Mouloud Mammeri University of Tizi-ouzou

Faculty of Letters and Languages

Department of English

Handout in Linguistics for First Year Students

Course in General Linguistics prepared by

Dr. Fodil Mohammed Sadek

Coping with Linguistics without anxiety

This handout has been elaborated for F1rst Year students in the

Department of English, Mouloud Mammeri University of Tizi-Ouzou

who strive to come to grips with Linguistics.

The course will cover the totality of the First Year LMD programme. At the end of

each section, an assessment of students’ understanding ought to be performed by having

students answer the questions in the practice section.

A freshman student in a language department might find it rather appalling to enter a

linguistics lecture. This feeling is due to a number of reasons, some objective, but the others

totally subjective. Among the objective reasons advanced by new comers, is the fact that the

subject is new. Yes, but other subjects are equally new without appearing so dreadful.

Another reason relates to the metalanguage used by linguists to describe their subject. It is

true that linguistics is the only discipline that uses language as its own object of study, that is,

it uses language to talk about language. Therefore, it needs a specific terminology to

accurately account for the diversity of phenomena that compose its object of study. Another

objective reason concerns the fact that linguistics compels one to be aware of the way

language functions, thus, requesting users to be also aware of their own use of language. This

self-reflective use of language may sometimes appear daunting but soon, everyone finds

themselves self-reflecting on their own use of language and the anxiety gradually recedes. A

last point relating to the particular history of linguistics is the argument that linguistics is

sometimes seen as a sort of imperialist discipline mingling with several other disciplines

perceived as contiguous. All these points will be examined and detailed further while the
subjective reasons often evoked to make of linguistics a ‘monster’ discipline will be simply

overlooked.

This handout is destined students interested in linguistics and willing to make an

endeavour to understand and master a discipline which imposes itself whenever a serious

discussion involves reflection upon the use or uses of language to better account for human

interactions, human intellectual and cultural achievements, or, more simply human condition.

The handout starts by exploring the theoretical foundations of what was to become in the

Nineteenth Century the discipline named linguistics. It then provides an overview of the

different trends that retrace the evolution of this discipline over time and across schools of

thought, and ends with present-day questionings about the future of the discipline.
 Course Outline

I) – WHAT IS LANGUAGE?

1 – Characteristics of human language

2 – Origins of language

II) – A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS

1 – Early developments (the Greeks – the Indians – the Romans, etc.)

2 – Later developments (Philologists and neo-grammarians)

3 – Comparative Linguistics: Language families and language types

a – The notion of family (Family relationships and the Proto-Indo-European family)

b – Language types (Isolating – Inflecting – Agglutinating)

III) - TWENTIETH CENTURY LINGUISTICS

1 – The European tradition

Linguistics as a scientific discipline

1 – The aims of linguistics

2 – The binary theory of F. De Saussure

Langue / Parole

Signified /Signifier
 Paradigm / Syntagm

Diachrony / Synchrony

The branches of linguistics

1 - The ‘Langue’ components:

a) - the phonetico-phonological component

b) - the morpho-syntactic component

c) - the lexico-semantic component

d) – the pragmatic component

2 – the American tradition

a) - Anthropology and language

b) - The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

OTHER RELATED DISCIPLINES

1 – LANGUAGE and SOCIETY

A - Sociolinguistics

B - Language Contacts and Language Varieties (dialects – sociolects – idiolects)

2 – LANGUAGE and COMMUNICATION

Language as a system of communication

Language as a functional system: The functions of language

 Foreword

A freshman student in the field of linguistics always worries about the following

question which everybody would like to see answered: WHAT IS LANGUAGE?

Although it is not reasonable to pretend to fully answer this question, some helpful insight can

be provided, notably by resorting to several authors who have previously reflected on the

issue and who have provided handy answers. So what is language?

A simple query on Google would yield a number of documents ranging from mere

definitions to specialized articles all of which present language as being unique to humans and

as such, bearing specific characteristics. What are these characteristics of human language?

Standard definitions will comprise Hockett’s thirteen features which involve: vocal-auditory

channel – broadcast transmission and directional reception – rapid fading – interchangeability

– total feedback- specialization – semanticity – arbitrariness – discreteness – displacement –

productivity – traditional transmission – duality of patterning. The document can be reached

at this address: http://people.exeter.ac.uk/bosthaus/Lecture/hockett1.htm

Others, like Chomsky’s comprise the distinction between what he terms language

competence and language performance are more specifically related to language learning and

language acquisition. This issue will be dealt with in later on. For the time being, let us briefly

summarize the characteristics of human language. You will note that some of them are

mentioned by Hockett.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN LANGUAGE

Language is commonly considered as the propriety of man as it constitutes the

cornerstone of the divide between man and other beings. Man uses language, other species do

not. Therefore, one can safely affirm that natural language as it is known and used by humans

is species-specific. Now, human language also displays amongst others, the following

characteristics:

1 – Human language is conventional and symbolic

Although there is no historical evidence to posit the following, it is largely admitted by

the linguistic community that language has come after many agreements between the

members of a given community who decide to assign specific names to particular things,

objects, concepts, etc. The names consist of a limited number of sounds combined in such a

way that they refer to one and only one object, concept, quality, etc. within a particular speech

community. For example, while community X names a particular object Y by using a specific

name or word Z, another may use a different name or word P or S to label the same object and

this explains the diversity of languages.

2 – Human Language is a social phenomenon

Language is social in that it is acquired in a social environment and its acquisition is

not possible without the participation of the members of the society. Once acquired, the

language is used to communicate with the other members of the speech community. This also

explains why a child born into a family living in place A, speaks a different language from

another child living in place B, while a child who has grown away from any language

community would speak no language at all. e.g the Wolf Child.

3 – Human Language is rule-governed

When using a language, people do not speak randomly but obey certain rules in order

to communicate effectively. The rules are phonological, grammatical, lexical, and pragmatic.
An example of a phonological rule in English would be: No word can start from the

succession of the following sounds / mbp/ but can with the following cluster / str /.

4 – Human Language is creative

The uses of language are various, and the range of possible sentences is infinite

despite the limited number of phonological elements present in a given phonological system.

Actually, a user of English uses 44 sounds and can build an endless number of words and

sentences by combining them differently following the rules of the language mentioned

above.

5 – Human Language is context-dependent

The context in which communication takes place (place, social stakes, relation with

the people involved, etc.) determines the type of language to be used (familiarity, politeness,

formality, humour, etc.) The type of language we use to talk to friends differs more or less

importantly from the one we use to talk to people we are not familiar with.

6 – Human language can be manifested mainly through two main media

These are the verbal and the written one. Yet, one can presently notice the appearance

on the Internet of a language which displays the features of both speech and writing. This

cyber-language is inventing new rules and new uses for a language like English which

challenge the classical distinction between the properties of speech and those of writing.

