CHAPTER I

Foreword: Chapter I consists of five lectures which contain the basic information on the Linguistic Science, Language Ontology and its properties. After each lecture the learners of the course must be able to discuss corresponding problems, make critical remarks and apply the information of a lecture in their own research.

Chapter Outline:

Lecture 1. The Subject of Linguistics.

Lecture 2. Generative linguistics.

Lecture 3. Language Ontology.

Lecture 4. Different aspects of Language analysis.

Lecture 5. The Ontological Properties of language.

3.1. The Principles of Paradigmatic Analysis.

3.2. The principles of Syntagmatic Analysis.

Lecture 1. The Subject of Linguistics

Lead-in: the first lecture gives the general information on the subject of Linguistics, its development and the main approaches in the first half of the XXth century. Here are presented the prerequisites for a scientific research of languages in Europe and America. Having studied the lecture, students should be able to give evaluation to the European and American trends in Linguistics.

Key-words: linguistics, descriptive linguistics, language nature, language structure, language functioning.

The main theoretical positions of a lecture:

1.The state in language investigation up to the beginning of the XXth century;

2.Characteristic feature of the European tradition in language study;

3.American trend in language investigation;

§1.The subject we now call linguistics began to take its present form at the beginning of the XXth century and here it is relevant to take into consideration that up to this date all investigations concerning language phenomena were only the matter of interest in philosophy, history or philology.

Linguistics as a science began to develop independently in two places at once – Europe and America. With the product of own history and using languages available for investigation these two approaches appeared radically different. Though in the 20th century the theoretical positions in relation to such problems as language origin and existence, the principles of language organization and functioning gradually came into contact irrespective of rather significant divergences in particular details.

§2.The Europeans had a continuous tradition of a philosophical thought, which stemmed from classic times, but the immediate background for historical study of languages came from comparative philology of the 19th century and as a material for investigation served classic and modern languages, the latter to a lesser extent though. Nevertheless, it is erroneous to think that discussion of language had usually been from the viewpoint of textual interpretation, such as biblical studies, literary criticism or history. Both in Russian and Western European studies much attention had been paid to the problems of language nature, its inner structure. What is about American trend in language investigation as descriptivism, the very character of it had been conditioned by a very specific language situation when everyday contacts with the people of a different language made the scholars investigate new languages. Here linguistic research began by turning to the sources most available - the American Indian languages.

§3.The American scholars rejected the traditionally known procedures of analysis accepted in Europe as useless for studying the languages of a quite different structure. Among such attempts there was quite a strong reaction against the use of ‘meaning’ as the basis of language analysis, and, by this, against the implementation into the linguistic analysis grammatical and notional categories, which, by itself, seemed inconceivable for the whole European philosophical orientation.

The first task of the representative of American descriptivism was to describe the physical forms of a language: the function and meaning of these forms was a later activity. So, the living speech activity became the corner stone for this part of scholars largely due to the initiative of the anthropologists of the time, who stimulated this kind of approach from the very beginning as part of their drive to accumulate information about the dying Indian tribes. One of the pioneers, Franz Boas, emphasized the need for a linguist to get an accurate, detailed description of the human behavior involved. Ten years later another anthropologically oriented book by Edward Sapir appeared to become at once extremely influential for the development of linguistics in America.

§4.Though the development of linguistic studies was simultaneous on both sides of the Atlantic, neither side of the early time of the 20th century knew much about what another was doing. But it would be erroneous to think that the results of investigation had been radically different: in many aspects in the course of analysis there was found much common and later used in a number of new different approaches in language nature and structure.

In present-day linguistics the theoretical position of many schools and trends not only successfully work but rather fruitfully intermingle which seems very justified as the main aim for all scientists was and remains to ascertain the truth on language nature, structure and modes of its functioning.

Summary: Linguistics as a science began to develop independently in two places at once – Europe and America at the beginning of the 20^th century. Much attention had been paid to the problems of language nature, its inner structure. One of the most meaningful trends in linguistic study was American trend that we call descriptivism, having its aim to describe the physical forms of a language. We can say that in many aspects in the course of analysis there was found much common and later used in a number of new different approaches in language nature and structure.

