The languages of the world present us with a vast array of structural similarities and differences. Why should this be so?
One way of answering this question is to adopt a historical perspective, investigating the origins of language, and pointing to the importance of linguistic change-a perspective that is discussed in Part IX. An alternative approach is to make a detailed description of the similarities or differences, regardless of their historical antecedent, and proceed from there generalize about the structure and function of human language.
There are two main ways of approaching this latter task. We might look for the structural features that all or most languages have in common: or we might focus our attention the features that differentiate them. In the former case, we are searching for languages universals; in the letter case, we are involving ourselves in language typology. In principle, the two approaches are complementary, but sometimes they are associated with different theoretical conceptions of the nature of linguistic enquiry.
SIMILARITY OR DIFFERENCE?
Since the end of the 18th century, the chief concern has been to explain the nature of linguistic diversity. This was the focus of comparative of philology and dialectology, and it led to early attempts to set up genetic and structural typologies of languages. The emphasis carried through into the 20th century when the new science of linguistics continually stressed the variety of languages in the world, partly in reaction against the traditions of 19th-century prescriptivism, where one language, Latin, had been commonly regarded as a standard of excellence.
Since the 1950s, the focus on diversity has been replaced by a research paradigm, stemming from the work of the American linguist Noam Chomsky ()1928- ), in which the nature of linguistic universals holds a central place. Chomsky’s generative theory of language proposes a single set of rules from which all the grammatical sentences in a language can be derived (p. 97). In order to define these rules in an accurate and economical way, a grammar has to rely on certain general principles-abstract constraints that govern the form it takes and nature of the categories with which it operates. In this approach, the principles are conceived as universal properties of language-properties that are biologically necessary and thus innate (p. 234). The notion of universals is important, it is argued, not only because it depends our understanding of language in its own right, it because it provides an essential first step in the task of understanding human intellectual capacity.
In Chomsky’s view, therefore, the aim of linguistics is to go beyond the study of individual languages, to determine what the universals properties of language are, and to establish a universal grammar ‘that would account for the range of linguistic variation that is humanly possible. The question is simply; what are the limits on human language variability? Languages do not make use of all possible sounds, sound sequences, or word orders. Can we work out the reason? It might be possible to draw a line between the patterns that are essential features of language, and those that no language ever makes use of. Or perhaps there is a continuum between these extremes, with some features being found in most (but not all) languages, and some being found in very few. Questions of this kind constitute the current focus of many linguists’ attention.
BREADTH OR DEPTH?
The distinction between typological and universalist approaches to language study is doubtless ultimately an arbitrary one; and both have considerable insights to offer. But the two approaches, as currently practised, differ greatly in their procedures. Typologists typically study a wide range of languages as part of the enquiry, and tend to make generalization that deal with the more observable aspects of structure, such as word
order, part of speech, and types of sound. In contrast with the empirical breadth of such studies, universalists rely on in-depth studies of single language, especially in the field of grammar-English, in particular, is a common language of exemplification- and tend to make generalization about the more abstract, underlying properties of language.
This focus on single languages might at first seem strange. If we are searchin for universals, then surely we need to study many languages? Chomsky argue, however, that there is no paradox. Because English is human language, it must therefore incorporate all universal properties of language, as well as those individual features that make it specifically ’English’. One way of finding out about these properties. The more languages we introduce our enquiry, the more difficult it can become to see the central features behind the welter of individual differences.
On the other hand, it can be argued that the detailed study of single languages is inevitably going to produce a distorted picture. There are features of English, for example, that are not commonly met with in other languages, such as the use of only one inflectional ending in the present tense (third-person, as in she runs), or the absence of a second person singular/plural distinction (cf. French tu/vous). Without a typological perspective, some say, it is not possible to anticipate the extent to which our sence of priorities will be upset. If language were relatively homogenous entities, like samples of iron ore, this would not be a problem. But, typologists argue, languages are unpredictably irregular and idiosyncratic. Under these circumstances, a focus on breadth, rather than depth, is desirable.
RELATIVE OR ABSOLUTE?
The universalist ideal is to be able to make succinct and interesting statements that hold, without exception, for all languages. In practice, very few such statements can be made: the succinct ones often seem to state the obvious (e.g/ all languages have vowels); and the interesting ones often seem to require considerable technical qualification. Most of the time, in fact, it is clear that absolute (or exceptionless) universals do not exsist. As a result, many linguists look instead for trends or tendencies across languages-‘relative’ universals-which can be given statistical expression. For
example, in over 99% of language whose word order has een studied, grammatical subjectes pre-code objects. And in a phonological study of over 300 languages (p. 165), less than 3 % have no nasal consonant. Linguistic features that are statistically dominant in this way are often referred to as ‘unmarked’; and a grammar that incorporates norms of this kind is known as a ‘core grammar’.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar