Transcript of Dr Piotr Wahl · Web viewPara la [s] navarra… A. Alonso observa haber oído este tipo de [s], que...
Dr Piotr WahlExemplified with
as a Lingua Franca
Section 0.2. Content…….……………………………………………………………………………….
Subsection 0.2.3. Neo-Latin Group of Languages
….……………………………………….
Subsection 0.2.4. English as a Lingua Franca
……….……………………………………....
Section 0.3. Synoptic Method………….……………….…………………………………………….…
Section 0.4. Research Algorithm…………………………………………………………………….…
Chapter 1. Theoretical
Preliminaries………………………………………………………………………..…
Section 1.2.
Language……………………………………………………………...............................
Section 1.7. Elements of Relevant Linguistic
Theories……………………………………………....
Subsection 1.7.1. Semantics……………………………………………………………….......
Subsection 1.7.2. Structuralism………………………………………………………………...
Subsection 1.7.6. Igor Meluk’s Linguistic
Model……………………………………….……
Subsection 1.7.7. Sidney Lamb’s Stratificational
Grammar…….…………………………...
Subsection 1.7.8. Wallace Chafe’s Semantic Concept of
Language……………………….
Subsection 1.7.9. Computational
Linguistics………………………………………………….
Section 2.1. Theoretical Context of Synoptic
Analysis..................................................................
Section 2.2. Theoretical Background to Synoptic
Models…………….……………………….…….
Subsection 2.2.1. Synoptic Models at the Diacritic
Level…………………………………....
Subsection 2.2.2. Synoptic Models at the Signific
Level…………………………................
Subsection 2.2.3. Synoptic Models at the Syntactic
Level……………………………..……
Section 2.3. Theoretical Background to Synoptic
Functions…….……………..…………………...
Section 2.4. Synoptic
Semantics………………………..................................................................
Subsection 2.4.1. Signific
Stratum………………………..…………………………………....
Subsection 2.4.2. Syntactic
Stratum…………………….…………………………................
Section 3.1. The Indo-European Family of
Languages……………………………………………...
Section 3.2. Non-Indo-European Languages in
Europe………….................................................
Section 3.3. Living Languages in
Europe……………………………………………………………...
Section 3.4. A European Linguistic
League…………………………………………………………...
Section 3.5. Scripts of the European
Languages………………………………………………….....
Chapter 4. English as the Contemporary Lingua
Franca…………………………………………………...
Section 4.1. The External Extension of
English………………………….………............................
Section 4.2. The Internal Diversification of
English…………………….………………………….....
Section 4.3. Flexibility of
English……………………………………….……………………………....
Section 4.4. Synoptic
Meta-Language……………………………………………….........................
Chapter 5. Synoptic
Models……….........................................................................................................
Subsection 5.1.1. Diacritic (Phonic) Level of the Spanish
Language…….………………...
Subsection 5.1.2. Signific Level of the Spanish
Language…………………………............
Subsection 5.1.3. Syntactic Level of the Spanish
Language…………….…………............
Section 5.2. Synoptic Model of the Portuguese
Language……………….………..........................
Subsection 5.2.1. Diacritic (Phonic) Level of the Portuguese
Language….………............
Subsection 5.2.2. Signific Level of the Portuguese
Language…………………..……….…
Subsection 5.2.3. Syntactic Level of the Portuguese
Language…………….……………...
Section 5.3. Synoptic Model of the Neo-Latin
Group………….…………………...........................
Subsection 5.3.1. Diacritic (Phonic) Stratum of the Neo-Latin
Languages….……….......
Subsection 5.3.2. Signific Stratum of the Neo-Latin
Languages…………………………..
Subsection 5.3.3. Syntactic Stratum of the Neo-Latin
Languages………….……………..
Chapter 6. Synoptic
Functions……….....................................................................................................
Subsection 6.2.2. The Rôle of the
SOFs…………….…………………………….................
Section 6.3. Synoptic Horizontal Functions
(SHFs)……...........……………..................................
Chapter 7. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………....
Subsection 7.1.1. Applied
Linguistics………………...…………..........................................
Subsection 7.1.2. Theoretical
Linguistics……………….....................................................
Subsection 7.2.1. Theoretical
Linguistics.………………....................................................
Subsection 7.2.2. Applied Linguistics –
Translation….......................................................
Subsection 7.2.3. Applied Linguistics – Guidelines for a New EU’s
Linguistic Policy….....
Subsection 7.2.4. Applied Linguistics –
Miscellanea………...............................................
Section 7.3. Open
Paths……………………...……………………………………………..................
A.2. Ethnologue
Languages..........................................................................................................
B.3. Internet
Sources....................................................................................................................
I.2. Personal Index………………………………………………………………………………............
5
9
11
11
17
17
18
21
23
25
28
35
41
41
47
49
54
55
59
62
62
66
68
68
69
71
72
73
74
76
77
77
90
99
111
117
123
128
129
137
143
147
183
187
194
197
203
205
210
212
213
215
215
215
219
223
242
242
245
246
246
248
251
259
269
270
272
272
277
280
285
285
285
286
292
292
303
304
308
311
315
317
317
328
335
335
351
372
375
375
415
441
441
443
445
447
447
450
453
F
H
F
F
H
F
Preface
A prototype or an outline of this book – «Synoptic Approach to the
EU’s Linguistic Variety…» – was originally written in English in
2006, but it was never published. In 2011 the same author published
another book, written in Polish , entitled «Synoptic Method. A New
Vision of Natural Languages in Terms of Theory and Application»
(Polish: «Metoda Synoptyczna. Nowa wizja jzyka etnicznego w
aspekcie teoretycznym i aplikacyjnym» ) . The latter might seem a
modified version of the former, as some fragments of both are
similar. In reality, the two books are autonomous and separate, and
their similarities result from the fact that they have been written
by the same author, whose interests may comprise the whole range of
Linguistics , but he has to concentrate only on some selected parts
thereof; in addition, after having written a few books, his modus
scribendi has acquired a specific character, and – on the other
hand – his research objectives have crystallised, too.
An example of that character may be the terminological indexes at
the end of both books: the English index at the end of «Synoptic
Approach to the EU’s Linguistic Variety» is not a simple
translation of the Polish index at the end of «Synoptic Method»; it
is an extended study of the terminology that is used in the part of
Linguistics that is being analysed in the books in question; some
definitions have been taken from various existing sources, some
have been created by the author of the books.
What is being analysed in the present book mostly pertains to
Applied Linguistics, understood here as a study of two main
fields:
· Foreign Languages Teaching and Learning (FLT/L) and
· Translation Studies.
