语言学流派复习题 6页

Theoriesandschoolsoflinguistics1.Saussure’sideaSaussure’sideawasdevelopedalong3lines:linguistics,sociologyandpsychology.1）Linguistics:SaussurereceivedthegreatestinfluencefromtheAmericanlinguistWilliamDwightWhitney.Heworkwithinessentiallytheneogrammariantraditionbutraisedthequestionofthesign.Inhisbooks,hearguedthatlanguageisinfactaninstitution,foundedonsocialconvention.Instressingtheinstitutionalandconventionalnatureoflanguage,Whitneydistinguishedhumancommunicationfromthemerelyinstinctiveanimalcommunication,andlanguagekeepdevelopingandchanging.SaussureacknowledgedWhitney’sinfluenceonhisownturningtotheproblemofthesign.InhisCourseinGeneralLinguistics,Saussuresaidthatbyinsistingontheconceptofarbitrarinessofthesigntoemphasizethatlanguageisaninstitution.ItisWhitneywholedSaussuretoseethatbymakingrepresentationofalanguageratherthanthehistoryofitthebasisofadiscipline,onecouldbegintodistinguishtherelevantdatafromtheirrelevant,andthefunctionalfromthenon-functional.ForSaussure,meaningexistsonlybecausetherearedifferencesofmeaninganditisthesedifferencesofmeaningthatenableonetoestablishthearticulationoflinguisticforms.Formscanberecognizednotbecauseoftheirhistoricalcontinuity,butbecauseoftheirdifferentfunctions,theirabilityofdistinguishandtoproducedistinctmeanings.Saussurefundamentalperceptionisofrevolutionarysignificance.Meaningdependsondifferencesofmeaning;onlythroughdifferencesofmeaningcanoneidentifyformsandtheirdefiningfunctionalqualities.Formsmustbeestablishedthroughanalysisofasystemofrelationsanddifferences.2）Sociology:Asforsociology,SaussurewasinfluencedbytheFrenchsociologistEmileDurkheim,whowroteRulesofSociologicalMethodandOnSuicide:SociologicalStudies.First,heintroducedtheterm“socialfacts”,accordingtoDurkheim,socialfactsareideasinthe“collectingmind”ofasociety.Thecollectivemindofasocietyissththatexistsoverandabovetheindividualmembersofthesociety,anditsideasareonlyindirectlyandimperfectlyreflectedinthemindsofthepeoplewhomakeupthesociety.Durkheim’sideaisthatasocietycomprisesawebofphenomenaofthiscategory,manyofwhichwillpossessmuchmorecomplexstructures.Thepositionresultedinpostulatingtheexistenceofacollectiveconsciousnessdistinctfromthetotalityofindividualconsciousness.Aboutthenatureofsocialfacts,Durkheimsaidthatwemustrememberthatoursocialinstitutionsarelargelybequeathedtousbyformergenerationsandweourselvestakenopartinformingthem.Socialconstraintisoneofthetestsforatrulysocialfact.Whenwefullyconformtothesocialfacts,theconstraintisfeltonlyslightlyandisthereforeunnecessary.Itisthesocialnormsthatenablehumanbeingstocommunicateandactmeaningful.Languageisasocialfact,sinceitisgeneralthroughoutacommunityandexercisesaconstraintonthespeakers.Thisconstraintispeculiar,since(1)itconsistsinourlackofanyalternative,ifwewishtocommunicate,and(2)itisimposedonusbyeducation,butwhenwemasterit,wearenolongerawareofanyconstraint.ThroughouthisCourse,thereistheprinciplethatlanguageasasocialfactisindependentofhistoricaldevelopment,anylanguageinanyhistoricalperiodcanbedescribedandanalyzedregardlessofitshistory.3）Psychology:Influencedfrompsychologymainlycomesfrompsychoanalysis,adisciplinefoundedandpracticedbySigmundFreud,theAustrianpsychiatrist.Freud’sworksincludeTheInterpretationofDreams,theEgoofId,6\netc.Freuddiscussedtheprohibitionofincestandothersocialtaboos.HealsodiscussedOedipuscomplex.Hepostulatedthecontinuityofacollectivepsychy,whichhecalledtheunconscious.Thehistoricaleventisassertedasacause,butthenitisinferredfromthesubconscioussystem.Structuralexplanationrelatesactionstoasystemofnorms—therulesofalanguage,thecollectiverepresentationofasociety,themechanismsofapsychicaleconomy—andtheconceptoftheunconsciousisawayofexplaininghowthesesystemshaveexplanatoryforce.Itisawayofexplaininghowthesesystemscanbesimultaneouslyunknownyeteffectivelypresent.Infact,onecouldarguethatinlinguisticstheconceptemergesinitsclearestandmostundeniableform.Theunconsciousistheconceptwhichenablesonetoexplainanundeniablefact:Iknowalanguage,yetIdonotknowwhatIknow.Iknowalanguage,yetIneedalinguisttotellmepreciselywhatitiswhatIknow.Theconceptoftheunconsciousconnectsandmakessenseofthesetwofactsandopensaspaceforexploration.Anotherexampleforthisdisciplineistheplacingthesubjectorthe“I”atthecentreofone’sanalyticaldomainandthendeconstructingit.Saussureputthesubjectrightatthecentreofhisanalyticalproject.Thenotionofthesubjectbecomescentraltotheanalysisoflanguage.2.ThelinearfeatureofthesignifierAccordingtoSaussure,thesignifier,beingauditory,isunfoldedsolelyintime.Ithasthefollowingcharacteristics:itrepresentsatimespan-onewordafteranother;andthespanismeasurableinasingledimension-itisline.Auditorysignifiershaveattheircommandonlythedimensionoftime.Theirelementsarepresentedinsuccession:theyformachain,inatemporalsequentialorderanditisimpossiblefortwoelementstoappearsimutaneously.Inalanguagestate,everythingisbasedonrelations.Thesignsinthelanguagesystemarerelatedintwoways:therearerulesfortheircombinationandtherearecontrastsandsimilaritiesbetweenthem.Thus,Saussuredistinguishedtworelations:thesyntagmaticsandparadigmatics.Whenpeoplespeak,onesignifiercomesafteranotherandtheyformanorder.Forexample:“Hewalksslowly”.Inthisorder,thesignifiersformarelationshipinwhicheveryoneofthemderivesitsownvalue.Ontheotherhand,onesigncanleadtomanyassociations.Forinstance,in“Hewalksslowly”.Onecanassociate“he”with“she,they,it”ect;associate“walk”with“run”;associate“slowly”with“fast,asfastashecan”ect.Later,linguiststermedthisrelationofassociationasselectionalrelation.Thus,thetwodimentionsoflanguage,combinationandcontrast/similarity,arecommonlyillustrateddiagrammaticallyastwoaxes:Onthesyntagmaticaxis,wordsarelinkedorchainedtogetheraccordingtogrammaticalrules,butwemakechoicesaboutwhichwordstolinktogether.Ontheparadigmaticaxis,theaxisofchoice.Languageisunderstoodbythewaythesignifiersareorganisedintermsofaparadigmaticaxisofselectionandasyntagmaticaxisofcombination.Thewayinwhichthesyntagmsandparadigmsareorganisedconstitutesthestructureoflanguage.3.TheimmutablenatureofthesignifierAccordingtoSaussure,althoughlinguisticsignsarearbitrarilychosenwithrespecttotheideasthattheyrepresent,thesignifierisnotarbitrarywithrespecttothelinguisticcommunitythatusesit.Whenacertainobjecthasasignifier,itisacceptedbymembersofthespeechcommunityandcannotbemodifiedbyanyindividual.Thereasonsare:first,asuddenchangeofthesystemwouldthrowthecommunityintoconfusion.Youcanimagine,ifallthewordschangetheirmeaningovernight,thespeechcommunitywillbeinconfusion.6\nSecond,speakersofalanguageareneverawareofthesystem,sotheycoulddonothingaboutit.Eveniftheyareawareofit,theyarealwayssatisfiedwithwhattheyreceive.Third,thearbitrarynatureofthesigniswhatprotectslanguagefromanyattempttomodifyit.However,incertaincase,wecanspeakofimmutabilityandmutabilityofthesign.Languageisradicallypowerlesstodefenditselfagainsttheforcceswhichfromonemomenttothenextareshiftingtherelationshipbetweenthesignifierandthesignified.Thisisoneoftheconcequencesofthearbitrarynatureofthesign,somutabilityisinescapable.4.Sapir-WhorfHypothesisTheSapir-WhorfHypothesisreferstotheviewsheldbyEdwardSapirandBenjaminLeeWhorfontherelationshipbetweenlanguageandcultureandthought.Whatliesatthecentreoftheirhypothesisistheideathataman’slanguagemouldshisperceptionofreality.Sapirarguedthatpeopledonotperceivetheworldfreelybutrathertheydosothroughtheirlanguage,afilteringstructurewhichwilldistorttherealityandthusinfluenceandcontrolthespeaker’sthought.ThisviewwashighlightedbyWhorf’selaborateexample.TheSapir-WhorfHypothesishastwomajorcomponents:linguisticdeterminismandlinguisticrelativity.Theformerissimplyaclaimthatlanguagedeterminesthought,andthelatterisaclaimthatthereisnolimittothestructuraldiversityoflanguages.ThepointthatSapir-Whorf’slinguisticdeterminismisthatone’sthinkingiscompletelydeterminedbyhisnativelanguagebecauseonecanonlyperceivetheworldintermsofthecategoriesanddistinctionsencodedinthelanguage.Sapirsaidthathumanbeingsaregreatlyinfluencedbytheparticularlanguageservingasthemediumofexpressionfortheirsociety.The“redworld”istoalargeextentunconsciouslybuiltuponthelanguagehabitsofthegroup.Theworldsinwhichdifferentsocietieslivearedistinctworlds.Languagenotonlyreferstobutactuallydefinesourexperience.ThepointofSapir-Whorf’slinguisticrelativityisthatthecategoriesanddistinctionsencodedinonelanguagesystemareuniquetothatsystemandincommensurablewiththoseofothers.Whorfsaidthatthelinguisticsystemispartofthebackgroundknowledgeofmankind.Peoplearenotconsciousofthisbackground.Thebackgroundlinguisticsystemisnotmerelyareproducinginstrumentforvoicingideasbutratherisitselftheshaperoftheideas.TheSapir-WhorfHypothesisfurtheredpeople’sknowledgeoftherelationshipsbetweenlanguageandthought,languageandculture,bydrawingattentiontotheinfluenceofcultureonlanguageandtheinfluenceoflanguageonthought.Thehypothesishashadgreatinfluencesonsuchfieldsasanthropology,sociology,linguisticsandlanguageteaching.5．SynchronyandDiachronySynchronylinguisticsisalsocalledstaticlinguistics,studyingthelanguagestatewithoutconsideringhowthestatehasevolved.Diachroniclinguisticsisalsocalledevolutionarylinguistics,studyingthechangesalanguagehasundergoneoverlongperiodsoftimeinhistory.ItisanimportantcontributionofSaussuretodistinctbetweenthesynchroniclinguisticsanddiachroniclinguistics.Therelationsbetweensynchroniclinguisticphenomenaarenotlikethosebetweendiachroniclinguisticphenomena.Insynchroniclinguistics,“foot/feet”;“tooth/teeth”;“goose/geese”areinopposition,whileindiachroniclinguistics,theformsof“foot”(foti,feti,fet)havenonecessaryrelationsbutonlyindicateaccidentalchangesovertime.Asthedualnatureoflanguage,Saussureexplainedtherelationbetweensynchronyanddiachronywithacomparisonbetweenthefunctioningoflanguageandagameofchess.First,thestateoflanguageisvery6\nmuchlikethatofthesetofchessmen.Therespectivevalueofthepiecesdependsontheirpositiononthechessboardjustaseachlinguistictermderivesitsvaluefromitspositiontoallotheritems.Second,thesystemisalwaysmomentary,varyingfromonepositiontothenext.Thevalueofeachpiecedependsonanunchangeableconvention---thesetofrulesexistsbeforethegamebegins.Rulesthatareagreedupononceandforallexistinlanguagetoo.Third,topassfromonestateofstability(orsynchrony)tothenext,onlythechesspieceshavetobemoved.Somechangesbringaboutgreateffects,otherchangesbringaboutminoreffects.Inspiteofthat,themovedoeseffectthewholesystem.Synchroniclinguisticsdealswiththelanguagesystemproper,anditismoreimportantthandiachroniclinguistics.Anylanguageinanyhistoricalperiodcanbedescribedandanalyzedregardlessofitshistory.Withoutsynchronicstudies,therecanbenodiachronicstudies.However,thedistinctionofdiachroniclinguisticsfromsynchroniclinguisticsisnotlargelyaccepted,becauseitisnoteasytodrawasharplinebetweenthesetwoaspectsoflanguagestudies.First,languagesareinaconstantstateofchanging.Thereisneveramomentwhenalanguageremainsstaticforourdescription.Second,thelanguageofanyspeechcommunityisneveruniform.Whichvarietyistobedescribedisquiteamatterofquestion.Third,whenalanguagechanges,itisnotthecasethatonesetoffeaturesaresuddenlyreplacedbyanothersetoffeatures.6.6.thearbitrarynatureofthesignThefirstprincipleofSaussure‘stheoryoflanguageconcernstheessentialqualityofthesign.Thelinguisticsignisarbitrary.Theparticularcombinationofthesignifierandthesignifiedisanarbitraryentity.ByarbitrarynatureofthesignSaussuremeansthatthereisnonaturalorinevitablelinkbetweensoundandmeaning,orbetweenthesignifierandthesignified.Thereisnointrinsicreasonwhyoneofthesesignifiersratherthananothershouldbelinkedwiththeconceptofatree,acow,oradog.However,arbitrarinessisamatterofdegree.Therearetwowaysinwhichlinguisticsignsmaybemadelessarbitrary.First,therearecasesofonomatopoeia,aphenomenoninwhichsoundsaremimeticorimitative,suchas“bang”and“crash”inEnglish,“dingdang”,“putong”and“pingpang”inChinese.Second,somecompoundwordsarenotentirelyarbitrary,andthereisacertainconnectionbetweentheirsoundsandmeaning.Forexample,theprocessofcombining“black”and“board”,or“type”and“writer”tocreatenewmotivatedsignsisfundamentallysimilartothewayinwhichwecombinewordstoformphrases.Third,alllanguageshaveastheirbasicelementsarbitrarysignsfirst,andthentheyhavevariousprocessforcombiningthesesigns.Inspiteofthevariousprocessesofcombiningnewsigns,theessentialnatureoflanguageanditselementaryconstituentsareneveraltered.Thereismoretothearbitrarynatureofnatureofthesignthanthearbitraryrelationbetweenthesignifierandthesignified.Iflanguagewereanomenclatureforasetofuniversalconcepts,itwouldbeeasytotranslatefromonelanguagetoanother.Butthereisavastamountofproofthatlanguagesarenotnomenclatures,andthattheconceptsorsignifiedsofonelanguagemaydifferradicallyfromthoseofanother.Eachlanguagearticulatesororganizestheworlddifferently.Iflanguagewereasetofnamesappliedtoindependently-existingconcepts,theninthehistoricalevolutionofalanguagetheconceptsshouldremainstable.Languageisnotanomenclatureantthereforeitssignifiedsarenotpre-existingconceptsburchangeableandcontingentconceptswhichvaryfeomonestateoflanguagetoanother.Thefactthattherelationbetweensignifierandsignifiedisarbitrarymeans:sincetherearenofixeduniversalconceptsorfixeduniversalsignifiers,thesignifieditselfisarbitrary,andsoisthesignifier.7.Langueandparole①Sausuremadeacrucialoppositionbetweenlangueandparole.Langueisthesystemofalanguage,the6\nlanguageasasystemofforms,whereasparoleisactualspeech,thespeechactsthataremadepossiblebythesystemofthelanguage.Langueiswhattheindividualassimilateswhenhelearnsalanguage,asetofformsandagrammaticalsystemwhich,toallintentsandpurposes,existsinthemindofeachspeaker.Parole,ontheotherhand,involvesboththecombinationsbywhichthespeakerusesthecodeofthelinguisticsysteminordertoexpresshisownthoughtsandthepsychophysicalmechanismswhichpermithimtoexternalizethesecombinations.