7 - Human language is characterized by its double articulation

We owe André Martinet the sharpest distinction between human and non-human

languages through his formulation of the double articulation of language. According to

Martinet, language is first articulated into meaningful units (words/monemes) that make up

sentences, before the second articulation consisting in the articulation and combination of the

contrastive units (sounds/phonemes) which form words takes place. This property of human
language distinguishes it from the rest of all other languages be they natural or artificial. Of

course, there are other characteristics but these seem to be the most relevant.

References:

David Crystal : The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. CUP 1987

Hockett, C.F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88-96.

Some sites that deal with the origin of language:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/langorigins.html

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test1materials/origin_of_language.htm

http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

Practice:

Other characteristics of human language are not mentioned in the lecture. Find at least three

other ones and explain them.

 THE ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE

Another challenging issue concerns the origin of language. How did it come into

being? How come that we, humans use language while no other species does? etc.

The first questionings

Several sources report that there have been many explanations as to the origin of

language prior to any scientific theory. Even today, there exist in many cultures, etiological

myths and other stories pertaining to the origin of language. These myths have similarities,

recurring themes, and differences, having been passed down through oral tradition. Some

myths have a religious origin, others are just storytelling. Some tales say a creator of some

form endowed humans with language from the beginning, and others count language among

later gifts, or curses. One of the oldest examples is the epopee of Gilgamesh and the most

famous language myth is the Tower of Babel. The myth explains that God punished humanity

for arrogance and disobedience by confusing people’s tongues.

Two main theories about language origin

So far, two main views dispute their arguments about the origin of language, and you will find

more information in the references part at the end of the handout.

1 – The discontinuity trend: It regards the origin of language as a sudden event, and

comprises the religious and mythical viewpoints on languages. To this trend, language

appeared unexpectedly as a result of a gift from a god or some mythical creature to the benefit

of man. Greek mythology, Buddhism, the three monotheistic religions, and several cultures

around the world share this explanation. This trend explains that before God or some
mythological creature offered language to humans, there was no language and nothing is

known of how humans communicated before this sudden event.

2 – The continuity trend: Taking an evolutionary stance, it considers language as a

continuous evolution over time. It assumes that the emergence from the Australopithecus of

the Homo-Sapiens who, by taking an upright position over time, provoked a certain number

of decisive and enduring effects: This upright position gave Homo-sapiens a new visual

perspective as it allowed him to stand up and look at things horizontally, thus improving both

his two-dimensional scope and the extent of his sight. It also freed his two hands, permitting

Homo-sapiens to use them for other purposes like the preparation of tools for hunting or

gathering, or for the realization of other handy actions. It increased the volume of his skull

and later, of his brain. Ultimately, this upward position led the larynx to be lowered thus

permitting the utterance of a wider range of speech sounds which later evolved into

phonological systems. These in turn, fostered cultural productions and rituals different from

all other species.

3 – The case of animal communication: e.g. the bees

Among animals, the bees have the most remarkable communication system. Honey-

bees live in highly structured communities where efficiency of communication is essential for

the survival of the colony. The purpose of communication is mainly concerned with food

collection. (Discovery of food sources, distance and direction to the hive, the taste of the

nectar etc.), and the related information is conveyed through the shape and the amount of

energy spent in the dance. (in eight, in semi-circle, straight, etc.).

 Despite all this creativity and efficiency in communication between the bees, their

system is limited and cannot represent other objects or complex ideas, feelings… which are so

vital in human communication. The same goes with other systems (ants, apes, etc.).

One common language?

As concerns the issue of the existence of a common language from which all other

languages have diverged, D. Crystal mentions three different stances:

a) – The view that all languages have diverged from a common source, the result of

cultural evolution or divine intervention, known as monogenesis. The existence of

differences between languages is then explained as the result of people moving

apart, in waves of migration around the world. In this view language universals

would be interpreted as evidence of common origin.

b) – The opposite view that language emerged more or less simultaneously in several

places, is known as polygenesis. Language universals and other similarities

between languages, are then explained by pointing to the similar constraints which

must have operated upon the early speakers (in terms of both their physiology and

their environment), and by the likelihood that, as groups came into contact, their

languages would influence each other – a process known as convergence.

c) – There is also a third possibility, given the vast time-scale involved. All of the

languages that now exist may indeed have diverged from a common source, but

this may have been just one line of descent from an earlier era when several

independent languages emerged.

It needs to be noted however that this remains a hypothesis which needs to be

sustained by strong evidence.

References:

David Crystal (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, CUP

Practice:

1 - A number of authors pretend that Hebrew is the mother of all languages. Surf the internet

to obtain the necessary documentation and discuss this point in group. Each group ought to

defend their standpoint in front of the class.

2 – Can you find other explanations as to the origin of language?

A brief history of linguistics

THE GREEK TRADITION

LANGUAGE BETWEEN NATURE AND CONVENTION

Alongside the Indians’, the Greeks’ contribution was essential to the emergence and

development of linguistic study. The emphasis will be put on the Greek contribution and then

other sources will be mentioned. Indeed, refreshing an old debate, Plato was the first author to

present the quarrel between ‘the Naturalists’ and ‘the Conventionalist’ in a dialogue entitled

‘Cratylus’. The book presents two opposite standpoints.

The naturalists’: to this trend, language came into being naturally, and therefore an

intrinsic relationship links words to things. The naturalists consider that language has its

origins in eternal and immutable principles outside man himself (and the rules are therefore

inviolable). To this trend, as humans we came into being within a language community which

inherited its language from its predecessors and its users will transmit it to the coming

generations without alterations.

The conventionalists’: to this trend, language originates as a product of convention,

so that the relationship between words and things is arbitrary. The conventionalists regard

language as the result of customs and tradition. (It can only be the result of a tacit agreement

or social contract among the members of the community). As it was made by men, its rules

can be broken by men.

Both Plato and Aristotle paid attention to grammar. For example, we owe Plato the

fundamental division of the Greek sentence into a nominal and verbal component, ónoma or
noun, and rhéma, or verb, which remained the primary grammatical distinction underlying

syntactic analysis and word classification in all future European linguistic descriptions.

As defined by Plato, nouns were terms that could function in sentences as subjects of a

predication, and verbs were terms which could express the action or quality predicated. i.e.

the subject of a predication names the thing about which something is said, and the predicate

is that part of the sentence which says something about the subject. This can be illustrated in

the following diagram.

Theme / Subject Predicate

What we talk about What we say about it

Substance (Nouns, pronouns) Activity ( Result of the transformation involving

Verbs and adjectives)

Two observations can be made on this classification:

1 – The division of the major grammatical categories was made on logical grounds

2 – Verbs and adjectives belonged to the same class.