And all the other sub-disciplines of Linguistics are treated here
as auxiliary instruments to research into the two main
fields.
Pic. P.1. The family of the synoptic books
G
V
F
If there is no source given under the table of the picture, it
means the table or the picture is the author’s own
production.
Both the present book and «Synoptic Method» are theoretical
presentations of the Synoptic Method, i.e. the two books describe
the same Method, so they must contain a common core, but each book
concentrates on different aspects, and – additionally – «Synoptic
Approach…» has been enriched with some new threads whereas some of
the old ones have been modified (heuristically). The theory
presented in the two books has been put to practical use in another
book written in English by the same author entitled: «Synoptic
Description: Spanish, Portuguese, French» (Pic. P.1). There is a
close correlation between «Synoptic Approach» and «Synoptic
Description». Such a close correlation between theory and practice
results from the methodological rules accepted in this book and
strictly observed: theory not verified by practice may be worthless
or even harmful, practice not resulting from a theory may be
ineffective or even counter-productive.
To sum up, the present version of «Synoptic Approach» is not a
revised version of the 2006 prototype or the 2011 book; actually,
it is a new book different from both its 2006 ancestral version and
its 2011 offspring.
It is worth mentioning here that even if a text (or a book) in one
language has been translated into another language, the translated
text (or a book) is always different from the original text (or a
book), which is perfectly rendered by the Italian saying
«Traduttore – traditore» (Pic. P.2).
G
V
F
G
H
F
L
V
F
L
V
F
L
H
F
L
H
F
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Hopefully, it may be expected that the present book represents a
higher academic quality than it might have otherwise, as – on the
one hand – it has evolved for eight years starting from the 2006
prototype and – on the other – there are a handful of theoretical
conclusions to base on arrived at in «Synoptic Method» and numerous
examples to draw from «Synoptic Description».
e
Chapters
e
e
Introduction
This book is an attempt to work out a new approach to understanding
the phenomenon of ethnic languages; this new approach consists in
creating operational models based on the same format of some
selected languages (and groups of languages), and devising two
types of functions:
a) the functions to transform a model of one language into a model
of another language, preferably within the same linguistic group,
and
b) the functions to generate a model of a language starting from
its lowest structural level (phonic stratum) up to its highest
structural level (syntactic stratum).
Both the models and the functions are called ‘synoptic’ here.
The analysis has been restricted to the languages spoken in Europe
(which are mostly Indo-European), especially to the official
languages of the European Union, and is based on the Neo-Latin
(Romance) Group of Languages ; and English has been treated as the
core element of a meta-language and a yardstick.
In addition to its cognitive and theoretical value, the book might
come in useful while learning / teaching foreign languages (FLT/L)
and while translating / interpreting (T/I).
0.1. Overall Methodological Context
The classical algorithm of academic research that is considered to
be the present-day standard and thus commonly recommended is as
follows:
1) A hypothesis is formulated, preferably in the form of a modified
logical implication – ‘if p, then q’ – which is, at the same time,
a cause-effect relation between these two elements (phenomena or
occurrences) – where p = explanans (known, the explanation) and q =
explanandum (to be found, a phenomenon that needs to be
explained).
Tab. 0.1. Modification of the logical implication
Situation
p
q
HA
2) In Tab. 0.1 Situation 1 is the so-called null hypothesis H0,
Situation 4 – the so-called alternative hypothesis HA (H1). It is
rather HA that is tested than H0 because ‘No universal theorem may
be logically arrived at or justified in a certain way on the basis
of theorems on individual cases, however big were their number; and
vice versa – each universal theorem may be logically negated or
rejected with deductive logic thanks to only one case. This opinion
may be illustrated with Popper’s favourite example (actually it
comes from John Stuart Mill): however big were the number of
spotted white swans it would not justify the conclusion that all
swans were white; spotting one black swan is sufficient to negate
the conclusion. …it is not possible to prove that something is
materially true, yet it is possible to prove that some theorems are
materially false…’ Consequently, ‘From the strictly logical point
of view, we cannot claim that a hypothesis is necessarily true if
some facts confirm it. Jumping to conclusions on the truthfulness
of the hypothesis on the basis of the truthfulness of the facts, we
commit a logical error… In the opposite situation on the basis of
facts we may negate the truthfulness of a hypothesis… To sum up…
there is no logic in proving that something is true, but there is
logic in proving that something is false.’
3) The hypothesis is tested repeatedly and the outcomes are
processed statistically (Tab. 0.2). ‘…statistical reasoning
consists in testing a part to discover unknown characteristics of
the whole. ...we always run the risk of committing the so-called
Type I Error (error of the first kind), i.e. of rejecting the
hypothesis that is true; at the same time, we run the risk of
committing the so-called Type II Error (error of the second kind),
i.e. of accepting a false hypothesis. There is no statistical test
that would not be subject to either type of risk.’
Tab. 0.2. Outcomes of the hypothesis testing
In reality
H0 false = HA true
OK (probability = 1 – β)
4) When the alternative hypothesis has been falsified, it is
supposed to be synonymous with the acceptance of the null
hypothesis but ‘…all “true” theories are only temporarily true, as
they have been based on falsification only; to put it differently –
all the material truth we have is included in the theories that
have not been falsified yet.’ On the other hand, ‘…any hypothesis
can be maintained in spite of having been falsified, as its
acceptance or rejection is to some extent the question of
convention.’
Even from this very short presentation it follows that the
methodological classical standard approach is not an effective tool
to be used in scientific descriptions, as it can be only based on
falsification: all theorems are true only temporarily, there are no
absolute truths scientifically acceptable. What is more, the
two-valued logic (or the Bernoulli distribution) is not good
enough: ‘swans’ may be not only white and non-white, but they might
also be green, yellow, red, etc.; a multi-valued logic is
necessary.
There is still another methodological trap in the classical
approach: if there are two events (or phenomena) p and q and they
occur together more often than accidentally and p always occurs
before q, it cannot be said that p is the cause of q and q is the
effect of p. It as well may be an example of «acausal coincidence»
(called also «synchronicity»).
It seems the right place to recall Eugenio Coseriu’s division into
natural and cultural sciences, Linguistics belonging to the latter
category: ‘[…] el fundamento teórico previo de las ciencias
culturales, que se ocupan de lo creado por el hombre, no lo
constituyen las «hipótesis» sino […] el «saber originario»: por
ejemplo, en el caso de la lingüística, el saber intuitivo de los
hablantes, y de los propios lingüistas en cuanto hablantes. En este
sentido, precisamente, las ciencias de la cultura son “más exactas”
que las naturales, ya que su fundamento no es algo que sólo se
supone, sino algo que el hombre sabe (aunque sólo intuitivamente).
[…] el ámbito de la cultura no admite planteamientos propiamente
causales sino sólo planteamientos finalistas. […] No deberíamos,
por tanto, preguntar por qué, por qué causas se dan tales hechos,
[…] sino para qué, con qué finalidad se producen…’ In these words
there is a note that might be identified as the concept of
Verstehen.
Mark Blaug formulates a very similar opinion as Eugenio Coseriu:
‘Beside deductive explanations... biology and all social sciences
deliver numerous examples of functional or teleological
explanations...’ ; and ‘At one extreme we find some “hard” natural
sciences, such as physics or chemistry... and at the opposite
extreme – poetry, the fine arts, literary criticism, etc.; history
and all the social sciences are somewhere in between...’ Mark Blaug
goes even further postulating that ‘...explanations in social
sciences should not refer to physical categories of effects and
causes but to individual motivation and intentions’ and saying that
‘...there is no formal algorithm, nor a mechanical procedure to
verify, to falsify, to confirm... [scientific theories].’
The two above quoted outstanding authorities, one on economics and
the other on Linguistics, claim that methodological monism does not
exist, which means that linguistic research needs a specific
methodological algorithm. As a result, a linguistic research
project may be either hypothetical or teleological, or both at the
same time, or even more complicated.
Yet, according to another outstanding linguist : ‘En el campo del
lenguaje humano las preguntas y las respuestas han sido muchas y
las más recientes parecen dirigirse firmemente hacia la comprensión
de algunos aspectos de la naturaleza de la mente humana y del
comportamiento verbal. Esto ha sido posible porque los
investigadores se han percatado de la incongruencia de mantener la
investigación humanística completamente disociada en perspectiva y
metodología de la investigación en las ciencias naturales. La idea
de que las ciencias del hombre son distintas de las ciencias
exactas no sólo en naturaleza y objeto de estudio sino también en
procedimientos metodológicos y analíticos ya no es
sostenible’.
The opinions quoted above, put together, might seem contradictory;
however, treated as a heuristic sequence they become consecutive
steps in a natural development of science. And they lead to a
conclusion that in order to understand the world the linear
approach is not good enough any longer; a system-oriented – i.e.
cybernetic – perception of the world is much more effective. ‘…the
development of cybernetics is one of the most significant
intellectual steps of all time. Traditionally systems had been seen
in terms of cause and effect linked together in linear chains. With
cybernetics there was a feedback loop from the effect to the
cause.'
Now it becomes clear why an overall methodological context of the
Synoptic Method is cybernetic. Generally, cybernetics deals with
self-teaching systems, i.e. teleological systems that are
characterised by certain parameters changing within a certain range
called homeostasis, and self-teaching resulting from a feedback
mechanism. Cybernetic Linguistics deals with ethnic languages; if
the methodological context of linguistic exploration is cybernetic,
then the explored languages are treated as self-teaching systems.
Some parts of such systems may be analysed according to the above
presented classical algorithm, others should be rather examined
teleologically, but in both cases languages are perceived as
homeostatic systems or models (langues) composed of several sets
and some combinatory rules. Elements from the sets may be arranged
according to the combinatory rules in linear – or syntagmatic –
utterances which are units of speech (parole).
At this stage the dychotomy between Langue and Parole may be
considered canonical. Consequently, exploring a language (which
should be the main task of Linguistics) requires two methodologies:
one for Langue, and another for Parole, as Langue is a spatial
system (preferably cybernetic and homeostatic), whereas Parole is a
set of linear formulae. If we want to talk about spatial Langue, we
need to turn to models (preferably heuristic). It we want to work
out formulae, we need to make use of functions. However, talking
about one hierarchical level of a spatial system of Langue, we may
need functions; whereas analysing linear formulae of Parole, we may
need to turn to models.
Reality per se may exist, but it is accessible for the humans only
through their sensorial apparatus, and in each sensorial channel
there is always a linguistic filter. The image (mapping) of the
reality the humans conceive in their minds may be of different
character (it is either Mentalese or a language), but when they
want to share that image (mapping) with other humans they must
resort to a common language.
( ( (
0.2. Content
The title – «Synoptic Approach to the EU’s Linguistic Variety» –
with the subtitle – «Exemplified with the Neo-Latin Group of
Languages against the Background of English as a Lingua Franca»
precisely defines the content of the book. The title (with its
subtitle) is an intellectual construct that might be broken down
into its constituent individual ideas:
· A synoptic approach… ((Subsection 0.2.1) ((Chapters 2, 5, 6)
;
· …to the EU’s (European Union’s) linguistic variety… ((Subsection
0.2.2) ((Chapter 3);
· …exemplified with the Neo-Latin Group of languages … ((Subsection
0.2.3) ((Chapter 3);
· …against the background of English as a Lingua Franca
((Subsection 0.2.4) ((Chapter 4).
Each of these ideas needs explaining one by one, which has been
done heuristically.
0.2.1. Synoptic Approach
‘Synoptic’ means :
1) of or relating to the first three Gospels of the New Testament
(Matthew’s, Mark’s and Luke’s) as being distinguished from the
fourth (John’s) by their many agreements in subject, order, and
language;
2) any of the synoptic gospels;
3) affording a general view of the whole;
4) manifesting or characterised by comprehensiveness or breadth of
view;
5) affording, presenting, or taking the same or common view;
6) relating to or displaying atmospheric and weather conditions as
they exist simultaneously over a broad area.
Throughout this book the adjective ‘synoptic’ – in its wider
meaning – is used to denote a specific manner or method of
intellectual proceeding; the specificity consisting in putting
together some objects (in the same way the first three Gospels are
sometimes presented) in order to obtain a general perspective,
characterised by comprehensiveness and breadth of view, allowing
thus a standardised description of the objects. In the narrower
meaning the word ‘synoptic’ depicts the method presented here; a
more detailed definition of the method (and thus a more detailed
definition of the narrower meaning of the word ‘synoptic’) will be
given in Section 0.3 of the Introduction.
0.2.2. The EU’s Linguistic Variety
In 2014 there are/were 28 member-states in the European Union:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, (the) Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, (the)
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, (the) United Kingdom. The linguistic variety of the
European Union is composed of 24 official languages. Since its
creation the Union has kept enlarging, and there is no reason why
the EU should stop doing it on. Theoretically, it might comprise
more countries such as: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iceland,
Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, (the) Ukraine, and
Yugoslavia with Montenegro (EU-39 ) ; and the number of the EU’s
official languages might reach or even surpass thirty.