Seminar 1.

Topics for comprehension check and class discussion:

1.The state in language investigation up to the beginning of the XXth century;

2.Characteristic feature of the European tradition in language study;

3.American trend in language investigation;

Lecture 2. Generative Linguistics

Lead-in: in this lecture there are presented the main principles of generative grammar introduced at first in America and later recognized as rather a fruitful method of language study by the representatives of European schools. Here is given an observation of the essential aspects of generative grammar by N.Chomsky.

Key-words: linguistics, descriptive linguistics, deep/surface structure, standard grammar, elementary/nuclear sentence, linguistic nativism, language nature, language structure, language functioning.

The main theoretical positions of a lecture:

1. N.Chomsky and his work ‘Syntactic structures’;

2. The main principles of a new trend;

3. The philosophy of N.Chomsky’s grammar;

4. The effectiveness of N,Chomsky

§1. Generative grammar that appeared in language study in the fifties of the XXth century gave a start for a new epoch in all linguistic investigations at that period of time. This approach as one in a formal trend of linguistics took its beginning on the basis of Noam Chomsky ideas, first declared by him in a world-known work ‘Syntactic structures’(1957) and modified many times. This book was intended as a reaction against purely behavioristic methods of analysis, empirical in essence and taxonomic in aim distributional analysis (on phonological and morphological levels), IC-analysis for investigation ready, static chains of linguistic elements, etc.

As the cornerstone in linguistic analysis there had been suggested the principles of deductive constructivism and as the main unit of analysis had been proposed a sentence, not a phoneme, or morpheme. The sentence regarded from the position of its generation ion the basis of strict rules of formation and transformation.

The term generative grammar is also used to label the approach to linguistics taken by Chomsky and his followers. Chomsky's approach is characterized by the use of transformational grammar – a theory that has changed greatly since it was first promulgated by Chomsky in above-mentioned book , and by the assertion of a strong linguistic nativism (and therefore an assertion that some set of fundamental characteristics of all human languages must be the same). The term "generative linguistics" is often applied to the earliest version of Chomsky's transformational grammar, which was associated with a distinction between the "deep structure" and "surface structure" of sentences.

§2. Generative linguistics is a school of thought within linguistics that makes use of the concept of a generative grammar. The term "generative grammar" is used in different ways by different people, and the term "generative linguistics" therefore has a range of different, though overlapping, meanings.

Formally, a generative grammar is defined as one that is fully explicit. It is a finite set of rules that can be applied to generate all those and only those sentences (often, but not necessarily, infinite in number) that are grammatical in a given language. This is the definition that is offered by Noam Chomsky, who invented the term, and by most dictionaries of linguistics. Generate is being used as a technical term with a particular sense. To say that a grammar generates a sentence means that the grammar "assigns a structural description" to the sentence.

§3. The transformational generative grammar by N.Chomsky appeared to ne the first version of his conception. It had been built in agreement with the deductive-axiomatic principles of unfolding the logical calculation. He postulated the categories S-type (starting symbol for a sentence), NP-( nominal group),VP( verbal group),etc, with ‘phrase grammar’ being regarded as most important level of grammatical analysis. N.Chomsky introduced into Grammar transformational level, on which all the obligatory and optional operations take place.

The term ‘transformation’ he borrowed in his teacher Z.Z, Harris and later developed as not the relationships between static constructions, but dynamic relationship of a starting sentence and sentence-transform. Procedures of sentence generation work in agreement with a strict system of rules, and grammar as it is , presents to Chomsky’s position sort of automatic machine, generating grammatically correct sentences. Accordingly is introduced the notion of grammaticality. What is important here to remark, is the categoric refusal to take into consideration semantic factors in sentence generation. N.Chomsky proclaims linguistics as not a descriptive but explanatory discipline.

§3. Though in his next (“Аспекты теории синтаксиса”, 1965)in Grammar are distinguished 1)syntactic rules(of generation) and the rules of the lexicon which together provide the processes of generation for deep structures as the bearers of relevant information and 2) transformational rules-transformimg deep structures into surface structures.