Aristotle was more of a conventionalist as according to David Crystal he considered

that the reality of a name lies in its formal properties (its shape), its relationship to the real

world being only secondary and indirect for to him, No name exists by nature, but only by

becoming a symbol. This clearly emphasizes the conventional/symbolic aspect of language.

Aristotle also kept the platonic distinction between nouns and verbs, but added the

conjunctions, to which belonged all the other words that were not members of the two classes.
He observed however, that the names of many ‘things’, were either ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’

in Greek, and introduced the term ‘intermediate’ to refer to the third gender. Another advance

made by Aristotle was his recognition of the category of tense in the Greek verb.

The Stoics centred their philosophy on language. One of the most fundamental

distinctions they made was that between form and meaning “that which signifies” and “that

which is signified”. This important distinction was to be taken over by two eminent language

investigators later, namely Saint Augustine in the Fourth century and De Saussure in the

twentieth. The Stoics also insisted on the lack of correspondence between “proper nouns”

semantically by reference to individual quality as against general quality or common nouns,

and put the adjective in the same class as nouns. They significantly developed what is now

called inflection. They also distinguished between “active” and “passive”, and between

“transitive” and “intransitive” verbs.

Dionisius Thrax (100 BC), a student of Aristarchus, wrote the first formal grammar

of Greek which became a standard for over one thousand years. Drawing from a great number

of predecessors including Chrysippus of Soli, Appolonius, and the Sophists, he recognized the

adverb, the participle, the pronoun, and the preposition. All Greek words were classified in

terms of case, gender, number, tense, voice, mood, etc.

The Téchné begins with an exposition by Dionysios of the context of grammatical studies as

this was seen by the Alexandrians. He writes: ‘Grammar is the practical knowledge of the

general usages of poets and prose writers. It has six parts: first, accurate reading (aloud) with

due regard to the prosodies; second, explanation of the literary expressions in the works; third,

the provisions of notes on phraseology and subject matter; fourth, the discovery of

etymologies; fifth, the working out of analogical regularities; sixth, the appreciation of literary

composition which is the noblest part of grammar.

 As Greek phonology is based on the pronunciation of the letters of the Greek alphabet,

Greek grammar concentrated mainly on the written language, mostly the Attic Greek of the

classical authors, though always with a proper attention to its implication of utterance in

reading aloud. The linguist John Lyons, coined the expression “the classical fallacy” to

qualify the ancient Greek approach towards language which considers that:

a) – the spoken language derived from the written one, and notably because they

considered the word ‘grammar’ as corresponding to ‘the art of writing’.

b) - the language of the 5th century Attic writers was considered as ‘more correct’ than

the colloquial speech of their time, and that the ‘purity’ of a language is ‘maintained’

by the usage of the educated, while it is ‘corrupted’ by the illiterate, thus ignoring that

these terms can only relate to a selected standard.

References:

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cratylus.html

http://schmidhauser.us/2010-birth.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_linguistics
Practice: Referring to the privileged status of writing, John Lyons coined the term: the

Classical Fallacy. Discuss and Comment this coinage in relation to other languages than

Greek.
 Other important traditions

THE INDIAN TRADITION

Contemporary to the Greek philosophers, Indian and Chinese thinkers were also

leading an intense linguistic activity the Far east. In India, more than in Greece where

language change was considered as corruption, the Hindu priests believed that one of the

requirements for religious ceremonies to be successful was the necessity to reproduce

accurately the original form of their Vedic hymns. The discrepancy between the actual

pronunciation of the ancient Vedas and the required standard was so important that the whole

language had to be reconsidered. In religious matters, language change, which concerned both

the pronunciation and grammar of Sanskrit, was considered as profanation of the sacred texts.

Panini (4th and 5th BC), acknowledged as the greatest Indian grammarian, mentions a

large number of predecessors. He set about reformulating the rules of Sanskrit in its three

components: pronunciation, lexis and grammar. As other Hindus, Crystal writes, he sought to

establish the facts of the old language clearly and systematically so to produce an

authoritative text. Panini’s grammar of Sanskrit has frequently been described, from the point

of view of its exhaustiveness, its internal consistency, and its economy of statement, as far

superior to any grammar of any language yet written. The main part of the grammar, which is

a highly technical work and can be interpreted only with the help of the commentaries of his

successors, consists of about 4000 rules and lists of basic forms to which reference is made in

the rules.

The rules are ordered in sequence in such a way that the scope of a particular rule is

defined or restricted by the preceding rules. Further economy is achieved by the use of

abbreviations and symbols. The work is remarkable for its detailed word-formation rules and
phonetic descriptions. Several concepts of modern linguistics derive from this tradition (place

of articulation, the concept of voicing, the influence of sound in connected speech, etc.). As in

Greece, the distinction was made between noun (as subject) and verb (as predicate). Other

parts of speech such as preposition and particle were recognized too.

THE ROMAN TRADITION

The nature and achievement of the Late Latin grammarians can best be appreciated

through a consideration of the work of their greatest representative, Priscian who taught Latin

grammar in Constantinople at the beginning of the sixth century. Though he drew much from

his Latin predecessors, his aim, like theirs, was to transfer as far as he could the grammatical

system of the Techné, and that of Appolonius writing to Latin.

Crystal notes that Greek influence was supreme in every sphere of Roman scholarship,

art, and literature. The Romans adopted Greek culture and Greek methods of education. Latin

grammarians were almost wholly dependent on their Greek models and this influence can be

seen in Priscian’s and Varro’s works on Latin language. Crystal points out that Varro

achieved the codification of Latin under the headings of etymology, morphology and syntax.

The typical grammar of Latin was organized in three sections, as was that of D.

Thrax. The first section would define the scope of grammar as the art of correct speech and of

the understanding of the poets, and would deal also with letters and syllables. The second

section would treat of the parts of speech, and give, in greater or less detail, the variations

they underwent according to tense, gender, number, case, etc. Finally, the third section would

consist of a discussion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ style, warnings against common ‘faults’ and

‘barbarisms’, and examples of the recommended ‘figures of speech’.

 THE MIDDLE AGES

Latin was not only the language of the liturgy and the scriptures, but was also

considered as the universal language of diplomacy, scholarship and culture. It was primarily a

written language and, insofar as it was written, each country developed its own pronunciation.

As was previously mentioned, the scholastic philosophers, like the Stoics, were interested in

language as a tool for analyzing the structure of reality. It was therefore the question of

meaning or ‘signification’ to which they attached the greatest importance. It was the task of

‘speculative grammar’ to discover the principles whereby the word, as a sign, was relate, on

the one hand to the human intellect, and, on the other, to the things it represented, or

‘signified’. It was assumed that these principles were constant and universal, and the

differences between languages were thought to be superficial, hiding the existence of a

universal grammar.

According to the speculative grammarians, the word did not directly represent the

nature of the thing it signified. It represented it, as existing in a particular way, or ‘mode’ – as

a substance, an action, a quality, etc. – and it did this, by having the forms of the appropriate

part of speech. Grammar was therefore a philosophical theory of the parts of speech and their

characteristic ‘modes of signifying’.

This period also saw a development of western lexicology and progress in the field of

translation as Christian missionary activity increased. Several major grammars and

dictionaries were produced as well as descriptive works on Arabic pronunciation in Eastern

Europe. For a long time, these works remained unknown in Western Europe. Opportunities

for contact with the Greek, Arabic and Hebrew linguistic traditions only came later, as a result

of the crusades.
The translation of Greek works into Arabic was fundamental for Europeans to learn about the

Greek heritage and authors like Abu Al Aswad Ad Duali and Seebawayh were real landmarks

in this field.

THE RENAISSANCE

Through voyages, conquests, trading and colonization from the sixteenth century

onward, Europe became acquainted with a wide variety of languages. Information on

languages from Africa, Asia and America became available in the form of word lists,

grammars, dictionaries, and religious texts, and attempts at classifying these languages

followed. Large-scale word collection for language comparisons were a notable feature of the

centuries after the Renaissance and led to the development of comparative grammar.

The rediscovery of the Classical world that came with the ‘revival of learning’, as well

as the discoveries of the new world, together with the dissemination of print literature,

transformed the field of study. Missionary work produced a large quantity of linguistic

material, especially from the Far East. The Chinese linguistic tradition was discovered. Arabic

and Hebrew studies progressed. The Renaissance scholars took Cicero’s usage as their model

of ‘good Latin style’. From Cicero, they derived their ideal of ‘humanism’ as opposed to

’barbarism’. Holding that the literature of Classical antiquity was the source of all ‘civilized’

values, they concentrated their energies upon the collection, and publication of the texts of

Classical authors. Once again, grammar became an aid to the understanding of literature and

to the writing of ‘good Latin’. There was also a more systematic study of European languages,

especially of the Romance family. The vernacular languages of Europe were studied and their

grammars written in great numbers. In fact, the first grammars of Italian and Spanish date

from the fifteenth century.

 However, language still meant the language of literature. Major dictionary projects

were launched in many languages. Academies came into being. This period also witnessed:

- the breakdown of Latin as a universal medium of communication, and its

replacement by modern languages

- the development of ‘general grammars’ based on universal principles (Port Royal.)

The first statement about the historical relationship between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin

was made, ushering in the science of Comparative Philology which will later pave the way to

modern linguistics.

References:

Vivien A. Law: History of Linguistic Thought in the Early Middle Ages, 1993 John

Benjamins

http://mcgregor.continuumbooks.net/media/1/history_outline.pdf

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Panini.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_linguistics

Even Hovdhaugen. Foundations of Western Linguistics. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1982.

Alan J. Nussbaum: Indo-European Linguistics, Greek and Latin Language and Linguistics,

Homer, Old Latin. Journal of Latin Linguistics. Volume 13, Issue 2,

David Crystal (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, CUP

http://mcgregor.continuumbooks.net/media/1/history_outline.pdf
Practice:

Other equally important traditions have not been mentioned above, as for example, the

Muslims’ achievements in translating Greek works into Arabic. With your group partners,

mention some of their most significant results.

Comparative and historical linguistics in the 19th century

In order to understand the link between European languages and other non-European

languages, one has to consider the impact of Sir William Jones who declared in 1786 the

following

“The Sanskrit language whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful

structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more
exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity,
both in the roots of verbs, and in the forms of grammar than could possibly
have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philosopher can
examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some
common source, which, perhaps no longer exists”.

This observation is generally considered as the first statement linking Sanskrit to

European languages, thus initiating the quest for a common origin of European languages in

the hypothesized proto-Indo-European family of languages.

In 1808, F. Schlegel published his treatise On the Language and the Learning of the

Indians wherein he stressed the importance of studying the ‘inner structures’ of languages ‘i.e.

their morphology for the light that could be shed on their genetic relationships. It was indeed

the comparison of the inflexional and derivational morphology of Sanskrit and the other Indo-

European languages, especially Latin and Greek, on which the early comparativists

concentrated.

In 1816, Frantz Bopp edited a book entitled “The Sanskrit Conjugation System” where

he studied the connections between Sanskrit, German, Greek, Latin, etc. He established that

all these languages belonged to the same family. In so doing, he understood that a language

can be enlightened by another, explaining the forms of one by resorting to the forms of

another. The discovery that languages could be compared with one another; that a bond or

relationship existed between languages often separated geographically by great distances;

that, as well as languages, there were also great language families, in particular the one which
came to be called the Indo-European family gave a significant impetus to research. However,

despite their contribution in opening up a new field of investigation, the comparativists did

not manage to found a true science of linguistics, because they never sought to define

precisely the nature of their object of study.

A characteristic of comparative philology is that their investigations were limited to

the Indo-European languages and their method was exclusively comparative. One of the great

defects, from a scholarly point of view, which is common to philology and the comparative

phase is a servile attachment to the letter, to the written language, or a failure to draw a clear

distinction between what might pertain to the real spoken language and what to its graphic

sign. Hence, it comes about that the literary point of view is more or less confused with the

linguistic point of view, and furthermore, more concretely, the written word is confused with

the spoken word; two superimposed systems of signs which have nothing to do with each

other, the written and the spoken, are conflated.

In the 1820s, Wilhelm von Humboldt observed that human language was a rule-

governed system, anticipating a theme that was to become central in the formal work on

syntax and semantics of language in the 20th century; of this observation, he said that it

allowed language to make infinite use of finite means.

About 1880, scholars in the United States began to record the hundreds of native

languages once found in North America. The concern with describing languages spread

throughout the world, and thousands of languages around the world have now been analyzed

to varying degrees. As this work was developing in the early twentieth century, mainly in

America, linguists were confronted with languages whose structures differed greatly from

those of known European languages. Scholars decided that they needed a theory of linguistic

structure and methods of analysis.

 During the eighteenth century, and, in fact, since the renaissance, serious thought and

factual investigations had continued on the historical relations between languages and on the

historical or genetic families that could be discovered and established on these grounds. The

main interest had lain on the comparison of vocabularies and structures of modern European

languages with those of Latin, and in the obvious historical connection, whatever precisely it

might be, between Latin and the Romance languages.

