSystemic semantics includes what is usually called 'pragmatics'. Semantics is divided into three components:is divided into three components:

Ideational Semantics (the propositional content); Ideational Semantics (the propositional content);

Interpersonal Semantics (concerned with speech-function, exchange Interpersonal Semantics (concerned with speech-function, exchange structure, expression of attitude, etc.); structure, expression of attitude, etc.);

Textual Semantics (how the text is structured as a message, e.g., theme-Textual Semantics (how the text is structured as a message, e.g., theme-structure, given/new, rhetorical structure etc.)structure, given/new, rhetorical structure etc.)

The Lexico-Grammar concerns the syntactic organisation of words into The Lexico-Grammar concerns the syntactic organisation of words into utterances. Even here, a functional approach is taken, involving analysis of utterances. Even here, a functional approach is taken, involving analysis of the utterance in terms of roles such as Actor, Agent/Medium, Theme, the utterance in terms of roles such as Actor, Agent/Medium, Theme, Mood, etc Mood, etc Some of Halliday's early work involved the study of his son's developing Some of Halliday's early work involved the study of his son's developing language abilities. language abilities.

18

HallidayHalliday identifies seven functions that language has for children in their identifies seven functions that language has for children in their early years. Children are motivated to acquire language because it serves early years. Children are motivated to acquire language because it serves certain purposes for them. certain purposes for them.

The first four functions help the child to satisfy physical, emotional and The first four functions help the child to satisfy physical, emotional and social needs. Halliday calls them:social needs. Halliday calls them:

Instrumental: when children use language to express their needs Instrumental: when children use language to express their needs (e.g.'Want juice') (e.g.'Want juice')

Regulatory: where language is used to tell others what to do (e.g. 'Go Regulatory: where language is used to tell others what to do (e.g. 'Go away') away')

Interactional: where language is used to make contact with others and Interactional: where language is used to make contact with others and form relationships (e.g 'Love you, mummy') form relationships (e.g 'Love you, mummy')

Personal: This is the use of language to express feelings, opinions and Personal: This is the use of language to express feelings, opinions and individual identity (e.g 'Me good girl') individual identity (e.g 'Me good girl')

The next three functions help the child to come to terms with his or her The next three functions help the child to come to terms with his or her environment:environment:

Heuristic: This is when language is used to gain knowledge about the Heuristic: This is when language is used to gain knowledge about the environment.environment.

Imaginative: Here language is used to tell stories and jokes, and to Imaginative: Here language is used to tell stories and jokes, and to create an imaginary environment. create an imaginary environment.

Representational: The use of language to convey facts and information.Representational: The use of language to convey facts and information.

19

SPEECH ACT THEORYSPEECH ACT THEORY

Communication is pragmatic; we strive to achieve goals. Speech Act theoryCommunication is pragmatic; we strive to achieve goals. Speech Act theory was developed by Austin and Searle to explain how we use language to was developed by Austin and Searle to explain how we use language to accomplish these goals.accomplish these goals.

The philosopher J.L. Austin (1911-1960) claims that many utterances are The philosopher J.L. Austin (1911-1960) claims that many utterances are equivalent to actions. When someone says: “I name this ship” or “I now equivalent to actions. When someone says: “I name this ship” or “I now pronounce you man and wife”, the utterance creates a new social or pronounce you man and wife”, the utterance creates a new social or psychological reality. psychological reality.

Speech act theory broadly explains these utterances as having three parts Speech act theory broadly explains these utterances as having three parts or aspects: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. or aspects: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary.

Locutionary acts are simply the speech acts that have taken place. Locutionary acts are simply the speech acts that have taken place.

IlIl locutionary acts are the real actions which are performed by the locutionary acts are the real actions which are performed by the utterance, where saying equals doing, as in betting, promising, utterance, where saying equals doing, as in betting, promising, welcoming and warning. welcoming and warning.

PerPer locutionary acts are the effects of the utterance on the listener, wholocutionary acts are the effects of the utterance on the listener, who accepts the bet or pledge of marriage, is welcomed or warned. accepts the bet or pledge of marriage, is welcomed or warned.

Some linguists have attempted to classify illocutionary acts into a number Some linguists have attempted to classify illocutionary acts into a number of categories or types. David Crystal, quoting J.R. Searle, gives five such of categories or types. David Crystal, quoting J.R. Searle, gives five such categories:categories:

representatives, representatives, directives, directives, commissives, commissives, expressives and expressives and declarations. declarations.

Speech Act Theory describes how language can be used to Speech Act Theory describes how language can be used to dodo things, things, rather than merely comment on the state of the world. When we think of rather than merely comment on the state of the world. When we think of an utterance, it is usually either merely stating a fact, asking a question, an utterance, it is usually either merely stating a fact, asking a question, or acting as some sort of a command. All of these sentences, while having or acting as some sort of a command. All of these sentences, while having the potential to change the world, do not actually contain the power to do the potential to change the world, do not actually contain the power to do anything on their own. anything on their own.

In contrast, Speech Act Theory describes sentences whose very utterance In contrast, Speech Act Theory describes sentences whose very utterance causes things to occur. For instance, the phrase, "I pronounce thee man causes things to occur. For instance, the phrase, "I pronounce thee man and wife" is what actually causes the union to occur. The couple is not and wife" is what actually causes the union to occur. The couple is not married until the official married until the official says sosays so. .

20

More examples of such phrases are:More examples of such phrases are: I promise to take you home. I promise to take you home.

I bet you five pounds that he makes it. I bet you five pounds that he makes it.

I declare the 2000 Olympics officially open.I declare the 2000 Olympics officially open.

I warn you that legal action will ensue. I warn you that legal action will ensue.

I name this ship I name this ship The Flying Dutchman. The Flying Dutchman.

You are fired!You are fired!

In each of these cases, it is the In each of these cases, it is the act act of saying that is important. of saying that is important.

We see here the We see here the performativeperformative function of language. function of language.

Such performative acts do not have to be as direct as the examples, in factSuch performative acts do not have to be as direct as the examples, in fact much of our language is rather oblique. much of our language is rather oblique.

Take for example a guest who is very hot, but does not want to disturb the Take for example a guest who is very hot, but does not want to disturb the host. She might make the statement, "Wow, it's really hot in here," hoping host. She might make the statement, "Wow, it's really hot in here," hoping that the host would understand her discomfort and open the window. This that the host would understand her discomfort and open the window. This phrasing of the request allows for phrasing of the request allows for politenesspoliteness, and might be more socially , and might be more socially acceptable than direct asking.acceptable than direct asking.Essential to the theory is the idea that certain Essential to the theory is the idea that certain felicity conditionsfelicity conditions must be must be met in order for the utterance to have any effect. Not just anybody can met in order for the utterance to have any effect. Not just anybody can name a ship or marry a couple. A speech act is not valid unless the name a ship or marry a couple. A speech act is not valid unless the following are fulfilled:following are fulfilled:

Conventionality Conventionality of procedure of procedure Appropriate Appropriate participants, roles and circumstancesparticipants, roles and circumstances

CompletenessCompleteness of act (both people must say "I do" to become married) of act (both people must say "I do" to become married)

SinceritySincerity conditions: (a speaker must sincerely hold intentions, feelings, conditions: (a speaker must sincerely hold intentions, feelings, or thoughts. or thoughts.

It is because of these conditions that actors aren't really married when It is because of these conditions that actors aren't really married when they make a movie (inappropriate authority and circumstance), and a bet they make a movie (inappropriate authority and circumstance), and a bet is not made unless both parties agree (completeness).is not made unless both parties agree (completeness).

21