CoCoCu Reader Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of the CoCoCu reader...

Description

Core Lecture Linguistics Test 13.04.2010 1. The difference between semantic and pragmatic meaning 2. How do social factors influence language? (variation, language vs. dialect) 3. Hymes, the appropriate, how is it linked to the other 3 concepts? 4. How does applied linguistics differ from other linguistic theories? 5. What is the co-operate principle? Do people always conform to it? (why do we lie?) 6. Grammatical reasons for ambiguity? 7. What does corpus analysis reveal about a language? 8. Linguistic model +2 others

03.03.2009 The difference between semantics and pragmatics 2. How do languages vary /What is language variation? 3. How can you distinguish between a language and a dialect? 4. Hymes, the appropriate, how is it linked to the other 3 concepts? 5. What is the scope and purpose of applied linguistics? 6. A text is defined as going beyond the sentence. How can this be defined/answered in grammatical terms? 7. What is the co-operate principle? Do people always conform to it? 8. Why does ambiguity occur? 9. What does corpus analysis reveal about a language? 10. What does a linguistic model reveal about reality? 1.Why does a linguists model of language differ from how we perceive reality? so irgendwie 2. What is a language? Who says so and on what grounds? 3. Why do languages vary and change? 4. What does Hymes mean by "the appropriate"? How can it be linked with the other three principles? 5. Doris Lessing - reactions on her book. How can discourse analysis explain this? 6. What does a corpus tell us about reality? 7. A text is defined as going beyond the sentence. Do you agree? 8. Do people always co-operate? 9. Difference between theoratical, descriptive and applied linguistics 10. What is ambiguity and why does it occur?

1 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog

The scope of linguistics Language so much bound to our everyday life  go out of the wood to see it! Purpose of linguistics  explain language (explanation depends on dissociation from our immediate experience). Language not only reflects reality but creates it  therefore we are provided with an explanation of experience. As language happens now, every moment we live, we can constantly observe it and investigate and question it again and again! NB: The explanation of language always depends on cultural customs and linguistic convention. Although we try to abstract from the actual process of thinking, and try to describe language “from the outside” we will always have to create categories, define certain things and therefore will never be able to capture everything  constantly calling created categories into question – language allows for endless accounting for things! Our abstracting competence allows us intellectual enquiry  emergence of different ways of accounting for language  different “schools” / academic disciplines. The latter are like cultures with different ways of thinking and talking about things. They draw abstractions form the actuality of experience (it is always present)! Special about linguistics is that it uses the abstracting potential of language to categorize and explain language itself! We use cognition to abstract from language as experience in order to explain it. It seeks to determine from the data of “performance” the underlying systems of rules that has been mastered by the speaker-hearer and that he puts to use in actual performance. Linguistic theory = mentalistic  discovering mental reality underlying actual behaviour. Every linguist must be detached from actual experience of language – needs to be able to abstract – otherwise, he would not have a purpose. Linguists have to reason (überlegen) over experience. They must scientifically enquire but NOT correspond to actual experience at all. E.g. A carpenter experiences a table completely different than people who consider it an article of daily use. They also produce E.g. models that are not really conform to reality. Language is an abstraction – NO ONE SPEAKS “LANGUAGE”. There are:

2 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog



Theoretical linguistics – Theory of human language. Most concerned with developing models of linguistic knowledge. The core of their studies are syntax, phonology, morphology, and semantics. It is also searching for linguistic universals – sth that all languages have in common.



Descriptive linguistics – describe languages and how their theory is realised in their language. Always a particular language in mind. Objectively analyzing how languages are spoken.



Applied linguistics – How does the abstract relate to real world experience? What can abstract tell us about the real world. Experience of language of actual users is central.

Applied linguistics How does abstraction now refer back to reality? How can we make us of abstract and help users out there in the world . Tries to clarify and explain certain experiences. It takes of a role of mediation between abstract and the real speaking world. On the basis of having understood the language oneself/having the expertise of it linguists can intervene with reality and exploit abstract knowledge to create new realities. It engages with real-world problems and tries to solve them professionally. E.g. Language Teaching Models and Maps Abstraction involves idealization of actual data  constructing models of linguistic description. Such models are intended to be removed from familiar reality and are supposed to have little resemblance to it – NO INVALIDATION! The validity of models lies in the fact that it reveals what is not so apparent. Linguistic models are therefore an abstraction, at a remove from familiar experience .  A model is an idealized version of reality  incidental information removed to give way to essential. Models comparable to maps. Map: does not show things as they really are – vast amount of detail left out because there is not enough room and to avoid distraction. E.g. map of London underground: little resemblance to real tracks, its twists and turns, no indication about distance between stations, no connection to world above ground. This map – useless for finding way on foot. Merely designed for people to be able to use the tube and leaves out everything else which is not relevant to this purpose .  3 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog

The same true for maps of complex landscape of language. Certain issues will be identified as being particularly significant and they are given prominence by avoiding distraction of detail. Models = simplified and selective. They are idealized versions of reality, designed to reveal certain things by concealing others. No all purpose model/No all purpose map. Their validity is always relative, never absolute. Designed to explain experience but not expected to correspond with it. None can capture the whole truth. The purpose dictates the design of the model. Both, in cartography and linguistics important to know about what scale to use, what dimensions to identify and where, in the interest of explanation, to draw the line between idealized abstractions and actual reality.