LANGUAGE FAMILIES AND LANGUAGE TYPES

European colonialism led to the discovery of several indigenous languages in all parts

of the world and promoted language contacts. This in turn, favoured linguistic comparison

between languages. Indeed, linguistic activity was given a crucial impetus from the nineteenth

century on. In Europe, D. Crystal writes, the comparison groups of languages in a systematic

way already established the descent from Latin of Catalan, French, Italian, Occitan,

Portuguese, Romanian, Sardinian, Spanish, etc. In the 19th century, Proto-Indo-European was

deemed to be the common language from which many languages from Eurasia have derived

and this intense linguistic activity paved the way to the rise of comparative linguistics which

dominated linguistic inquiry. David Crystal provides a valuable account of how linguistic

enquiry evolved over time in Europe, so let us follow him.

I) – THE COMPARATIVE METHOD:

It is a way of systematically comparing a series of languages in order to prove a

historical relationship between them. Scholars start by defining a set of formal similarities and

differences between the languages, and try to work out (or reconstruct) an earlier stage of

development from which all the forms could have derived. The process is known as “Internal

reconstruction”.
 When languages have been shown to have a common ancestor, they are said to be

“cognate”. The clearest ceases are those where the parent language is known to exist. For

example, on the basis of the various words for ‘father’, in the Romance languages, it is

possible to see how they all derived from Latin word for ‘pater’. If Latin no longer existed, it

would be possible to reconstruct a great deal of its form, by comparing a large number of

words in this way. Exactly the same reasoning is used for cases where the parent language

does not exist, as when the forms of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, are compared to reconstruct the

Indo-European form *pəter.

II)- TYPES OF LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION:

There are two main ways of classifying languages: the genetic (or genealogical) and

the typological.

a) – the genetic classification: this is a historical classification, based on the

assumption that languages have diverged from a common ancestor. It uses early remains as

evidence, and when this is lacking, deductions are made, using the comparative method to

enable the form of the parent language to be reconstituted.

b) – the typological classification: this is based on a comparison of the formal

similarities which exist between languages. It is an attempt to group languages into structural

types, on the basis of phonology, grammar, vocabulary, rather than in terms of any real or

assumed historical relationship. For example, it is possible to group languages in terms of

how they use sounds – how many, and what kinds of vowels they have, whether they use

tones, clicks, and so on. Languages can also be classified in terms of whether their word order

is fixed or free, and which order is favoured. These, propounded by August Von Schlegel
(1767-1845) and others in the early 19th century, recognized three main linguistic types, on

the basis of the way a language constructs its words:

David Crystal classifies languages into three main types. They are as follows:

ISOLATING, ANALYTIC or ROOT LANGUAGES:

The words are invariable, and there are no endings. Grammatical relationships are

shown through the use of word order. Chinese, Vietnamese, and Samoan are clear cases. For

example, ‘I bought some oranges to eat’

in Beijing Chinese would be: Wό mãi jùzi chi

Literally: I buy orange eat

INFLECTING, SYNTHETIC or FUSIONAL LANGUAGES:

Grammatical relationships are expressed by changing the internal structure of the

words – typically, by the use of inflectional endings which express several grammatical

meanings at once. Latin or Arabic are clear cases. For example, D. Crystal notes that the “o”

ending of Latin amo, ‘I love’, simultaneously expresses that the form is in the first person,

singular, present tense, active, and indicative mood.

AGGLUTINATIVE or AGGLUTINATING LANGUAGES:

Words are built up out of a long sequence of units, with each unit expressing a

particular grammatical meaning, in a clear one-to-one way. A sequence of five affixes might

be needed to express the meaning of ‘amo’. One for each category of person, number, tense,

voice and mood. Turkish, Finish, Japanese and Swahili form words in this way.
References:

The above documentation is from David Crystal’s (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of

Language, CUP.
Practice: Actually, English is at the same time an isolating, an inflecting and an agglutinative

language in some of its uses. Give an example of each case.

 TWENTIETH CENTURY LINGUISTICS

Linguistics as a scientific discipline

The aims of linguistics

The aim of Linguistics is to form hypotheses, i.e: it aims at the construction of theories

meant as explanations of linguistic phenomena in a systematic way. For the theory to be

scientific, it should be systematic in that the explanation the theory proposes will handle all

the data which were first investigated, but will also handle further data besides. This also

means that a theory should transcend the data which it originally took into account. To be

complete, a theory must be exhaustive, economic, consistent, objective and explicit.

Another aim which linguistics tries to achieve, is to describe all known languages and

record their history. This involves tracing the history of language families and types, and, as

far as possible, reconstructing the present languages of each family.

Linguistics tries to determine the forces operating permanently and universally in all

languages, and to formulate general laws to which all specific historical phenomena can be

reduced.

Linguistics has to delimit and define linguistics itself as an object of study and tries to

distinguish it from other related fields like anthropology, ethnography, psychology, sociology,

Semiotics, etc.

The elaboration of such aims and principles is a sine qua non condition for a discipline to

pretend to be scientific. Yet, in addition to all this, Saussure redefined the object of study of

linguistics and elaborated his conceptualization in the form of a number of dichotomies and

his work was published posthumously by his students in the form of a book entitled ‘Le Cours

de Linguistique Générale’ .The book soon earned a great fame and became the source of what

was to be termed the European tradition and which will be the focus of the next lecture.
 The European tradition

The ‘Cours de Linguistique Générale’ is widely held to be the foundation of modern

linguistics. Contrary to the aims and methods of the comparative philologists (focus on

written records and interest in historical analysis and interpretation), Saussure focussed on the

principles governing the structure of living languages. He expressed most of his central ideas

in the form of pairs of concepts or (dichotomies): langue/parole, signified/signifier,

diachrony/synchrony, paradigm/syntagms. In this respect, Saussure envisaged language

(human speech as a whole) to be composed of two aspects he labelled langue (the language

system), and parole (the act of speaking).

According to D. Crystal, Language is that faculty of speech, present in all normal

human beings, due to heredity, but which requires the environmental stimuli for proper

development. It is our facility to talk to each other. It happens to make use of an apparatus

which was not primarily made for this purpose, since each of our ‘vocal organs’ have other

biologically more primary functions than speech (lungs for breathing, nose for smelling, teeth

for chewing, etc.).

The dichotomies:

Saussure expressed the essence of his theory in the form of pairs of concepts called

dichotomies. Langue/parole; diachrony/synchrony; signifier/signified; paradigm/syntagm.

Let us start with the first pair of concepts: language as being composed of two entities

langue versus parole: Saussure, notes D. Crystal, considers langue to be the totality or the

‘collective fact’ of a language deducible from an examination of the memories of all the

language users. It is a storehouse: the sum of word-images stored in the minds of individuals.

Langue is something which the individual speaker can make use of but cannot affect himself.
It is a corporate social phenomenon, involving both the grammatical, phonological and

semantic system. Ultimately, langue has to be related to the actual usage of individuals for it

has no reality apart from its validity as a reflector of the system underlying acceptable usage

which a community manifests in its everyday speech.