In 2014 the 24 official languages in the European Union were as
follows (after the arrow ( the SIL code of the language):
1) Bulgarian ( = Bulgarski) (BLG;
2) (Serbo-)Croat(ian) [(s:b.kr(æt/e.n)] (hrvatskosrpski =
=srpskohrvatski =) (SRC (or >hbs< or >hrv< or
>srp<);
3) Czech (eština) (CZC;
4) Danish (dansk) (DNS;
5) Dutch (Nederlands) (DUT;
8) Finnish (suomi) (FIN;
9) French (français) (FRN;
10) German (Deutsch) (GER;
11) Greek (Ελληνικ) (GRE (up to 1453 – GRC; since 1453 –
GRE);
12) Hungarian (magyar) (HNG;
14) Italian (italiano) (ITN;
17) Maltese (Malti) (mlt;
18) Polish (polski) (PQL;
19) Portuguese (português) (POR;
21) Slovak (slovenina) (SLO;
23) Spanish (español) / Castilian (castellano) (SPN;
24) Swedish (svenska) (SWD.
And – should new member-states be admitted to the EU after 2014 –
there might be more official languages in the EU:
25) Albanian (Gjuha shqipe) (ALN (Tosk Albanian);
26) Icelandic (íslenska) (ICE;
28) New Norwegian (nynorsk / landsmål) (NRN;
29) Norwegian (bokmål / riksmål) (NRR;
30) Turkish (Türkçe = Türk dili) (TRK;
31) Ukrainian ( = Ukraïns'ka Mova) (UKR.
The official languages of the European Union are only a fraction of
all the living languages and dialects within the Union.
Additionally, there are European countries that are not members of
the Union and some of them even without any prospects of becoming
members; these countries would add a number of languages and
dialects as well. Last but not least, there are countries not
situated in the geographical Europe, nonetheless belonging to the
European civilisation; some of them use Indo-European
languages.
0.2.3. Neo-Latin Group of Languages
In 2014 five out of the 24 official languages of the EU-28 belong
to the Neo-Latin Group; and it is the Neo-Latin Group on which the
Synoptic Method is presented and tested. Altogether the official
languages of the European Union – whether there are 24 or 31 of
them – form six linguistic groups (above the dotted lines – the
national languages of the EU-28; all the languages listed below are
languages of the possible future enlarged EU-39):
A. Germanic Languages (5 + 3 languages)
1. Danish
2. Dutch
3. English
4. German
5. Swedish
1. French
2. Italian
3. Portuguese
4. Spanish
5. Romanian
1. Czech
2. Polish
3. Slovak
4. Slovenian
5. Serbo-Croatian
6. Bulgarian
1. Latvian
2. Lithuanian
1. Estonian
2. Finnish
3. Hungarian
1. Greek (Indo-European)
2. Maltese (Semitic)
4. Albanian (Indo-European)
5. Turkish (Turkic)
The Neo-Latin Group includes many other languages; among others:
Catalan, Galician, Mirandese, Fala, etc. Some of them are
co-official languages in the countries they are spoken.
Generally speaking, each of these linguistic groups – and not only
the Neo-Latin Group – is much bigger; they are presented more
extensively in Chapter Three.
0.2.4. English as a Lingua Franca
Lingua Franca means :
1) a common language that consists of Italian mixed with French,
Spanish, Greek and Arabic, spoken in the ports of the
Mediterranean;
2) any of various hybrid or other languages that are used over a
wide area as common or commercial tongues among peoples of diverse
speech (as Hindustani, Swahili);
3) something (as a system of common interests or social symbols)
that functions like a common language in making individuals
comprehensible to one another <some traditions were a lingua
franca of symbols, dogma, style, and learning survives – Stephen
Spender>.
‘Lingua Franca (meaning 1) is the oldest recorded trade language or
pidgin. So the phrase lingua franca (meaning 2) has become a
standard term for a medium of communication among speakers of
multiple languages’ . Below there is a fragment written in Lingua
Franca (meaning 1) :
‘Peregrin taibo cristian,
Ke no trovar pan ne vin.’
‘Good Christian pilgrim,
For you will find neither bread nor wine.’
For some time now, at least since the end of the Second World War
(WW2), the English language has ranked as a global Lingua Franca.
‘…British English was scattered throughout the world by war, empire
and broadcasting, fostering the beginnings of English as a global
lingua franca.’ English is the mother tongue for millions of its
native speakers, but at the same time it has another function: it
is a means of communication for even more people from different
cultures and languages. ‘The Silicon Valley story highlights the
way in which American English permeates the world in which we live
through effortless infiltration of technology and society. In fact,
there is evidence that within the last decade or so, this process
has evolved to the point where English is no longer wholly
dependent on its British and American parents, and is now a global
language with supranational momentum.’ These two functions of
English (an ethnic language and an international language) were
noticed a long time ago; ‘…in 1930 a Swedish philologist, R. E.
Zachrisson, proposed an international language, essentially
English, to be called Anglic.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson is believed to
have said that ‘the English language is the sea which receives
tributaries from every region under heaven’, and indeed it has been
so for many centuries and as a result the present-day English is
the most flexible language in the world; it has promoted itself to
the level of the present-day global Lingua Franca.
The fact that English is nowadays by far the most popular language
of international communication and that it functions as a global
Lingua Franca goes without saying. But in Linguistics English might
perform a much more important function: it can serve as a yardstick
to describe other languages and to measure their parameters so that
they may be compared later on.
( ( (
0.3. Synoptic Method
The Synoptic Method consists in analysing two or more languages
from the same linguistic group simultaneously after having put them
together. From a methodological point of view the Synoptic Approach
differs from the comparative analysis; the purpose of the latter is
just to identify the differences and similarities in the objects
compared, while the purpose of the former is to create
comprehensive multipartite cybernetic models, operational for all
the languages in question. The Synoptic Method is based on Synoptic
Models (SMs) and Synoptic Functions (SFs). The SMs are constructed
according to one format; the format has some innovative and unique
features. The SFs are divided into intralingual SFs (Synoptic
Vertical Functions) and interlingual SFs (Synoptic Horizontal
Functions). The former operate within one language and change units
of one structural level into units of another higher structural
level. The latter operate within one structural level and transform
units of one language into units of another language. In this book
the Synoptic Method has been restricted to one linguistic
group.
Human beings learn – or rather acquire – a language in a
non-synoptic way only once in their lives: it is when they learn
their mother tongue (or two tongues in the case of bilingualism) .
All other languages are learned and analysed synoptically, i.e.
through another language (or languages), the language(s) already
mastered, their mother tongue(s). The human ability to learn
(foreign) languages may be visualised as a framework, a kind of
function (a transformer or a generator), with the operational
instructions encoded in a meta-language; to learn a (foreign)
language means to arrive at it with the use of such a transformer
or a generator that generates the language learnt by transforming
the native language(s) into the other language. It is worth
mentioning that the whole process is mostly subconscious.
