Grammatical Forms

GRAMMATICAL FORMS ACTIVITY

THE PRAGMATICS ACTIVITY

THE DESCRIPTIVISTS

The London school

England is a country ib which certain aspects of linguistics have an usually long history. Lingustic description becomes a matter of practical importance to a nation when  it envolves a standard or "official" language for itself out of the welter of diverse and conflicting local usages normally found in any territory that has been settled for a considerable time, and it happens that in this respect England was, briefly, far in advance of Europe. 

Elsewhere, the cultural dominance of Latin together with the supranational mediaval world-view made contemporary languages seem to be mere vulgar local vernaculars unworthy of serious study; but England was already develping a recognized standard language by the eleventh century.

The man who turned linguistic proper into a recognized, distinct acedemic subject in Britain was J.R. Firth (1890-1960). 

Firth argue, correctly in my view, that phonemicits are led into error by the nature of European writing systems. A phonemic transcription, after all represents a fully consistent application of the particular principles of orthography on which European alphabetic scripts happen to be more or less accurately based. 

The concept of the prosodic unit in phonology seems so attractive and natural that it is suprising to find that it is not more widespread. The generative phonologists seem to have been so intent on arguin for the "horizontal" division of a stretch of speech-sound into distinctive features (as against those Descriptivists who thought of phonemes as indivisible atoms) that they have never thought to call into question the "vertical" division into segments.

To understand Firth's notion of meaning, we must examine the linguistic ideas of his colleague Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942). Professor of Antrophology at the London School of Economics from 1927 onwards. For Malinowski, to think on languages as a "means of tranfusing ideas from the head of the speaker to that of the listener" was a misleading myth to speak, partivulary in a primitive culture, is no to tell but to do. 

 "A RICH AND ADAPTABLE INSTRUMENT"

The teacher of English who, when seeking ans adequate definition of language to guide him in his work,  meets a cautious "well, it depends, on how yo look at it" is likely to share the natural impatience felt by anyone who finds himself unable to elicit 'a straight answer to a straight question". But the very frequency of this complaint may suggest that, perhaps, questions are seldom as straight as they seem.

Language as an instrument of control has another side to it, since the cilds is well aware thet languge is also a means whereby others exercise control over him. Closely related to the instrumental model, therefore. is the regulatory model of language. 

Functions of Languages

Functions of languages 

*Language must be investigated in all the variety of its functions .

  

*The ADRESSER sends a MESSAGE to the ADDRESSEE. To be operative the message requires a CONTEXT refered to (“referent” in another, somewhat, ambiguo, nomenclature). Seizable by the addressee, and either verbal o capable of being verbalized; a CODE fully, or at least parcially, common to the addresser and addressee; and finally, a CONTACT, a physical channel and psychological connexion between the addresser and the addressee. Enabling both of them to enter and stay in comunication.

                      CONTEXT

                                                MESSAGE


ADRESSER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDRESSEE

                                                CONTACT

                                                    CODE

Functional Linguistics: the Prague School

The Prague School practised a special style of synchronic linguistcs, and although most of the scholars whom one thinks of as members of the school worked in Prague or at least in Czechoslovakia, the term is used also to cover certain scholars elsewhere who consiciously adhered to the Prague style. 


Prague linguists on the other hand, looked at languages as one might look at a motor, seeking to understand what jobs the various components were doing and how the nature of one component determined the nature of others. 

As long as their were describing the structure of a language, the practice of the Prague School wsa not very diffrent from that of their contemporaries-they used the notion "phoneme"and "morpheme", for instance; but they tried to go beyond description to explanation, saying not just what languages were like but what they were the way they were. American linguists restricted themselves (and still restrict themselves) to description. 

Saussure: Language as social fact