His revised Standard theory ( since 1973) dramatically discriminated syntax and semantics so as phonology, stylistics and pragmatics. Here he used the notion of ‘markedness’, borrowed in phonologists, reduced the number of transformations and inventory of universals.

Summary

The effectiveness of N,Chomsky in his intensive searches of more adequate approaches to language modeling/patterning, his being ready and open for discussion his constant improvement of his scientific works was very high. He sharply criticized the phenomena of behaviorism, antimentalism, taxonomism and empirism that reigned on a previous stage of language study. Many of his theoretical positions continue to be significant in present-day linguistics. He stimulated dramatic , revolutionary turning-point in American, and later in a world linguistics to a dynamic observation of a language in agreement with the data of cognitive psychology. His elaborations in a sphere of categorical semantics, IC-grammar, linguistic competence continue to be in high demand.

Seminar 2.

Topics for comprehension check and class discussion:

1. N.Chomsky and his work ‘Syntactic structures’;

2. The main principles of a new trend;

3. The philosophy of N.Chomsky’s grammar;

4. The effectiveness of N,Chomsky’

5. Rules of formation and transformation;

6. Rules of generation;

7. Ruled of the lexicon;

8. Surface/deep structures;

9. The position of N.Chomsky to the ideas of behaviourism.

Lecture 3. Language Ontology

Lead-in: in this part of the course we will study different definitions of a language, get acquainted with the notion of “Language Ontology”. We will also study the visions of language system by different linguists, such as Saussure, Courtenet, Reformatsky, Harris. Studying the material, students must operate with the main linguistic terms given in the lecture, and be ready to discuss the problem of language dichotomy.

Key-words: language, language ontology, language dichotomy/trichotomy, language activity, language substance\structure/function, communication, nomination, semiotic reality.

The main theoretical positions of a lecture:

1.Fundamental problems in Language study;

2. The essence of a systemic approach to language study;

3. F. de Saussure and his view upon Language as the object of sthudy;

4. The main principles of language analysis by F. de Saussure;

5. Theoretical position to Language study in Soviet linguistics;

6. The role of Speech activity in Language ontology;

7. Semiotic reality of language;

8. The unity of Language and Thought;

9. Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

§1. Most scholars are unanimous in their definition of language as a dual entity being represented simultaneously in the system of linguistic means – the receptacle of human knowledge as reflected, generalized and registered; and in the system of speech acts where these signs interrelate as the living form of a human thought. Exactly here the new notions get their names which enrich the system of linguistic means being arranged there according to their notional and functional characteristics. It seems justifiable to take into consideration various conceptual strands in language studies because a concept of language is directly connected with several leading linguistic and psychological problems of today, as a/ language as a substance; b/ language ability; c/ language as a process; d/ language structure; e/ language nomination; f/ language and society, etc.

1.1. Language as any other system is an orderly arrangement of cognate elements interrelated in the whole existing in the unity of three forms: substance, structure, and function. The systemic approach to language study leads to the recognition of a systemic nature of human language The two notions ‘system’ and ‘structure’ are equally applied in the internal analysis of language These two notions do not contradict each other but help in exposing particular internal characteristics of complex objects. The notion of function is essential in investigation of the processes relating to the external sphere of language – communication and nomination.

1.2.The father of Geneva linguistic school F. de Saussure had a view upon language as a well-defined object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts, as an objective entity representing not the individual language activity but a ‘system’ existing virtually in everyone’s head. So he draws a firm dichotomy between ‘language (langue/ and ‘human speech (langage) so as between ‘language (langue/ and ‘speaking’ (parole) making the former only a definite part of the latter: language can be classified among the human phenomena, whereas speech activity and speech proper cannot.

1.3. In accordance with S. de Saussure, the linguistic study falls into two parts: the main part, the subject of investigation of which is language ( langue), i.e. the entity, social in essence and independent of the individual, and another, secondary part, which studies the individual part of speech activity, that is speaking ( parole). None the less ‘the subject matter of linguistics comprises all manifestations of human speech’. Saussure insisted that these two parts are closely interrelated and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary to make our speech understandable and productive, while speech (speaking), in its order, is indispensable as the main factor for language to be established; historically the fact of speech always precedes language.

