History of linguistics
American linguistics of the beginning of the 20
Download 201.88 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Meaning
- 20. Transformational-generative phase of linguistics. N. Chomskys "Syntactic structures": the object of research, methods and assumptions. Интернет 1
- Лекция гребанная
- (Universal Grammar
- 20 веку , брала из Интернета…примерно все разбито по школам.. если не хотите читать эту хрень , тогда загляните в билеты № 14 – 20))
- Лондонская школа ПрЕДЛАГАЮ ПОСЛЕ 9ОГО УПИТЬСЯ В ЗЮЗЮ….ЛИБО ОТ ГОРЯ, ЛИБО ОТ ЩАСТЬЯ))))))))) СО СВОИМИ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯМИ ПРОШУ ОБРАЩАТЬСЯ ПО ТЕЛ: 6511077
- Structural linguistics in Europe Structural linguistics
- Structural linguistics in America
17. American linguistics of the beginning of the 20lh century. Behaviorism in linguistics. Leonard Bloomfield "Language". 18. Anthropological linguistics in America. Franz Boas and Edward Sapir. Linguistic relativity, American linguistics. It is represented by 3 outstanding figures:
F.B. taught several generations of American linguists and anthropologists The anthropological interest of FB was reflected in close collaboration (сотрудничество; участие) of anthropology and linguistics. These 2 science were studied in American universities at the beginning of the 20th century. Anthropologists tried to describe the American-Indian population who spoke different languages. This population was illiterate and they lived in very small communities over 30 much of the US and Canada. Since colonial days different people tried to put down words and phrases from American-Indian languages and thus the 1st dictionaries and grammars of native languages of the American continent appeared. Among these authors there were many missioners, traders but there were no linguists among them. FB became the 1st professional linguist who was really interested in descriptive linguistics and human resources. At the beginning of the 20th century there were no special research procedure for the description of unknown languages. That is why this scholar tried to adopt not only discovery procedures but he tried to analyze various language phenomena on the basis of a framework of the analytical statements. He paid great attention to description of the phonological, grammatical and lexical peculiarities of Indian languages. Each of his successors of his works were outstanding American linguists and they developed their own point of view for the language study.
LB tries to describe the language on the basis of the mechanism theory according to this idea a human being behaves like an animal which doesn’t have any feelings and emotions. For LB it is important to describe some thought s concepts and images, which are connected with human behavior but he denied that possibility of description. Human communication based on thoughts, movements and human experience. His description of the language is rather analytical. That is why his analysis of immediate constituence is usually regarded to be a formal kind of language description. ES introduced his own theory which was based on the description of American-Indian languages. He described the languages of the Canadian tribes, he paid attention to the grammatical structure of these languages and he introduced his own idea for the descriptive linguistics. His idea is usually known as linguistic relativity (относительность). He paid attention to the difficulty in relating language to the outer world. He stated that “we see the world as if we depend on the language we use”. “Language shapes our perceptions”. Cultural behavior is closely connected with the language spoken by the peoples. According to this ideas people categorized the objects of the surrounding reality according to their experience and the understanding of the world. He stresses the situation in which language influences our experience and our perceptions are determined by our language. This idea was rather new in the 20th century because scholars thought that the influence usually goes from the surrounding world to human understanding of it expressed in the language. ES suggested that a person in his mind may built up his own picture of the world. This picture may be different from other people’s models He introduced the idea of linguistic relativity associated with the well-known hypothesizes expressed by him and his pupil Benjamin Whorf. According to this hypothesis people don’t know the background of the language. A language doesn’t describe ideas but it can shape the ideas. People usually cut down their own experiences into certain pieces. The principle of relativity corresponds to the idea that the same physical evidence may be expressed with the help of different units. ES & BW tried to describe European languages and American-Indian languages corresponding to nouns and verbs. According to this description American-Indian languages show all the events with the help of verbs. They don’t use nouns. Besides there is no distinctions btw nouns and verbs at all (lightning, waves, storm, flame). In Hopi there is only one word for insect, plane and pilot. When ES was tried to describe a number of words they came across: in Arabic there are 300 words denoting sand, 30 words for camel, 55 words describing a yellow colour; in American-Indian there are many words that describe snow, white, gray, blue and no colours as black and yellow. BW showed that Hopi and American-Indian languages have no words that can describe time. The only distinction they make is btw what is subjective and what is objective. The subjective phenomena include the future and everything that is mental and the other phenomena are objective. They have no distance in time and place. Only present tense. They think that the word is determined by the language and we see here and experience what we do because the language habits of our culture presupposes certain choices of interpretation.