This leads to the correlative Saussurean concept of parole, the actual concrete act of

speaking on the part of the individual: the controlled (or at least controllable) psych-

physiological activity which is what we hear. It is a personal social activity which exists

beyond any particular manifestation in speech. Parole is of course the only object available

for direct observation by linguists. It is the only entrance gate to the world of langue. The

langue of a community is arrived at only by a consideration of a great number of paroles

(corpus).

Another dichotomy concern the pair of opposed concepts: diachrony and synchrony.

Indeed, Saussure draws a clear separation between a linguistic study based on history

(diachronic) and another based on a given state of language at a specific moment (synchrony).

Historically a language can be apprehended only as a permanently changing data whose inner

system is difficult to describe, while synchronically, language appears as a structured system

whose components can be isolated and studied separately. As a philologist, he personally

undertook several historical studies, but to set the basis of linguistics as a scientific discipline,

he decided that only synchronic studies were worth of interest. Saussure uses the analogy with

a game of chess to illustrate the difference between the two standpoints. If we walk into a

room where a chess game is being played, it is possible to assess the state of the game by

studying the position of the pieces on the board without necessarily knowing the specific

history of each move. However an effective knowledge of the rules of the game is necessary

to understand the stakes at play.

 The other pair of concepts which make up the notion of sign is what Saussure labelled

the signifier and the signified. By signifier is meant the acoustic image and by signified the

concept. It should be made absolutely clear that what Saussure means by the signifier is not

the physical articulation of sounds, or the graphical aspects of writing. What is meant by

signifier, is the impact which the heard words, or the read words leave in our consciousness.

However, there could be no impact that is no signifier, if there is no physical means through

which the impact is left in our mind. As we can see, both are of a psychic nature and should

not be examined separately for they constitute one single unity: the sign. Therefore, by sign is

meant the establishment of a relationship between signifier and signified. Let us examine

what actually takes place during a linguistic interaction:

A says something to B in a code/language that B understands. What we actually mean

by A says something to B, is the utterance by A of a certain number of specific sounds,

belonging to a particular phonological system, organized in a particularly structured pattern

and pronounced in such a way that B makes sense of them. Three observations need to be

made now: a) – A pronounces the sounds in a highly precise manner and pauses at particular

moments thus conferring his speech a particular rhythm; b) – As B listens to A, he/she re-

constitutes the sounds as B thinks A produced them. B identifies the various units making up

the meaningful structures (words) of languages and attributes to each of them a particular

meaning; c) – the attribution of meaning by B to the units of sounds uttered by A is the

personal responsibility of B. It should, by no means imply that A meant exactly the same

thing because of a hypothetical natural or intrinsic relationship between certain sounds and

their external meaning. This is what is meant by the arbitrariness of language. In effect, the

sign does not unite a thing (from the external world) and a name (language), but an acoustic

image (the one built in his mind by B after listening to A), and a concept (the one which B

attributes to the acoustic image and which is supposed to be the same as the one intended by
A). For example, when B who speaks English but not Berber hears the following succession

of sounds: / i: /, / z / , / I /, he/she, by habit attributes the meaning (=/= difficult ) to the unit

which form, while another person C who speaks Berber but not English, would attribute to

them the meaning of an insect ( the mosquito). This example clearly shows the arbitrariness in

the attribution of meanings to an equivalent succession of sounds by different speech

communities, and which definitely plead for the conventional nature of language.

The last dichotomy to study concerns the syntagmatic versus the paradigmatic aspects of

language. We learn on page 197 from the CLG, that in a given state of language, everything

lies on relationships of differences. These differences involve two dimensions syntagmatic

and paradigmatic.

In discourse, words entertain relationships resulting from the linear aspect of language. In

this respect, one cannot utter/write several units of language at the same time. The units of

language (phonemes) are articulated one after the other in the spoken chain. Placed in

syntagm, a term acquires its value only because it is opposed to another (preceding and

following it). eg: /leik/ /teik/ /laik/ /lait/ /feit/ /fait/ etc. The same principle holds for phrases

and sentences. Let us take the example of a person A uttering the following sentence to B:

“My sister might come tonight”.

Two main observations can be made concerning the structure of this sentence. a) – it has a

linear level concerning the length duration for its complete utterance. This aspect concerns the

effective pronunciation of each and every sound that makes up the different units which

compose the sentence. / maisistəmaitkʌmtənait /. The sentence amounts to five meaningful

utterances, themselves divisible into smaller contrastive units amounting to nineteen

phonemes. / mai/ into two units /m+ai/; / sistə/, into five units / s+i+s+t+ə/; / mait/ into three

units /m+ai+t/; / kʌm/ into three units /kʌm.; and / tənait/ into five units / t+ə+n+ai+t /. On the
syntagmatic axis, for example, one can oppose /mai/ to /mi:/ or to /mɔ:/, while on the

paradigmatic axis, my can be opposed to your, her; our, their, etc.

The paradigmatic dimension involves the associative aspect of the organisation of

discourse. Out of discourse, words having something in common get associated in the

memory. Thus, words, whose relationships are varied, can be grouped. eg: teaching/teacher;

working/wedding; education/learning, etc. here the coordinations have no relation to linearity.

They take place in the brain. They are part of the “trésor de la langue”. Their relationships are

associative/paradigmatic.

To summarize, in any given text, there are syntagmatic relationships (in presentia) and

which can be identified within the sentences, and there are paradigmatic relationships (in

absentia), which need to be inferred from the sentences.

References:

Saussure, F. De, (1994)‘Le Cours de Linguistique Générale’, ENAG

Practice: Work with your group partners and illustrate each dichotomy with personal

examples taken from Berber, Arabic and English.

 The American tradition

So far, we have accounted for the European tradition as being mainly characterized by

reflection on linguistic comparison and, from Saussure on, on the study of language as a

system of relationships which was soon to be seen also as a system of relational structures.

In America however, the first researchers to consider the linguistic situation of the

indigenous people were anthropologists. It ought to be noted already that their interests and

preoccupations were totally different from those of the Europeans philologists. Their basic

preoccupation was to establish good descriptions of the American Indian languages before

they disappeared, not their comparison with the view to discover some hypothetical common

ancestor. Because the languages were only spoken, there were no written records to rely on.

As a result, historical analysis was naturally ruled out. Adding to this, these languages

presented very different kinds of structure compared to those encountered in the European

tradition. Therefore, the approach was to provide a careful account of the speech patterns of

the living languages.