1.4.According to such approach, the linguistic knowledge of any given individual is only an approximation to the language system: ‘the system itself ‘exists’ and ‘works’ perfectly only in the mass’ (Saussure). We learn from experience, but experience consists not only of a series of external events which happen to occur and happen to affect us, but also of a combination of these events and our response to them. Thus language (langue) is an objectified human experience, the fund of human knowledge, while speaking (parole) - a subjective realization of this knowledge as its partial version. Though ‘language’ and ‘speaking’, in their turn, find their embodiment in human speech (langage). (In Russian terminology (langage) may be interpreted as ’речемыслительная деятельность’, in English – ‘language activity’). It is worth noting that F. de Saussure gave preference to language (langue) as to the object presenting scientific interest for investigator, while the acts of speech did not seem to him as worth being studied. Though the inseparable unity of the two planes of language defined by him as dichotomy found its expression in such language definitions as ‘ a system of signs expressing ideas’ and ‘a system of signs in which the only essential is the unity of meaning and acoustic image”.

1.5. In the Soviet linguistics the two notions ‘speech’ and ‘language activity’ had received more scrupulous and somewhat different explanation. If to follow professor Reformatsky, an outstanding scholar in Soviet linguistics, the main notion in dichotomy is ‘language’ because it really makes the most important means of human communication and here his position does not differ too much from that by F. de Saussure; the next notion ‘speech act’ presupposes an individual and every time new usage of language as a means of communication for different individuals. Later, in this part of language analysis arose the theory of language nomination; and, at last, ‘speech’ (‘speaking’-F. de S.) is first of all not language and not an individual speech act but the process of speaking, including various aspects of human activity and by this presenting interest for many borderline anthropologically oriented sciences, and the cornerstone position here belongs to the communicative theories. At the same time ‘speech acts’ manifest multifarious forms of language usage in different communicative situations. So, it is evident that all these notions intermingle and interact making the mechanism of language reality and functioning clear and distinct.

§ 2. The inseparable unity of language and speech as the essence of language internal organization, proclaimed in Soviet linguistics, was gradually accepted by the majority of scholars. But the mechanisms providing this unity remained for some time not clearly determined both in spheres of language activity and language making. Reflecting on this problem and keeping in mind the words by F. de Saussure that ‘the fact of speech always precedes language’, most scholars had been prone to think that existence and functioning of language is possible only with the process of thinking being involved. In order to realize language as a material substance of thinking we are to cover all its essential properties and distinguish that aspect of language which is immediately related to the thinking processes. There was left no place to any doubts on this account and Language activity was recognized as the main factor providing interaction of the two language spheres on the basis of thinking processes.

2.1.Gnoseologically, human consciousness is a spiritual category and secondary phenomenon in relation to the material world reflected in a thought. It (human consciousness) exists only in its language flesh, which is not a mere fixation of a consciousness but meant to globally convey all the content of human thinking.

In semiotic reality of language the individual consciousness is to be simultaneously abstracted and represented as a social phenomenon. The very essence of communication lies in the fact that the individuals enter into relations through that means which we call ‘language’, moreover, these relations are purposeful, teleologically relevant because, with the help of their languages the peoples get information, change in results of practical and theoretical cognition of the world beginning with the most elementary units of information and ending in the general laws of the Universe. All the facts of knowledge in human society, including those, actually existing in the act of communication, make nothing but the objectified moment of cognitive activity of a human fixed in a language form.

2.2. All preceding investigations concerning language forms in relation to their content gave all grounds to speak of ‘language as a unity of language and thought’. In this bilateral unity no plane of language dominates another: the final aim of language communication, hence, its natural predestination is to render the information of a certain type.