1) phonology is no longer determines the course of linguistic theory and linguistic methods. 2) the grammatic studies of the 1st part of the 20th century were mostly concerned with the3 description of morphology and morphemes and only in some cases scholars devoted their works to the description of sentences. 3) the 3d trend in linguistics is mostly associated with the description of lexicon but the semantic study due to the influence of Bloomfield was neglected in American linguistics because it was thought that it can’t be the competence of linguistic science. This very moment in the 50s of the 20th century one of the famous British linguist John Firth introduced his own theory of the language. His understanding of the language structure was associated with 2 main conceptions: - The 1st assumption represented in his works was that: it is important to investigate not only a linguistic science but also the context of situation which is the means of making statements using the means of the word. As the previous generation of linguists JF paid much attention to the linguistic form but not to the substance represented in the language. The whole theory of the language described the phonetics independently from linguistics. (Таблица) Nowadays this view point is of great importance because of the usage in descriptive linguistics such terms as context, situation, extra-linguistic features. The part of phonology was described paying attention to prosodic elements. He spoke about the stress of the word, the division of word into syllables, the pitch of the voice and the length of a word or phrase.
1) unit
2) structure 3) class
4) system Each of these categories is influenced by rank and other features. Units – sentences have structures in which units lower in rank are grouped into classes by reference to their function in structures. The members of classes are grouped into systems. 4 main levels of the language: Rank – Grammar 1) unit-sentence-word 2) structure – clauses (phrases) – syllable group 3)class – separate words – syllables 4) system- morpheme – segments All the categories in the language are organized according to their actual data observed by linguists. For JF the category of unit is the most important one. There are other criteria according to which the same categories are described in detail. His pupils paid attention to either to phonological level of the grammatical level. The semantic of a word was not observed by the British linguistic school. One of his pupils Halliday devoted all his works to the description of grammatical categories paying no attention to the phonological level of the language. 20. Transformational-generative phase of linguistics. N. Chomsky's "Syntactic structures": the object of research, methods and assumptions. Интернет 1 A linguistic theory developed by Noam Chomsky, first put forth in his book Syntactic Structures (1957), that provides a methodology for describing the relationships between sentences expressing similar concepts to underlying "deep structures" by means of various transformational rules. A central premise of Chomsky's work is that humans are innately predisposed to language abilities, and that such transformational processes are linguistic universals. Интернет 2 These introduce yet another innovation. Rules that transform phrase structures into alternative forms. Transformations provide especially economical explanations for the formation of questions, and passive voice, but also in accounting for deletions ('John and Mary like Jill' instead of 'John likes Jill and Mary Likes Jill') that we may be using to help memory chunking that helps overcome the 7 plus or minus 2 constraint on short term memory. The transformational grammar was a theory of how grammatical knowledge is represented and processed in the brain. Developed by Noam Chomsky in the1960's, the transformational grammar consisted of: 1) Two levels of representation of the structure of sentences: an underlying, more abstract form, termed 'deep structure', and the actual form of the sentence produced, called 'surface structure'. Deep structure is represented in the form of a heirarchical tree diagram, or "phrase structure tree," depicting the abstract grammatical relationships between the words and phrases within a sentence. 2) A system of formal rules specifiying how deep structures are to be transformed into surface structures. Consider the two sentences "Steven wrote a book on language" and "A book on language was written by Steven." Chomsky held that there is a deeper grammatical structure from which both these sentences are derived. The transformational grammar provides an characterization of this common form and how it is manipulated to produce actual sentences. Or take the sentence "Who will John see." This corresponds to its surface structure. According to the transformational grammar, we form this sentence by unconsciously applying transformation rules to the underlying deep structure given in the phrase structure tree of the form "John will see who." In this particular case, the transformation rule applied is termed "Wh-movement." The transformational grammar formed the basis for many subsequent theories of human grammatical knowledge. Since Chomsky's original presentation, many different theories have emerged. Although current theories differ significantly from the original, the notion of a transformation remains a central element in most models. Consider the following sentence pairs:
"The mouse was chased by the cat." "Where did John drive?" "John drove (where)." According to the transformational grammar, there is an abstract level of representation that underlies the syntactical structures of each pair member. For instance, the forms first and second sentences correspond to "surface structures." The linguist Noam Chomsky proposed that these surface structures are derived from a common underlying grammatical representation, called their "deep structure." Within the theory, their deep structure is represented in the form of a heirarchical tree depicting the grammatical relationships between the various constituents that make up the sentence, such as the noun phrases* "the cat" and "the mouse," and the verb phrases "chased" and "was chased ." The application of certain transformation rules to this tree produces the surface structures seen above. Phrase Structure Tree A phrase structure tree is a form of representation of sentences in which nodes or elements are labelled by syntactic category (noun phrase (NP), verb phrase (VP), prepositional phrase (PP), etc.) 