Dimensions of idealization language = means of interaction between people = social phenomenon. Serves to give public expressions to private issues, to communicate with others, to arrive at agreed meanings and to regulate relationships  languages have to have very stable codes people accept as condition of membership of communities that use them. There have to be generally agreed ways of using language in different kinds of social context!  learning languages act of social conformity. BUT there is always some room for some private, personal movement by exploiting the potential of the code (produce unique expressions). Generally, people are constrained to conventions of the code and its use, but they can also exploit the potential differently, on different occasions and for different purposes – a person’s use of language as distinctive as a fingerprint. On the one hand, language very general and abstract, a shared and stable body of knowledge of linguistic forms which is established by conventions of community. At the same time, language is very particular and variable if we consider the actual linguistic behaviour. The nearer you get to actuality, the more abstractions appear. Language and parole Ferdinand de Saussure:

4 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog



langue  shared social code, the abstract system. A collective body of knowledge, kind of common reference manual copies of which were acquired by all members of a community of speakers.



parole  particular actualities of individual utterances

This distinction is justifiable as it limits the area of enquiry down to an amount which is manageable and that the concept of language can be said to capture central aspect of language itself. Issues arising out of this distinction: “langue” eliminates from language its intrinsic instability. Language = dynamic, a process – not a state and changes over time and accommodates the needs of its users. Historical linguistics distinguishes between diachronic and synchronic changes of languages. Diachronic  account for language changes over the course of time. Synchronic  at a particular point in time. Language varies at any one time, no matter how small the time slot is (speakers of different ages, use language differently. Diachronic change over time is simply, and inevitably, a result of synchronic variation at any one time. E.g. Synchronic/Diachronic distinction - chess game: We can contemplate the disposition of the pieces on the board without considering the diachronic dimension (the moves that were made before, or those that are planned in the future. We can see it as a state of a play and disregard it as a stage in the game. Competence and Performance Comparable distinction to Saussure’s “langue” and “parole” is made by Chomsky.



Competence  knowledge native speakers have of their language as a system of abstract formal relations. The focus on what is essential and primary.



Performance  their actual behaviour, it is particular, variable, dependent on circumstances. It may offer evidence of competence, but circumstantial evidence and not really reliable. The residual category of secondary phenomena,

incidental,

and

peripheral.

“Knowledge” of language  a bit delicate as we do not necessarily act upon what we know but are “forced” into the usage due to particular circumstances in our life that 5 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog

which set constraints and conditions upon us as we act. Linguistic behaviour conditioned by all manner of factors other than a knowledge of language as such. The abstract concepts of competence and actual speech acts are quite different and cannot be inferred one from the other. 

Similarities to Saussure’s model: same kind of dichotomy of knowledge and behaviour and a similar demarcation of the scope of linguistic enquiry.



Discrepancies: Saussure – “parole” is a social construct (socially shared common book, copies distributed among society), but Chomsky sees “competence” as a psychological aspect: not so much printed, but imprinted, not a shared generality, but a genetic endowment. “Langue” conceived of as knowledge determined by membership of social community  focus: What makes each language different – what is distinctive

about

“Competence”

on

particular the

languages

other

hand,

as

social

knowledge

phenomena?

determined

by

membership of human species – focus: What makes individual competence alike – What is distinctive about language in general, and as specific to the human species? Chomsky’s definition of “competence”, then, = a definition of linguistics as principally concerned with the universals of human mind. Chomsky has defined linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. His idealisation is formalist  fixes on the forms of language as evidence of these universals without regard to how these forms function in communication – it leaves out social considerations entirely. The communicative functions in actual contexts of use are of no interest. They furnish no reliable evidence of underlying cognitive principles – too many distractions in data by way of performance. Furthermore, if “competence” = knowledge of abstract principles of linguistic organization, which may not be evident in actual behaviour  what evidence for its existence? Some linguists (as representatives of the language they speak) draw evidence from their own intuitions (very doubtful as they are very analytical and cannot count for everyday speakers of a language).  Problem between abstraction and actuality – the further language is removed from its natural surroundings, the

6 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog

greater the problem becomes / the more you place it in its natural surroundings, the more less you see in significant generalization.

How do we get linguistic data? 