After having agreed that the process of learning foreign languages
(and perhaps acquiring one’s mother tongue too) is essentially
synoptic, the point is to change its subconscious character into a
cognitive (i.e. conscious) action, and to work out the necessary
instrumentarium to be able to do it discoursively and
efficiently.
The cognitive action of learning or analysing a language by means
of putting it through a transformer or a generator with operational
instructions in a meta-language is called the Synoptic Method, the
transformers are called Synoptic Horizontal Functions, the
generators – the Synoptic Vertical Functions, and the inputs and
outputs for these functions – the Synoptic Models.
The simplest way to present the Method is to perform a Synoptic
Analysis on the basis of languages from the same linguistic group,
with high levels of similarity. The levels of affinity within the
Finno-Ugric (or Ugro-Finnic) Group are relatively low, but in spite
of this these languages seem quite similar (Tab. 0.3 & Tab.
0.4).
Tab. 0.3. Comparison of selected words in Ugro-Finnic (or
Finno-Ugric) languages
English
Finnish
Estonian
Võro
bátni
pääni
fog
Number
Finnish
Estonian
Võro
As the levels of similarity are the highest within the Neo-Latin
group compared to the other Indo-European groups, this group has
been chosen as the empirical material to carry out the presentation
of the Synoptic Method. The level of similarity within this group
may be exemplified with the following numbers:
· Romanian has 77% lexical similarity with Italian, 75% with
French, 74% with Sardinian, 73% with Catalan, 72% with Portuguese
and Rhaeto-Romance, 71% with Spanish;
· French has 89% lexical similarity with Italian, 80% with
Sardinian, 78% with Rhaeto-Romance, 75% with Portuguese, Romanian,
and Spanish (and 29% with German, and 27% with English);
( ( (
0.4. Research Algorithm
Just as a first heuristic approximation, language might be
graphically presented as a quadrilateral / quadrangle (AFEFECAC)
with several horizontal layers cut vertically in the middle by line
a (Pic. 0.1). Figure AFBFBCAC (pre-language) is a space in the
human being’s mind to accommodate a language; it is a set of
threshold requirements to construct any human language. At the
language family level this set (BFCFCCBC) is increased by a set of
the features typical of one language family out of the existing 28
ones , e.g. the Indo-European Family. One level higher the number
of the requirements enlarges again to include all the features
typical of the languages of the chosen linguistic group (CFDFDCCC),
e.g. the Neo-Latin Group or the Germanic Group or any other
linguistic group out of the Indo-European Family (if the
Indo-European Family has been chosen at the beginning). At the
final level there is a complete description of an ethnic language
(DFEFECDC), e.g. Spanish or Portuguese or any other Neo-Latin
language (if the Neo-Latin group has been chosen before).
The vertical line (line a) cutting the quadrilateral / quadrangle
in the middle divides the requirements into the ones concerning the
sensorial form F (left) and the ones concerning the intellectual
(or semantic) content C (right) of the language. Even at the
pre-language level the human being must have been given a potential
ability to produce messages meaningful to others; producing such
messages means two things:
· the ability to mentally conceive some ideas, and structure them
into informatively digestible units (the ability to think);
· the ability to give these units a physical form that would be
sensorially perceivable (the ability to communicate).
Ascending from one level to another, both the intellectual contents
and the sensorial forms of the informative units acquire a more and
more concrete shape.
Pic. 0.1. The synoptic concept of the language
e
e
e
e
Quadrilateral / quadrangle AFEFECAC widens from bottom to top
because with each level the description of the linguistic material
becomes more and more loaded and specific. The other quadrilateral
/ quadrangle – FFEFECFC (broken line) – narrows from bottom to top
in order to symbolise the fact that with each level upwards the
continua of both form and content get more and more restricted and
shrunk.
In this context, it is possible to formulate another research
problem. One of the main endeavours undertaken in this book might
be to define the requirements necessary to build an operational
model of an ethnic language (either langue or parole) at three
levels:
· linguistic family level,
· linguistic group level,
· ethnic language level.
The Indo-European family, within it the Neo-Latin Group, and within
this group, the Spanish and Portuguese languages, might be chosen
to be analysed at the three levels respectively.
The research question would be whether such models might have
operational value, computerwise included. This question can be
translated into the following first set of working hypotheses (Pic.
0.2) (H stands for ‘horizontal’):
· for two languages from the same linguistic group there is a
function (
L
H
F
) that transforms one language into the other (or rather the models
of these languages), for example Spanish into Portuguese (upper
index L stands for ‘language’); the input language (Spanish) is the
explanans (p) and the output language (Portuguese) – the
explanandum (q), the function connecting the explanans with the
explanandum may be symbolically rendered in the following way: p F
q, or F(p) = q; if the function is correct, the explanandum (the
output language) will be identical to the existing language
(Portuguese); if the explanandum is identical to the existing
language, it means that the hypothesis H0 has been verified
(positively);
· for two linguistic groups from the same linguistic family there
is a function (
G
H
F
) that transforms the model of the first linguistic group into the
model of the second group; for example the Neo-Latin Group Model
into the Germanic Group Model (upper index G stands for
‘group’);
· for two linguistic families from the 28 existing ones there is a
function (
F
H
F
) that transforms the model of the first family into the model of
the second family; for example, the Uralic Family Model into the
Indo-European Family Model (upper index F stands for
‘family’).
There is another set of hypotheses, the vertical ones (V stands for
‘vertical’):
· there is a function (
L
V
F
) that generates a model of a concrete language out of the model of
the linguistic group the generated language belongs to, for example
Spanish out of the Neo-Latin Group Model; the input (the Neo-Latin
Group Model) is the explanans (p) and the output (Spanish) – the
explanandum (q), the function connecting the explanans with the
explanandum may be symbolically rendered in the following way: p F
q, or F(p) = q; if the function is correct, the explanandum will be
identical to the existing language (Spanish); if the explanandum is
identical to the existing language, it means that the hypothesis H0
has been verified (positively);
· there is a function (
G
V
F
) that generates a model of a linguistic group out of the model of
the linguistic family the generated group belongs to;
· there is a function (
F
V
F
) that generates a model of a linguistic family out of the General
Model of (human or ethnic) Language (GML).
Pic. 0.2. Synoptic Models and Functions – the first version
Consequently, there are six types of Synoptic Functions. These six
types of SFs are divided into two groups: three of these functions
are horizontal (transforming), and the other three – vertical
(generating). In each group there are three degrees or levels (Tab.
0.5).