The man hit the ball (пример из лекции) (definite component)
Phrase structure rules govern the structure of sentences in a language. One example is the rule that English sentences must consist of a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP)). Noun Phrase A word or sequence of words consisting of a noun or a noun plus one or more modifiers. For example, 'cat', 'the cat', 'the black cat' are all noun phrases. In the sentence, 'The black cat is happy,' 'the black cat' is the noun phrase; 'the black cat is' is not a noun phrase. Noun phrases can be constructed recursively. That is, a noun phrase can contain another phrase within it (such as a verb phrase or another noun phrase), that contains within it another phrase, and so on. The noun phrase is one type of phrase among others in contemporary theories of grammar. Verb Phrase A word or sequence of words consisting of a verb (refers to an action, existence or occurence) or a verb plus an object (e.g. 'write', 'write a letter'). Лекция гребанная It the 50s of the 20th century on the American continent the other outstanding scholar Zellig Harris developed the notions of IC (immediate …) and distribution. ЯР began his investigations in phoneme sequences and morpheme sequences. He described the preceding the following phonemes cases of context btw phonemes and morphemes and afterwards came to the conclusion that there are 3 models of distribution both on phonological and morphological levels of the language. These procedures helped to distinguish btw syntax and morphology and afterwards showed that it is possible to describe the distribution on any formal level except the lexemic level. In the 50s he extended the descriptive analysis of texts beyond and across sentence boundaries. On the 1st hand he tried to relate distribution with transformation btw 2 more actual sentences. Some cases of transformations had been anticipated by the representatives of the Port Royal Grammar (Universal Grammar) and in works by Humboldt. This was the most radical and important change in Am. Descriptive linguistics. The H’s pupil – Noham Chomsky tried to use transformations in his own analysis. In 1957 the book written bh NC which is called “Syntactic structures” made the author well-known all over the world. NC introduced Generative-Transformational theory of linguistics. Generative grammar described by NC made possible to speak about the birth of a new paradigm in linguistics (Transformational Generic Paradigm). It is different from the structural approach as it studies the principle descriptive method and orientation in the sphere of linguistics. According to the new theory the linguistic descriptions are based on a number of rules. The main thing in this theory is that the creative capacity of a native speaker is to generate and to produce language message and to understand an infinite number of sentences. Both messages and sentences have never been uttered before and heard before they are usually created on the spot. A speaker or a listener must follow grammar of rules to understand messages and sentences. NC didn’t use Saussure’s terms langue and parole he introduced 2 other terms language competence and lang. performance. The whole theory was based on Gumboldt’s ideas that language is created by a human being and the task of a linguist is to describe how a person codes and decodes sentences and communication in general. The rules of Transformational Generative Grammar fall into 3 components: 1) the rules of phrase (phrase structure). Any sentence may be subdivided into phrases; 2 kind of phrases: noun phrase: verbal phrase. Each of these phrases may be represented by trees. (Табличка выше) 2) According to this rule the transformations are applied. All the sentences are divided into central (ядерные) and non-central. 3) it takes into consideration the deep and the surface structure of the sentence. 21. Main periods and paradigms in linguistic knowledge of the 20th century. Девчонки!! Это обобщение по всему 20 веку, брала из Интернета…примерно все разбито по школам.. если не хотите читать эту хрень, тогда загляните в билеты № 14 – 20)) Что нужно упомянуть здесь:
ПрЕДЛАГАЮ ПОСЛЕ 9ОГО УПИТЬСЯ В ЗЮЗЮ….ЛИБО ОТ ГОРЯ, ЛИБО ОТ ЩАСТЬЯ))))))))) СО СВОИМИ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯМИ ПРОШУ ОБРАЩАТЬСЯ ПО ТЕЛ: 6511077 Structural linguistics in Europe Structural linguistics in Europe is generally said to have begun in 1916 with the posthumous publication of the Course in General Linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure. Much of what is now considered as Saussurean can be seen, though less clearly, in the earlier work of Humboldt, and the general structural principles that Saussure was to develop with respect to synchronic linguistics in the Cours had been applied almost 40 years before (1879) by Saussure himself in a reconstruction of the Indo-European vowel system. The full significance of the work was not appreciated at the time. Saussure's structuralism can be summed up in two dichotomies (which jointly cover what Humboldt referred to in terms of his own distinction of inner and outer form): (1) langue versus parole and (2) form versus substance. By langue, best translated in its technical Saussurean sense as language system, is meant the totality of regularities and patterns of formation that underlie the utterances of a language; by parole, which can be translated as language behaviour, is meant the actual utterances themselves. Just as two performances of a piece of music given by different orchestras on different occasions will differ in a variety of details and yet be identifiable as performances of the same piece, so two utterances may differ in various ways and yet be recognized as instances, in some sense, of the same utterance. What the two musical performances and the two utterances have in common is an identity of form, and this form, or structure, or pattern, is in principle independent of the substance, or “raw material,” upon which it is imposed. “Structuralism,” in the European sense then, refers to the view that there is an abstract relational structure that underlies and is to be distinguished from actual utterances—a system underlying actual behaviour—and that this is the primary object of study