Word-formation lexical-----------------------word
M
ORPHOPHONOLOGICAL
MORPHOLOGICAL----------morpheme
PHONOLOGICAL-------------phoneme
Figure 2.2. Levels of language
Besides the basic levels, there exist intermediate levels, which are in between two or three basic levels. The MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL level overlaps with the phonological and morphological levels. Its units are morphophonemes – the phonemes whose forms are determined by the morphemic environments, e.g. the plural –s in English nouns, which is pronounced as /s/, /z/ or /iz/. The WORD-FORMATION level intersects with the morphological, lexical, and phrasal levels. Its units are derived words formed by several morphemes; the word pattern may resemble that of a phrase. The PHRASEOLOGICAL level is in between lexical, phrasal, and sentential levels. It is constituted by phraseological units whose meanings tend to resemble the meanings of words, but whose forms are those of phrases and sentences.
Human language vs. Animal communication
A useful approach to distinguish human language from the systems of animal communication was pioneered by the American linguist Charles Hockett who suggested to make a list of human language design features, and to consider whether they are shared by the systems of communication used by animals. The most important of these features are as follows.
Use of sound signals. Sound systems are employed by both humans and many animals.
Arbitrariness. There is often a strong recognizable link between the sign and the message an animal wishes to convey. In other words, the signs used by animals are motivated. They resemble iconic and indexical (metonymic) signs of the human tongue. Unlike animals, humans use symbolic signs (metaphors) and arbitrary, non-motivated signals.
The need for learning. Most animals automatically, without learning, know how to communicate. Their systems of communication are genetically inbuilt. To acquire their language, humans need a long learning process.
Duality. Animals who use vocal signals have a limited stock of basic sounds which vary according to species. The number of messages an animal can send is restricted to the number of basic sounds, or occasionally the basic sound plus a few simple combinations. Human languages work quite differently. Each language has a set of phonemes (their average number is in between 30 and 40). However, each phoneme is normally meaningless in isolation. To convey meanings, phonemes must be combined. This organization of language into two layers – the layer of sounds, and the layer of sound combinations – is known as duality, or double articulation.
Displacement. Most animals can communicate about things in the immediate environment only. Human language, by contrast, can communicate about things that are absent as easily as about things that are present. This phenomenon is known as displacement.
Creativity (Productivity). Most animals have a very limited number of messages they can send or receive. Besides, animals communicate about the same things over and over again, i.e. they repeat the same messages while “discussing” the same “topics”. This type of restriction is not found in human language, which is essentially creative (or productive). The number of messages sent by humans is unlimited, as well as the number of topics they discuss. Humans can produce novel utterances whenever they want to.
Patterning. Many animal communication systems consist of a simple list of elements. There is no internal organization within the system. Conversely, human language is grounded on regular patterns for combining sounds, morphemes or words. Therefore, human language can be regarded as an intricate network of interlinked elements in which every item is held in its place and given its identity by all the other items.
Structure dependence. This feature, found only in human language, is grounded on patterning – the existence of language as a network of interlocking items. This network is involved in forming and understanding sentences: their meanings depend on understanding the initial structure of a sentence, rather than on the number of elements involved. E.g. Visiting relatives can be annoying (“to visit relatives…”; “the relatives visit….”).
(See Aitchison, pp. 12-19).