In this respect, the works of F. Boas and E. Sapir proved to be of a formative influence

on the early developments of linguistics in America. F. Boas encountered Native American

languages from many different linguistic families—all of which were quite different from the

Semitic and Indo-European languages which most European scholars studied. Boas came to

realize how greatly ways of life and grammatical categories could vary from one place to

another. As a result he came to believe that the culture and lifeways of a people were reflected

in the language that they spoke. This analysis was to give way to what became the famous

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:

 The interdependence of thought and speech makes it clear that languages are not so

much a means of expressing truth that has already been established, but are a means of

discovering truth that was previously unknown. Their diversity is diversity not of sounds and

signs but of ways of looking at the world1.

Sapir was one of Boas' star students. He furthered Boas' argument by noting that

languages were systematic, formally complete systems. Thus, it was not this or that particular

word that expressed a particular mode of thought or behavior, but that the coherent and

systematic nature of language interacted at a wider level with thought and behavior.

"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and
types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they
stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a
kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this
means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it
into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an
agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech
community and is codified in the patterns of our language... all observers are not led
by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their
linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated." (Language,
Thought and Reality pp. 212–214).

The hypothesis bears two dimensions: linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism.

Supporters of linguistic relativity assume that culture is shaped by language. Terwilliger

defines linguistic determinism as the process by which "the functions of one's mind are

determined by the nature of the language which one speaks." In simpler terms, the thoughts

that we construct are based upon the language that we speak and the words that we use. In its

strongest sense, linguistic determinism can be interpreted as meaning that language

determines thought. In its weakest sense, language partially influences thought. Whorf

demonstrated that culture is largely determined by language (linguistic relativity). Different

cultures perceive the world in different ways. Culturally essential objects, conditions, and

1
W.V. Humboldt Uber das vergleichende sprachstudium P . 27. https://books.google.dz/books?id=cXL-
QIIhn5gC&pg=PR31&lpg=PR31&dq
processes usually are defined by a plethora of words, while things that cultures perceive as

unimportant are usually assigned one or two words.

References:

Whorf, B. Lee. (1956) Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings. The MIT Press.

On Terwilliger, follow this link: http://reocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.html

https://books.google.dz/books?id=cXL-QIIhn5gC&pg=PR31&lpg=PR31&dq
Practice: It has been reported that there are a dozen words for snow in the Hopi language.

Surf the internet and find arguments for against this pronouncement.
 OTHER RELATED DISCIPLINES

SOCIOLINGUISTICS

The primary concern of sociolinguistic scholarship is to study the correlations between

language use and social structure. Sociolinguistics is concerned with describing language use

as a social phenomenon and seeks to establish causal links between language and society.

Two main fields characterize sociolinguistics: micro and macro-sociolinguistics.

Micro-sociolinguistics investigates how social structure influences the way people talk

and how language varieties and patterns of use correlate with social attributes such as class,

sex and age. As an illustration of a direct relationship between language and social class, the

use of Classical Arabic in official meetings and Popular Arabic in more mundane encounters.

Likewise, the type of language used by women gatherings differs from the one used by men in

say, stadiums or souks, just as well as the variety of language used by teenagers differs

significantly from the one used by adults.

Macro-sociolinguistics studies what societies do with their languages, that is, attitudes

and attachments that account for the functional distribution of speech forms in society,

language shift, maintenance and replacement, the delimitation and interaction of speech

communities.

Major topics which sociolinguistics is concerned with involve: language change

(causes and mechanisms of language change, language variation (and boundary markers,

multilingualism and linguistic relativism), and language planning. They also involve change

in the internal structure of a language.

To Bernard Spolsky again, sociolinguistics focuses on the language practices of a

group of people who do in fact the opportunity to interact, and who, it often turns out, share
not just a single language, but a repertoire of language varieties. For the sociolinguist, the

speech community is a complex interlocking network of communication whose members

share knowledge about, and attitudes towards the language use patterns of others as well as

themselves. It is useful to remind that a speech community is all the people who speak a s

ingle language and so, share notions of what is same or different in phonology, vocabulary

and syntax. The notion is preserved in such a concept as ‘francophonia’.

Sociolinguistics being the study of language in relation to society, studies the ways in

which language interacts with society both in their temporal and spatial dimensions. As

society evolves in a permanent way, language also involves in a permanent way. Besides, all

aspects of language are concerned with linguistic change: pronunciation, vocabulary and

grammar, though some aspects change faster and deeper than others.

1 - Examples of change in pronunciation:

- Haplology: this is the type of change caused by the loss of a sound, because of its

similarity to a neighbouring sound. e.g. ‘England’ from ‘Englaland’.

- Dissimilation: a sound moves away from the pronunciation of a neighbouring sound.

e.g. ‘tartoffel’ became ‘kartoffel’ in Modern German.

- Apocope: the loss of a final sound from a word. e.g. ‘help’ from ‘helpe’

2 – Examples of change in vocabulary/meaning:

In the course of its life, a language always experiences the arrival of new words and the loss

of old ones. A word can also change its meaning.

It can widen its meaning by the process of extension: in Latin, ‘virtue’ was only a male

quality, today it applies to both sexes. Its meaning may become more specialized by the

process of semantic narrowing: O.E.

‘mete’ used to refer to food in general, today, it refers only to one type of food.

3 – Examples of grammatical change:

Analogy: irregular grammatical patterns are changed in accordance with the regular patterns

which already exist in the language. For example, several irregular verbs became regular in

today’s English. e.g. healpen => healp => helpt => helped.

Linguistic change over space. May be the best illustration would be the distinction

between the two varieties of English known as British English (BE) and American English

(AM). Other varieties known as World Englishes amply testify to the extreme dynamism of

English.

Linguistic change according to context of interaction: a clear illustration of this

type of change concerns the difference between the variety known as colloquial English used

in a familiar context, and the one known as formal English which is used in formal and

official circumstances. For example, don’t in a familiar context, and do not in a formal

situation.

Bernard Spolsky defines Sociolinguistics as the field which studies the relation

between language and society, between the uses of language and the social structures in

which the users of language live. Considering that language is a social phenomenon, and that

that even to Saussure, language is a system of signs in use in society, it becomes clear that

language cannot be dissociated from the structural organisation of the speech community

where it is used. This definition also accounts for the social dimension in the variation of a

language within the same speech community, depending to which social class a speaker

belongs. In addition to this social dimension, the physical territory where a language is spoken

is also to be considered.

In this respect, R. Hudson claims that, It is a well-known fact that the greater the

geographical distance between the users of a common language, the greater the language

variation. The examples of English, Berber and Arabic are clear examples of such a variation.

Being spoken by people living in very wide areas, these languages undergo a process of
variation comprising all aspects of the language. However, despite the extent of the

divergence, as long as the users understand each other, the language unity is not threatened. It

becomes, when mutual intelligibility between the members of the same speech community is

not ensured. In this case, the language evolves into different accents, different dialects and

sometimes, to different languages.