Such position is supported by the American scholar in language studies Roy Harris who remarked the following in this connection: “this is true of the distinction between language and speech which has come to be a very crucial distinction in modern linguistics. But certain aspects of it will remain somewhat puzzling unless we remember that both halves of the distinction are, historically speaking, related as different facets of l o g o s”. Every individual experience as the result of interaction of a man with the objective world finds its reflection in a symbol of language either approved by the whole collective of people or not. This is a good decision of the old-age problem of whether the relation between expression and content (form and meaning) is natural or arbitrary. If natural, one could not explain how different expressions from different languages may stand for the same content, and how the content of a sign could be changed. If arbitrary, this can be explained but the arbitrariness must not be too arbitrary, otherwise every speaker might associate any given content. But he is prevented from doing so by that conventional system which we call after F. de Saussure as l a n g u e. As the result of logical operation of abstraction and generalization the objective reality in all its manifestation takes a shape of a linguistic sign on the level of human consciousness: all the facts of reality are registered here in a form of nominative signs making in the end that ontological phenomenon which we call as language. Aristotle, for instance, described words as ‘symbols or signs of affections of the soul.’ In accordance with him these affections were regarded as ‘representations, likenesses, images, or copies’ of things. Just as the external world of things was the same for all mankind, so also was the inner world of affections.

In spite of different nuances in language analysis now is common to regard language as ‘a material substance of thinking existing in the two planes: in a virtual sphere as a system of linguistic signs, and in speech acts as actualization of linguistic means’. These two spheres exist only in their interaction and present an inseparable whole now known to us as language dichotomy.

Summary: Language as any other system is an orderly arrangement of cognate elements interrelated in the whole existing in the unity of three forms: substance, structure, and function. The final aim of language communication is to render the information of a certain type. By the language ontology we mean language nature that lies in nomination. All preceding investigations concerning language forms in relation to their content gave all grounds to speak of language as a unity of language and thought. In other words, no process of language activity is possible without linguistic signs arranged in a language system, without communicative acts actualized in individual speaking and, what is most important, without participation of our consciousness which makes our communication adequate and reasonable. Thus, in the end we have all grounds to regard language as trichotomy as the unity of Language, Speech and Thought.

Seminar 3.

Topics for comprehension check and class discussion:

1.Fundamental problems in Language study;

2. The essence of a systemic approach to language study;

3. F. de Saussure and his view upon Language as the object of sthudy;

4. The main principles of language analysis by F. de Saussure;

5. Theoretical position to Language study in Soviet linguistics;

6. The role of Speech activity in Language ontology;

7. Semiotic reality of language;

8. The unity of Language and Thought;

9. Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

Lecture 4. Different aspects of Language analysis.

Lead-in: in this part of the course we will study different definitions of a language, get acquainted with the notion of “Language Ontology”. We will also study the visions of language system by different linguists, such as Saussure, Courtenet, Reformatsky, Harris. Studying the material, students must operate with the main linguistic terms given in the lecture, and be ready to discuss the problem of language dichotomy.

Key-words: language is a historical category; synchrony/diachrony; epistemological instrument; dynamics – statics; potential – actual, ideal – real, whole – part, competence – performance, prescriptive – descriptive, association – linearity, substance – function, paradigm – syntagm(a);

The main theoretical positions of a lecture:

1.Epistemological instrument for language study;

2.Diachtony/Synchrony in the light of language ontology;

3. The essence of a notion’synchrony’ in accordance with Saussure’s position;

4. The essence of a notion’diachrony’ in accordance with Saussure’s position ;

5. Language changes: characteristic features;

6. Language systemic study;

7. Synchronic length in relation to the historical continuum of language;

8.Interaction of diachronic and synchronic methods in analysis of language facts.

Material for lecture 4:

§ 1.When we choose any technical term as an analytical instrument we can give it whatever meaning we like and by this invent an epistemological instrument as a means of analysis. But to analyze language phenomena and understand the nature of its existence, development and functioning we must be aware of the real essential characteristics of the language nature known as its ontological characteristics /In Greek’ onto’ means being/. When working over the problems of language ontology every linguistic school or individual scientist manipulates with their own terminological apparatus concerning the spheres of language and speech. Some of them became universal in Modern Linguistics irrespective of this or that linguistic trend and denote the same or approximately identical notions (categories of knowledge) relating suggestively to the spheres in question, i.e. language and speech: dynamics – statics; potential – actual, ideal – real, whole – part, competence – performance, prescriptive – descriptive, association – linearity, substance – function, paradigm – syntagm(a) and others.