Introspection: related to 1st person. Consider yourself as a native speaker of language. Problem  we always have our aim in mind – we are not objective. Moreover, this is quite limited because we only get data from one person.



Elicitation: already includes 2nd person. We ask different people, with different opinions. The framework is imposed by the person carrying it out.



Observe: 3rd person is involved. Observe what people do when they use language. People observed should act as if the observer would not be there  ideal case!

When we consider Chomsky’s issue about “competence ” we encounter another difficulty in terms of “linguistic enquiry – what your statements should actually be about.” For him an abstract set of organising principles defining an area of human cognition, a specific language faculty and parameters determining Universal Grammars – are central. From this point of view, the most important fact about language is that it is evidence for a faculty in the human mind , uniquely and innately specific to the species.  Leads to assume that what is central in language is that it is not of itself central. According to him, linguistics is about grammar (which is concerned with the structural relations of sentence constituents – syntax).

Knowledge and ability One objection to Chomsky – defines nature of language too narrowly (a knowledge of grammatical forms – syntax). Knowing language is more than knowing syntax – namely HOW it functions. E.g. not only knowing words as formal items, but also as units of meaning interacting with syntax complexly. We cannot abstract form from function entirely! Here, semantics = study of how languages mean, enter the discussion. 7 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog

Chomsky’s “formal grammar” wants to identify particular features of syntax with reference to universal and innate principles of human cognition. ALTERNATIVE – think about “functional grammar” – how language is differentially influenced by its environment, how it is shaped by social use, and reflects the functions it has to serve. Knowing language also involves knowing how to access grammar in order to express meanings appropriate to context. This is not about what language means, but what people mean by the language. We need this because knowledge in abstract has to be put into actual and this is done by its communicative use when people act, regulated by certain conventions.  Therefore, “competence” is not only knowledge of the abstract, but also the ability to put knowledge into use appropriately. 2 Ways of revising Chomsky’s concept of “competence”: 

Can redefine the “internal language” by including aspects that reflect the nature of language as a communicative resource.  results in a functional grammar.



Extend the notion of “competence” by including “knowledge” and “ability” to act upon it. “Performance” then becomes particular behaviour resulting from the exercise of ability and is then not simply the reflexes of knowledge. Ability = executive branch of competence, enabling us to achieve meaning by putting our knowledge to work = communicative competence. This suggests – If we did not have the access to our “ability” the abstract and internalized structures of language would never see the light of day – Imprisoned in a paralysis of cognition.

Communicative competence consists of grammatical competence (speakers ability to form and interpret sentences) and pragmatic competence (ability to use expressions to achieve desired effect).

Grammar Generally, the position of most of the founders of modern general linguistics has been: an ideal speaker/listener, in a completely homogenous speech community knowing his/her language perfectly well and is unaffected by memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention, interest and errors.

8 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog

Grammar purports to be a description of the ideal speaker-hearer’s intrinsic competence. When a grammar does not rely on the intelligence of the understanding reader, but rather provides an explicit analysis of his contribution  generative grammar. Things that languages have in common, or that are necessary to every language are treated in a science called “ Universal or Philosophical grammar”. It accommodates the “creative aspect” of language and expresses the deep-seated universal regularities. On the other hand, there is also a “particular grammar “ which deals with things that are exclusively part of one language only. What all languages have in common – “creative aspect”  it provides the means for expressing indefinitely many thoughts and the possibility for reacting adequately within an indefinite range of new situations. The grammar of a language can only provide full account of the speakerhearer’s competence if both, a universal, as well as a particular grammar are given.

A generative grammar, then, is a system of rules that assign structural descriptions to sentences. Wikipedia: Refers to a particular approach of syntax. A generative grammar attempts to give a set of rules that will correctly predict which combinations of words will form grammatical sentences. It tries to provide a description of linguistic competence people know about their language , not only surface and constituents, but also in terms of the underlying structure .

Every

speaker has internalized such a generative grammar, but he must not necessarily be aware of this fact. A generative grammar is not a model for a speaker or a hearer. It tries to account for the knowledge of language which helps us for actual usage – grammar assigns structural description to the sentence. An interesting generative grammar will be dealing with mental processes that are beyond the level of actual or potential consciousness. It attempts to specify what the speaker actually knows, not what he may report about his knowledge. E.g. a theory of visual perception would also try to account for WHAT a person actually sees and the MECHANISMS that determine this. They would not ask the patient what he sees and why. The study of performance deals with the concept of “acceptability ”. Utterances are acceptable when they are perfectly natural and immediately comprehensible . E.g. a) I called up the man who wrote the book that you told me about. b) I called the 9 SS 2010/Core Lecture Linguistics

©Julia Herzog

man who wrote the book that you told me about up. The more acceptable sentences are those that are more likely to be produced, more easily understood, less clumsy and in s...