Tab. 0.5. The system of Synoptic Functions – the first
version
Degree
F
There are four taxonomic degrees of the world’s linguistic variety
(Pic. 0.3):
1) the ethnic language circle (L1, L2, …, Lr), the outer one;
2) the linguistic group circle (G1, G2, …, Gn), the middle
one;
3) the linguistic family circle (F1, F2, …, Fm), the inner
one;
4) the centre of the circle, i.e. the General Model of Language
(GML).
Pic. 0.3. The taxonomic circles of the world’s linguistic
variety
In the outer band there are ethnic languages, in the middle band –
linguistic groups, in the inner band – families of languages, and
in the centre there is just one object – the General Model of
Language. The Synoptic Horizontal Function (SHF) transforms a model
of one object into a model of another object and both objects are
from the same band (level). The Synoptic Vertical Function (SVF)
generates a model of one object (output) out of a model of another
object (input), the output of the SVF being one degree farther from
the centre than the input.
·
L
H
F
·
L
V
F
- the SF that generates a model of a language out of the model of
the linguistic group the generated language belongs to.
·
G
H
F
·
G
V
F
- the SF that generates a model of a linguistic group out of the
linguistic family the generated group belongs to.
·
F
H
F
·
F
V
F
- the SF that generates a model of one family out of the General
Model of Language (GML).
The concept of GML is as a logical consequence of the mental
edifice constructed here step by step: if there is a model of a
language group from which it is possible to generate a language
(belonging to this group) and if there is a model of a language
family from which it is possible to generate a language group
(belonging to this family), it has to be a model from which it is
possible to generate a model of a language family, any language
family, and this model is just the General Model of Language.
However intellectually attractive the above outlined academic
construct might seem, it is definitely two extensive to be explored
in one book. On the other hand, some of the SFs might turn out to
be difficult or even impossible to become operational.
Consequently, the research project that will be undertaken here
must be both moderated and modified, as it has already been
presented at the very beginning of this Introduction (page
11):
(1) out of the three degrees of the horizontal SFs only the ones of
the first degree will be explored, i.e. the SFs that transforms one
language into another (moderation);
(2) the vertical SFs as defined in Tab. 0.5 will be replaced with
the ones that generate a model of one language starting from its
phonic structural level (the phonic stratum) up to its syntactic
level/stratum (modification).
The horizontal functions transforming one language into another
will be called the Interlingual SFs; the vertical functions
generating one language, step by step, from its lowest structural
stratum up to its highest one will be called the Intralingual SFs.
All the inputs and all the outputs of the SFs – both the
interlingual and the intralingual ones – will be either Synoptic
Models (SMs) or parts of them.
After these preliminary remarks, it is possible to present the
research algorithm steps along which this book has been constructed
(at this stage the consecutive steps of the algorithm have a
postulational character, that is why they have been expressed in
infinitives which have an imperative value rather than a
descriptive one):
1) to formulate the research problem;
2) to present the research material and methodology;
3) to organise and structure the research material and
methodology;
4) to select relevant fragments out of the existing linguistic
theories;
5) to compose an innovative ideological configuration that would
constitute a theoretical basis for further research
proceedings;
6) to classify the world’s languages into families and to divide
the Indo-European Family into groups and languages;
7) to explore the possibility for the English language to be used
as the core element of a meta-language;
8) to create a Synoptic Model for the Spanish language (SMS);
9) to create a Synoptic Model for the Portuguese language
(SMP);
10) to devise infralingual Synoptic Vertical Functions (
V
F
SPN
SPN
V
SM
X
F
H
F
POR
SPN
POR
SPN
H
SM
SM
F
( ( (
0.5. Structure of the Presentation
In order to carry out the above outlined plan and achieve the set
objectives the book has been constructed accordingly. The book is
composed of the main body of the text and some Supplements
(Annexes, Bibliographies, Indexes, Lists, Summaries). The main body
of the text, preceded by Preface, comprises eight Chapters
(including Chapter 0):
· Chapter 0. Introduction
· Chapter 3. Linguistic Variety of Europe
· Chapter 4. English as the Contemporary Lingua Franca
· Chapter 5. Synoptic Models
· Chapter 6. Synoptic Functions
· Chapter 7. Conclusions
Chapters are divided into Sections, and some Sections (e.g. 2.2) –
into Subsections (e.g. 2.2.2).
Chapter One defines the object and scope of Linguistics, and
elucidates what language is according to the generally accepted
theories; offers theoretical premises for a classification of the
world’s languages; and revises elements of the existing linguistic
terms and theories that are relevant for the methods, models and
functions presented further.
Chapter Two is a theoretical introduction to the Synoptic Method
(Synoptic Models and Functions) at three levels or strata of
linguistic analysis: diacritic (primarily phonic), signific and
syntactic; it also discusses the question of semantic elements in
the Synoptic Analysis, and specifies what is understood by the term
‘meta-language’.
Chapter Three presents a general classification of all the world’s
languages and a much more detailed one of all the Indo-European
languages divided into subfamilies and groups; describes the other
languages spoken in Europe; suggests a new sort-out of all the
languages spoken in Europe; and finally presents the graphic
systems of language recording currently used in Europe.
Chapter Four analyses the English language, its international
position and inner morphological (understood traditionally),
lexical and syntactic flexibility, with a view to put it into
service as the core element of a meta-language and a yardstick for
other languages.
After having collected a sufficient material and after having
prepared tools, efficient enough, it is possible to set out to test
the Synoptic Method on a selected group of languages; in Chapter
Five the Synoptic Method has been applied to the Neo-Latin
Languages Group, and the models of Spanish, Portuguese and the
Neo-Latin Group are created; this Chapter also presents some
general requirements for the construction of Synoptic Models for
all the living languages or language groups.
Consequently, Chapter Six, being an extension of the previous one,
presents the Synoptic Functions:
· the ones that generate models of languages and
· the ones that transform one language into another.
The former are vertical and are called intralingual; in reality, in
the case of each model it is not one function but a series of
functions – the lexical one, and two syntactic ones (simple and
complex). The latter are horizontal and are called interlingual; in
the case of each transformation also it is not a single function
but a series of functions (phonetic/graphic, lexical and two
syntactic).
Chapter Seven closes the methodological itinerary, verifies the
hypotheses, presents some conclusions and suggests some possible
further explorations.