To Peter Trudgill, the criterion of ‘mutual intelligibility’ is of less importance in the

use of the terms language and dialect than are political and cultural factors. The term dialect,

refers strictly speaking to differences between kinds of language which are differences in

vocabulary and grammar as well as pronunciation. The term accent, on the other hand, refers

solely to differences of pronunciation, and it is important to distinguish between the two. This

is particularly true, in the context of English, in the case of the dialect known as Standard

English. In so far as it differs grammatically and lexically from other varieties of English, it is

legitimate to consider it a dialect: the term dialect can be used to apply to all varieties, not just

to non-standard varieties.

There is also one accent which only occurs together with Standard English. This is the

British English accent, or more properly, the English-English accent, which is known to

linguists as RP (Received Pronunciation). This is the accent which developed largely in the

English public schools, and which was until recently required of all BBC announcers. It is

however not necessary to speak Standard English.

Standard English can be spoken with any regional accent, and in the vast majority of

cases normally is. Because language, as a social phenomenon is closely tied up with the social

structure and value system of society, different dialects and accents are evaluated in different

ways. So statusful are Standard English and the prestige accents that they are widely

considered ‘correct’, ‘beautiful’, ’nice’, ‘pure’ and so on. Other, non- standard, non-prestige

varieties are often held to be ‘ugly’, ‘corrupt’, ‘lazy’, etc.

 The scientific study of language has convinced scholars that all languages, and

correspondingly all dialects, are equally ‘good’, as linguistic systems. All varieties of a

language are structured, complex, rule-governed systems which are wholly adequate for the

needs of their speakers. It follows that value-judgments concerning the correctness and purity

of linguistic varieties are social rather than linguistic. There is nothing at all, inherent in non-

standard varieties which makes them inferior. Any apparent inferiority is due only to their

association with speakers from under-privileged, low-status groups. In other words, attitudes

towards non-standard dialects are attitudes which reflect the social structure of society.

References:

Most of the text above was inspired from “The Handbook of Sociolinguistics”, edited by

Florian Coulmas.

Coulmas, F. (1998) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, Blackwell

Crystal D. (2009) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. CUP

Hudson, R.A.(1996) Sociolinguistics, CUP.

Giglioli, P. : Language and Social Context

Hockett, C.F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88-96.

Spolsky, B.(1998) : Sociolinguistics, Oxford University Press

Practice:

Work with your group partners and try to illustrate each type of internal change visible in

French (pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary) and each type of change due to external

motives (time, place, context of interaction)

 LANGUAGE and COMMUNICATION

THE FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE

In addition to its representational function, language is characterized by its

communicative function. The representational function of language allows humans to

communicate by using linguistic signs in place of the objects to which they refer. This allows

Berbers to talk about ‘adrar’ or French to talk about ‘la mer’, without bringing a mountain or

a sea to the place of interaction. This ability for abstraction which language offers its users is

highly cognitive and is actually deemed as the cornerstone of the divide between humans and

non humans. It is precisely this communicative function which makes of language a medium

for interaction. This communicative function permits humans to socialize, share ideas and

feelings, but also to “do things with words”. That is, to use language in such a way as to alter

the belief or the behaviour of the listener.

Indeed, it is language which provides humans with a communicative system and it is

the rules of the language used which permit them to ensure mutual understanding. The history

of human communication will not be reviewed here, but a special attention will be devoted to

the device elaborated by the linguist Roman Jakobson to account for the six factors involved

in a communication act, and to which he makes correspond six functions of a language.

In a remarkable summary of the history of communication studies, Medina notes that

Karl Bühler (1933, 1934) gave a precise formulation to the traditional

model of communication as containing three distinct elements: the speaker,
addresser or sender of the message; the listener addressee, audience or recipient
of the message; and the world or object domain that is the topic of
communication2.

To these three important elements, Roman Jakobson adds three other ones which he

connects to six corresponding functions of language. The six factors of an act of communication

2
J. Medina, Language : Key Concepts in Philosophy, Continuum, 2005, p 2.
are according to Jakobson: the addresser, the message, the context, the contact, the code and the

addressee. The functions involved accordingly are: the emotive function which corresponds to

the addresser, the poetic function which relates to the message, the referential function which

defines the context, the phatic function which corresponds to the contact, the metalingual

function which refers to the code and the conative function which corresponds to the addressee.

All, some, or only one of these functions can prevail at a time in an act of communication

to varying degrees. The most dominant function(s) imprint(s) a particular aspect to the

communication act. For example, a text where the dominant element is a description will have a

referential focus, while another where the dominant factor is an instruction will bear a more

conative aspect. A text where the focus is put on the feelings and emotions of the speaker will be

dominated by the emotive function, while another whose emphasis is more on the form of a

message rather than on its contents will bear a more poetic aspect. Mention should also be made

that any text can be described using the following model developed by Roman Jakobson.
 Jakobson’s model of communication

Context
Referential

Message
Poetic

Addresser Addressee
Emotive Conative

Contact
Phatic

Code
Metalingual

References:

Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words, Clarendon Press.

http://www.sfu.ca/~terryn/http___sfu.ca_~terryn_304W_Effect/CMNS_304W_Effect_files/CM

NS304W%20Mid-term%20Notes.pdf

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fitchf/readlit/Jakobson.htm
Practice:

1 - With your group partners, take a newspaper and focus on three different rubrics. Then apply

Jakobson’s diagram to analyse the functions that dominate each rubric. Then try to explain why

the author has chosen to focus on these particular factors.

2 – Study the following passage by Gorki, and sort out the dominant functions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aitchison, J. (2000). The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words, Clarendon Press.

Coulmas, F. (1998) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, Blackwell

Crystal, D. (1969) What is Linguistics? Edward Arnold,

Crystal D. (2009) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. CUP

Fodil, M.S. (2008) A Lexico-Semiotic Approach to Cyber English or how Technology Affects

Language and Culture.Doctoral Thesis, Library of the Department of English, MMUTO.

Giglioli, P.P.(ed.) (1972) Language and Social Context, Penguin Books.

Hockett, C.F. (1960). The origin of speech, Scientific American, 203, 88-96.

Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics,Person Education Limited, England

Hudson, R.A.(1990) Sociolinguistics, Cambridge University Press.

Jakobson, R.(2003) Essais de Linguistique Générale, Les Editions de Minuit

Lyons, J. (1981) Language and Linguistics, CUP.

Robins, K.H.(1997) A Short History of Linguistics,Routledge

Saussure, F. De. (1994) Cours de Linguistique Générale, ENAG

Spolsky, B.(1998) : Sociolinguistics, Oxford University Press

Trudgill, P. (1992) Introducing Language and Society, Penguin Books.

Widdowson, H.G. (1996) Linguistics, OUP

Yule, G. (1985). The Study of Language, Cambridge University Press.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics, OUP