②Thestudyoflangueinvolvesaninventoryofthedistinctionswhichcreatesignsandofrulesofcombinations,whereasthestudyofparolewouldleadtoanaccountoflanguageuse,includingtherelativefrequencieswithwhichparticularformswereusedinactualspeech.③thisdistinctionleadstotwodistinctdisciplinesthatstudysoundanditslinguisticfunction:phoneticsandphonology.Theformerstudiessoundsinspeechactsfromaphysicalpointofview,andthelatterisnotinterestedinphysicaleventsthemselvesbutinthedistinctionsbetweentheabstractunitsofsignifierswhicharefunctionalwithinthelinguisticsystem.Atanotherlevel,wecandistinguishbetweenutterance,asaunitofparole,andsentence,asaunitoflangue.④Itisthedistinctionthatgivesthelinguisticunitarelationalidentity.Saussureusedthetermssignificationandvalue.Theformerinvolvestheuseoflinguisticelementsinactualsituationsofutterance,whilethelatteristheresultoftheoppositionswhichdefinethem.⑤Thedistinctionbetweenlangueandparoleisalogicalandnecessaryconsequenceofthearbitrarynatureofthesign,theobjectoflinguisticstudies.8.WhydowecallSaussure“thefatherofsemiology”?Semiologyisbasedontheassumptionsthatinsofarashumanactionsconveymeaning,insofarastheyfunctionassigns,theremustbeanunderlyingsystemofconventionsanddistinctionswhichmakethismeaningpossible.Wheretherearesignstherearesystems.WecallSaussure“thefatherofsemiology”,becauseheisthefirstscholartopointoutthatthesemiologicalperspectiveiscentraltoanyseriousstudyoflanguage.Hesaid,“Languageisasystemofsingsthatexpressideasandisthuscomparabletothesystemofwriting,tothealphabetofdeafmutes,tosymbolicrituals,toformsofetiquette,tomilitarysignals,etc,Itisbutthemostimportantofthesesystems.Wecanthereforeimagineasciencewhichstudythelifeofsignswithinsociety…Wecallitsemiology…Itwouldteachuswhatsignsconsistof,andwhatlawsgovernthem.”Hepointedoutthatlinguisticsisonlyapartofthisgeneralscience;andthelawswhichsemiologydiscoverswillthusfinditselfattachedtoawell-defineddomainofhumanphenomena.Lingusisticsmayserveasamodelforsemiologybecauseinthecaseoflanguagethearbitraryandconventionalnatureofthesignisespeciallyclear.Languageisasystemofsigns.Noisescountaslanguageonlywhentheyservetoexpressorcommunicateideas;otherwisetheyarenothingbutnoises.Tocommunicateideas;theymustbepartofasystemofconventions,partofasystemofsigns.Thissignistheunionofaformwhichsignifies,whichSaussurecallsthesignificantorsignifier,andanideasignified,thesignifieorsignified.Saussure’stheoryofsemiologyhadprofoundinfluence,forhenotonlyopenedupanewdiscipline,butalsofoundedamethodologyapplicabletomanysocialsciences.Saussure’stheoryoflanguageisanexceptionallyclearexpressionoftheformalstrategiesbywhichawholeseriesofdisciplines,fromphysicstopainting,transformedthemselvesinthelate19thandearly20thcenturiesandbecamemodern.TrubetzkoyinhisPrinciplesofPhonology,hadalreadyoutlinedthemethodologicalimplicationsofphonologicaltheoryforthesocialsciencesandhadthusadvancedthesemiologyproposedbySaussure.Heheldthatthephoneticianisconcernedwithsoundfeatureswhilethephonologistisconcernedwithdistinctivefeatures.Likethelinguist,theanthropologistorsociologistisattemptingtomakeexplicitthe6\nimplicitknowledgethatenablespeoplewithinagivensocietytocommunicateandunderstandeachother’sbehavior.Onecouldthusassigntosemiologyavastfieldofinquiry.Ifeverythinghavingmeaningwithinacultureisasignandthereforeanobjectofsemiologicalinvestigation,semiologywouldcometoincludemostdisciplinesofhumanitiesandthesocialsciences.TheFrenchphilosopherandanthropologistClaudeLevi-StraussdefinedanthropologyasabranchofsemiologyandpaidhomagetoSaussureasthemanwhohaslaidthefoundationfortheproperconceptionofanthropology.Ayoungscienceassemiologyis,ithasprovedthattherelationsbetweenthesignifierandthesignifiedexistinnumerousphenomena,andthattheunderlyingsystemthatgivesspecialvaluestosocialsemioticsisworthstudying.Itisnowrealizedthatmanydailyhappeningsthathavebeentakenforgrantedaregovernedbyunderlyingcustoms,institutions,andsocialvalues.ThedevelopmentofsemiologyowesmuchtothegreatthinkerandmodernlinguistSaussure.ThuswecallSaussure“thefatherofsemiology”.9.ComparisonbetweenTraditionalgrammarandStructuralgrammarAlthoughdifferentlinguisticsmayvaryintheirpractice,theremaybesomegeneralfeaturesinmostoftheworksinbothtraditionalandstructuralgrammars.Eachofthetwotypesofgrammarhasitsownstrongpointsandweakness.First,traditionalgrammaristhemostwidespreadandthebestunderstoodmethodofdiscussingIndo-Europeanlanguages.However,basedmainlyonEuropeanlanguages,itscategoriesareinadequateforthedescriptionofnon-Europeanlanguages.Secondly,traditionalgrammargivesafairlythoroughandconsistentanalysisofthedeclarativesentence,themostfrequentlyusedinbothwrittenandspokendiscourse.Butsuchgrammarisnormativeandprescriptive,anditsrulesarenotallwellfounded,oftenconsideringusagesthatdonotfititsrules“ungrammatical”.Thirdly,itcontainsatheoryofreferencebywhichthemeaningofdeclarativesentencescanbeexplainedandtowhichotherusesmaybereduced.However,itappliesamixtureofsemantic,morphological,andsyntacticcriteriawithoutafixedorder,resultinginsomecasesofconfusioninitsanalysis.Fourthly,itisthevehiclebymeansofwhichordinarystudentsandscholarshavemasteredmanylanguagessuccessfullyforcenturies.Butitassumesaprioriviewoflanguage,withoutstatingitsmethodologicalpresuppositions.Structuralgrammar,inasense,isareactionagainsttraditionalgrammarinthatitaimstoovercomeitsweakness.Yet,innowayisitfreeofproblems.First,structuralgrammarisdescriptive,describingeverythingthatisfoundinalanguageinsteadoflayingdownrules.However,theaimofstructuralgrammarislimitedtodescribinglanguages,withoutexplainingwhylanguageoperatesthewayitdoes.Secondly,structuralgrammarisempirical,aimingatobjectivityinthesensethatalldefinitionsandstatementsshouldbeverifiableorrefutable.Ithas,however,producedalmostcompletegrammarscomparabletoanycomprehensivetraditionalgrammar.Thirdly,structuralgrammarexaminesallanguages,recognizinganddoingjusticetotheuniquenessofeachlanguage.Butitdoesnotgiveanadequatetreatmentofmeaning.Lastly,structuralgrammardescribeseventhesmallestcontraststhatunderlieanyconstructionoruseofalanguage,notonlythosediscoverableinsomeparticularuse.However,itfailstodistinguishthehumanuseoflanguageformeaningfulcommunicationandotherusesfornon-communicativepurposes.6