There are two Annexes:
· A.2. Ethnologue Languages
· B.1. Books
· B.3. Internet Sources
· I.2. Personal Index
· S.1. English
· S.2. Polish
· S.3. Spanish
Pic. 0.4. The structure of the book
The correlation between the research algorithm steps (Section 0.4)
and the structure of the book is as follows (Pic. 0.4):
· Steps 1+2+3 have been put into effect in Introduction (Chapter
Zero);
· Step 4 in Chapter One;
· Step 5 in Chapter Two;
· Step 6 in Chapter Three;
· Step 7 in Chapter Four;
· Steps 8+9 in Chapter Five;
· Steps 10+11 in Chapter Six;
· Step 12 in Chapter Seven.
The main objective of this book is to construct Synoptic Models
(SMs) and Synoptic Functions (SFs). It is conceivable to construct
SMs of:
1) a language ;
2) a linguistic group;
3) a linguistic family.
SFs may be: horizontal (SHFs) and vertical (SVFs). The SHFs may
transform:
1) one language into another ;
2) one linguistic group into another;
3) one linguistic family into another.
The SVFs may generate:
1) one language starting from its lowest stratum ;
2) a language out of the linguistic group it belongs to;
3) a linguistic group out of the linguistic family the linguistic
group belongs to;
( ( (
1.1. Location and Scope of Linguistics
Science may be defined as organised knowledge , and ‘organised’
here means ‘based on a scientific methodology’. The scientific
methodology should supply rules for:
· communication,
· inference,
· intersubjectivity.
The scientific approach requires the acceptance of the following
axioms:
(1) nature is not chaotic,
(2) nature is cognisable,
(4) nothing is obvious by itself,
(5) knowledge is based on experience,
(6) knowledge is superior to ignorance.
There are three purposes of any scientific activity:
(1) to explain (a scientific explanation may be either deductive or
probabilistic);
(2) to predict (a scientific prediction also may be either
deductive or probabilistic);
(3) to understand.
Science is divided into different branches; according to the
Encyclopedia Britannica there are five main divisions of ‘organised
knowledge’ (i.e. science):
1. Logic
2. Mathematics
3. Science
5. Philosophy
3.1. History and Philosophy of Science
3.2. The Physical Sciences
3.3. The Earth Sciences
3.4. The Biological Sciences
3.6. The Social Sciences and Psychology and Linguistics
3.7. The Technological Sciences
3.6.1. Anthropology
3.6.2. Sociology
3.6.3. Economics
3.6.5. Geography
3.6.6. Psychology
3.6.7. Linguistics
If a scientific activity is to be considered an autonomous
discipline, it must have a specific subject of interest and a
specific set of tools to explore it. The subject of interest, for
example, for sociology is human society, for psychology – human
mental activity, for economics – human economic activity, for
geography – the Earth’s surface, for Linguistics (sometimes called
‘linguistic science’) – language.
Language is a very bulky fragment of the human reality,
consequently Linguistics is a very capacious discipline, and may be
divided into several dichotomic sub-disciplines or branches (a
dichotomic division):
1) specific Linguistics (explorations of one language or a group of
languages) versus general Linguistics (explorations referring to
any language);
2) theoretical Linguistics [a theory or a model of a / (the)
language] versus Applied Linguistics (practical
applications);
3) diachronic Linguistics [the history of a language] versus
synchronic Linguistics (the state of a language at one point on the
time axis);
4) inner Linguistics [concentrated only on a / (the) language]
versus outer Linguistics (concentrated on the overlaps of
Linguistics with other disciplines).
For example, this book deals with:
· specific Linguistics (point 1 above), i.e. the Neo-Latin
Languages and English; and with
· Applied Linguistics (point 2).
Yet, on second thoughts, General Linguistics hardly exists as there
are thousands of human ethnic languages, and the so-called
linguistic universals is a very reduced set. On the other
hand:
· a search for a universal language is like a quest for the Holy
Grail;
· specific Linguistics is hardly distinguishable from the general
one;
· theoretical Linguistics contains elements of Applied Linguistics
and vice versa.
In addition, the dichotomy into diachronic and synchronic
Linguistics is a mental construct that no longer helps in academic
research, and the borderline between inner and outer Linguistics is
more and more blurred.
Linguistics overlaps with other disciplines (the outer Linguistics
from the last point of the dichotomic division) creating new – more
or less autonomous – disciplines:
1) Anthropological Linguistics,
2) Biological Linguistics,
3) Computational Linguistics,
10) Statistical Linguistics, etc.
There are some more adjective-modified linguistic disciplines; one
of them is Functional Model Linguistics, which seems to be one of
the possible pigeonholes the Synoptic Approach presented here might
be put in. According to Weinsberg : ‘Representatives of various
linguistic theories that have been labelled here with the common
term “Functional Model Linguistics” do not usually treat these
theories as variants of one common approach (with the exception of
Melcuk; 1974; pp. 19-47). Representatives of each of these theories
constitute separate and exclusive linguistic schools. Among these
schools the most important ones have created the following
linguistic theories (yet none of them is more than an
outline):
1) Stratificational Grammar, invented by Sidney Lamb (1966);
2) W. Chafe’s theory, called by himself a Semantic Concept of
Language (1975; p. 79) ;
3) a linguistic model ‘smysl-tekst’, worked out by Igor Meluk
(1974).
Meluk writes about other theories which deserve – according to him
– to be counted into the Functional Model Linguistics (1974; pp.
15-17).’
Linguistics may be also divided into formal and cognitive.
‘Cognitive linguists often point to a division between formal and
functional approaches to language. Formal approaches, such as
Generative Grammar…, are often associated with a certain view of
language and cognition: that knowledge of linguistic structures and
rules forms an autonomous module (or faculty), independent of other
mental processes of attention, memory and reasoning. This external
view of an independent linguistic module is often combined with a
view of internal modularity: that different levels of linguistic
analysis, such as phonology, syntax and semantics, form independent
modules. In this view, the difference between modules is one of
kind: thus externally, it is good practice to investigate
linguistic principles without reference to other mental faculties;
and internally, to investigate, say syntactic principles without
reference to semantic content. This characterisation of formal
approaches concentrates on its epistemological implications.
Formalism also implies the desirability and possibility of stating
the autonomous principles in ways that are formally elegant,
conceptually simple, and mathematically well-formed. Functionalism,
with which cognitive linguists identify themselves, implies a quite
different view of language: that externally, principles of language
use embody more general cognitive principles; and internally, that
explanation must cross boundaries between levels of analysis… [and]
it is argued that no adequate account of grammatical rules is
possible without taking the meaning of elements into
account.’