§2. Though it is worth noting that the terms suggested by scholars to denote the two spheres of language existence and functioning may be thought as identical in the part of what they mean only conventionally. For example, it would be a mistake to draw a very strict parallel between such pairs of notions as ‘language and speech’ and ‘diachrony and synchrony’. First of all the unity of ‘language and speech’ is presented with the spheres of simultaneous language functioning: one of them presupposing another, while ‘diachrony and synchrony’ denote the states of a language functioning at different epochs of its evolution.

§3. In accordance with Saussure’s position s y n c h r o n y is such a state of language when relations between coexisting language elements are recognized as leading and important , i.e. making a system at the present stage; while d i a c h r o n y , or language evolution, may be presented with relations of language elements only in their sequence , that is cannot be perceived by one and the same collective conscience. To his mind synchronic linguistics is in opposition to diachronic linguistics so as the science of statics to the science of dynamics in Boudoin de Courtenet.

3.1.Nonetheless the evolution of a sound structure in different languages was recognized as systemic in its essence. Later this idea had been generalized and applied to other strata of language elements in their evolution. As it was noted by Ye.. Kubryakova ‘ to apply the notion of a system to a developing object is incomparably more difficult but not senseless /…/ because general systemic principles of organization do not exclude some independence of a system with reconstructions taking place inside language subsystems’.

So if to agree that language as a system is an orderly arranged whole it does not take much effort to presuppose that there can be no such changes in language which would take place apart from a system. Hence, in all its “-chronies” language retains its essential, ontological characteristics of a system and structure.

3.2.To investigate language ontology is possible in different ways: its composition, origin, teleological function, inventory, etc. But in all cases, irrespective of the fact to what period of language functioning the object in question relates we cannot but use the elements of diachronic analysis in order to show the character, conditions both of intra- and extralinguistic factors which gave rise to structural or semantic transformation of the object in question. To ignore the systemic organization of language is hardly possible: no change in it can take place independently of a system. Moreover, as it was noted still by Bodoin, language is a historical category and the more developed a language is the more systemic forms it finds in its composition.

Changeability of language stipulates the necessity to analyze it as a dynamic system; and peculiarities of this evolution for every particular linguistic object so as for a language in the whole may appear to be a stimulus for a scholar to regard every separate phenomenon at different stages of language development. In fact no form existing in a language at every given period of its development did not appear at a time but was a product of prolonged transformation irrespective of a linguistic status of a sign.

No doubt can arise as to the systemic properties of such language states as synchrony and diachrony and if not explicit but implicit interaction of every given state of a language with those preceding makes an undisputable fact.

§4. The systemic character of language presupposes its systemic study. The communicative character of language makes us regard it as a functional system of signs. The property of a linguistic sign to be a symbolic name as a result of logical operation of cognition presupposes study of nominative processes. But in all cases of investigation we observe the change in speech and rigid order in language as a system. By the term ‘statics’ F. de Saussure meant not ‘absence of motion’ but ‘absence of change’. It is evident that at every given period of time we cannot distinguish some radical changes in speech, but with the time these changes being gradually accumulated bring to the reconstruction either in the whole system known in linguistics as a change of a grammatical determinant, or in its subsystems. The new derivational procedures in Modern English may serve as a convincing example for this theoretical position: in the result of semantic redistribution in one of the stems of either word combination or a compound the system of derivational morphemes gradually increases / agglutinative elements of nominal origin – skyman, ferryman, meadowland, dreamland, seaside, roadside; of adjectival origin – nationwide, 1 000-strong, daylong; of adverbial origin - get about, bitch about, hang about, tear apart, tell apart. That is why we must not forget that ‘statics’ is only a result of dynamic changes and to regard language properties in ‘statics’ is impossible not taking into consideration the temporal perspective. Time in relation to synchrony is only secondary and on this reason irrelevant. Every synchronic length taken of the historical continuum of language displays very insignificant changes which in no means can bring to some drastic reconstruction in language systemic organization.