for the linguist. Two important points arise here: first, that the structural approach is not in principle restricted to synchronic linguistics; second, that the study of meaning, as well as the study of phonology and grammar, can be structural in orientation. In both cases “structuralism” is opposed to “atomism” in the European literature. It was Saussure who drew the terminological distinction between synchronic and diachronic linguistics in the Cours; despite the undoubtedly structural orientation of his own early work in the historical and comparative field, he maintained that, whereas synchronic linguistics should deal with the structure of a language system at a given point in time, diachronic linguistics should be concerned with the historical development of isolated elements—it should be atomistic. Whatever the reasons that led Saussure to take this rather paradoxical view, his teaching on this point was not generally accepted, and scholars soon began to apply structural concepts to the diachronic study of languages. The most important of the various schools of structural linguistics to be found in Europe in the first half of the 20th century have included the Prague school, most notably represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich Trubetskoy (died 1938) and Roman Jakobson (born 1896), both Russian émigrés, and the Copenhagen (or glossematic) school, centred around Louis Hjelmslev (died 1965). John Rupert Firth (died 1960) and his followers, sometimes referred to as the London school, were less Saussurean in their approach, but, in a general sense of the term, their approach may also be described appropriately as structural linguistics. Structural linguistics in America American and European structuralism shared a number of features. In insisting upon the necessity of treating each language as a more or less coherent and integrated system, both European and American linguists of this period tended to emphasize, if not to exaggerate, the structural uniqueness of individual languages. There was especially good reason to take this point of view given the conditions in which American linguistics developed from the end of the 19th century. There were hundreds of indigenous American Indian languages that had never been previously described. Many of these were spoken by only a handful of speakers and, if they were not recorded before they became extinct, would be permanently inaccessible. Under these circumstances, such linguists as Franz Boas (died 1942) were less concerned with the construction of a general theory of the structure of human language than they were with prescribing sound methodological principles for the analysis of unfamiliar languages. They were also fearful that the description of these languages would be distorted by analyzing them in terms of categories derived from the analysis of the more familiar Indo-European languages. After Boas, the two most influential American linguists were Edward Sapir (died 1939) and Leonard Bloomfield (died 1949). Like his teacher Boas, Sapir was equally at home in anthropology and linguistics, the alliance of which disciplines has endured to the present day in many American universities. Boas and Sapir were both attracted by the Humboldtian view of the relationship between language and thought, but it was left to one of Sapir's pupils, Benjamin Lee Whorf, to present it in a sufficiently challenging form to attract widespread scholarly attention. Since the republication of Whorf's more important papers in 1956, the thesis that language determines perception and thought has come to be known as the Whorfian hypothesis. Sapir's work has always held an attraction for the more anthropologically inclined American linguists. But it was Bloomfield who prepared the way for the later phase of what is now thought of as the most distinctive manifestation of American “structuralism.” When he published his first book in 1914, Bloomfield was strongly influenced by Wundt's psychology of language. In 1933, however, he published a drastically revised and expanded version with the new title Language; this book dominated the field for the next 30 years. In it Bloomfield explicitly adopted a behaviouristic approach to the study of language, eschewing in the name of scientific objectivity all reference to mental or conceptual categories. Of particular consequence was his adoption of the behaviouristic theory of semantics according to which meaning is simply the relationship between a stimulus and a verbal response. Because science was still a long way from being able to give a comprehensive account of most stimuli, no significant or interesting results could be expected from the study of meaning for some considerable time, and it was preferable, as far as possible, to avoid basing the grammatical analysis of a language on semantic considerations. Bloomfield's followers pushed even further the attempt to develop methods of linguistic analysis that were not based on meaning. One of the most characteristic features of “post-Bloomfieldian” American structuralism, then, was its almost complete neglect of semantics. Another characteristic feature, one that was to be much criticized by Chomsky, was its attempt to formulate a set of “discovery procedures”—procedures that could be applied more or less mechanically to texts and could be guaranteed to yield an appropriate phonological and grammatical description of the language of the texts. Structuralism, in this narrower sense of the term, is represented, with differences of emphasis or detail, in the major American textbooks published during the 1950s. Directory: study study -> And lasts until November 30 study -> Know the answers to the following statements for the completion portion of the test study -> Questions for the PowerPoint Europe and the Age of Imperialism study -> Politics in the 1920’s Conservatism, Dominance of the Republican Party Conservatism study -> Unit Test – Georgia after wwii and during the Civil Rights Movement study -> Study Activity 1 study -> Name Study Guide study -> Suhakam’s input for the office of the high commissioner for human rights (ohchr)’s study on children’s right to health – human rights council resolution 19/37 Download 201.88 Kb. Share with your friends:
|