Linguistic exploration may cover the whole of a / (the) language,
or it may be restricted to one aspect (or layer / stratum) of a /
(the) language (a stratose division); in the latter case it may be
limited to:
1) the acoustic or phonic stratum, and then the linguistic
exploration concentrates on phonemes or sounds / phones (the part
of Linguistics that concentrates on phonemes is called phonology,
and the part that concentrates on sounds / phones is called
phonetics);
2) the morphological stratum, and then it concentrates on morphemes
(morphology);
3) the syntactic (grammatical) stratum, and then it concentrates on
syntagmas or clauses (syntax or grammar);
4) the semantic values, and then it concentrates on the meaning of
linguistic utterances / texts / messages / lexemes
(semantics).
However, many linguistic research projects cannot be classified
into one linguistic branch exclusively; nevertheless, such projects
usually have its main axis around which the whole construction is
built.
The person who practices Linguistics is called ‘linguist’ and –
much less frequently – ‘linguistician’; the latter term should be
recommended as the former is ambiguous and can also mean ‘fluent in
several languages’. (On the other hand, scholars dealing in
Linguistics should be fluent in as many languages as
possible.)
( ( (
1.2. Language
There are a lot of definitions of what language is. According to
one of them , fulfilling three requirements is a sufficient
condition to regard something a language:
(1) it has to be a text-generating code,
(2) it has to have a phonological (sub-)system,
(3) it has to be polysemantic (polysemous).
The first is obvious, the other two require some comments. Whether
a language to be a language needs to have a phonological system is
not so obvious as in the first postulate; the deaf-mute have no
access to any phonological or phonetic system (at least through
sounds), still they can communicate using a language; besides, we
use a language not only to speak but to write as well. As far as
the third point is concerned, it is hard to imagine a language with
monosemantic signs but still it is conceivable and feasible.
According to Louis Hjelmslev language ‘…aparece… como un sistema de
signos. …una lengua es… un sistema de elementos destinados a ocupar
ciertas posiciones determinadas en la cadena, a entrar en ciertas
relaciones determinadas con exclusión de ciertas otras. Estos
elementos pueden utilizarse, de acuerdo con las reglas que los
rigen, para componer signos. El número de elementos y las
posibilidades de unión de cada elemento se han fijado, de una vez
para siempre, en la estructura de la lengua. El uso de la lengua
decide cuáles de estas posibilidades se explotarán. [...] Los
elementos de expresión de una lengua son muy limitados en número;
por regla general una veintena, muy rara vez más de cincuenta. El
número de sílabas de una lengua puede escribirse a menudo con
cuatro cifras. Pero el número de signos puede elevarse hasta
decenas de miles sin que se pueda, vista la naturaleza de la
lengua, asignarle un límite. [...] Es, pues, la estructura de la
lengua y sólo ella la que condiciona la identidad y la constancia
de una lengua. [...] Pero si la estructura de la lengua condiciona
la identidad de una lengua, está también en la base de la
diferencia entre las lenguas. [...] La relación entre los elementos
y los signos... es el verdadero secreto de todo el mecanismo
maravillosamente práctico de la lengua... siempre se tiene la
posibilidad de formar signos nuevos, sin más que reagrupar de una
manera nueva, pero según reglas bien conocidas, elementos bien
conocidos, ya que las reglas y elementos, por ser poco numerosos,
se aprenden rápidamente.’
( ( (
1.3. Linguistic Analysis
There might be some objective reality, but the discussion whether
such a thing exists or not – being metaphysical – is beyond the
main interest of this book. What may be said according to the
methodological rules mentioned in Section 1.1 of this Chapter is
that each ethnos (= ethnic group) has its own virtual reality, an
idiosyncratic matrix, which might be compared to an underlying
basic operating system in a computer imposed upon the human mind;
what is more, a human group cannot be called an ethnos until it has
developed its matrix. Such an idiosyncratic civilisational or
cultural matrix organises the human space into a codified image
shared by all the members of the ethnic group. The ethnic group
equipped with its matrix is ready to start working out a very
specific coded communication called language; and indeed, having an
idiosyncratic matrix is a prerequisite for a group to develop an
idiosyncratic language, as the linguistic communication always
needs a wider environment to refer to. To be able to perceive a
reality around is one thing, to be able to communicate one’s
emotions and ideas is another, and the language is the only way to
do the latter. Thus, the only reality that a human being is able to
share with another human being (if metaphysics is put aside) is the
one restricted to their common language, which – in turn – is
limited by their common civilisational matrix. It is what
Wittgenstein probably meant saying that ‘the limits of my language
are the limits of my world’ . The relationship between linguistic
knowledge and encyclopaedic knowledge is one of the great open
questions of Linguistics.
‘Charles Fillmore (1982) and George Lakoff (1987) both make similar
claims [on the relationship between linguistic knowledge and
encyclopaedic knowledge] that speakers have folk theories about the
world, based on their experience and rooted in their culture. These
theories are called frames by Fillmore and idealised cognitive
models (ICMs) by Lakoff.’
‘We cut nature up, organise it into concepts, and ascribe
significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an
agreement to organise it in this way – an agreement that holds
through our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our
language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated
one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all
except by subscribing to the organisation and classification of
data which the agreement decrees.’
An idiosyncratic language an ethnos works out within its
idiosyncratic matrix (or a frame or an ICM or the Whorf’s
‘agreement’) is a further codification of its virtual space, or –
in other words – it is a computer program installed in its DOS
environment. Saussure might call this program la langue. And now,
when one human being wants to communicate with another one, (s)he
constructs a message, i.e. produces what Saussure calls (a fragment
of) la parole (speech). The two things – la langue and la parole –
are interdependent, and the character of this interdependency is
very specific. La langue is a spacious system and la parole is its
linear manifestation; the former (langue) may be induced from the
latter (parole), and the latter (parole) may be deduced from the
former (langue). It is hardly possible to imagine une langue
without its parole, and la parole automatically presupposes the
existence of une langue. The French word le langage (Saussurean
langage) and the English word language encompass the meaning of
both la langue and la parole.
The opposition between la langue and la parole is one of the
Saussurean dichotomies, the others being:
· diachrony versus synchrony,
· syntagmatic versus paradigmatic,
· signifiant (pql: oznacznik; eng: significant) versus signifié
(pql: znaczenie; lat+eng: significatum / significatum) .
The last one roughly corresponds to the two Bloomfieldian inherent
parts of any language: its expression and its content; in this book
they are called the sensorial form and the intellectual (mental)
content (Pic. 0.1). On the other hand, the Saussurean opposition of
Langue and Parole may be compared to Chomsky’s competence and
performance.
In linguistic discussions language is very often associated with
two other spheres: reality and thought (Pic. 1.1). At the beginning
of this Section any discussion on the connection between language
and reality has been rejected and left to philosophers. Similarly,
the discussion on the connection between language and thought might
be left to psychologists; this double rejection leads to the
position which might be called linguistic solipsism. However, the
logic of Synoptic Method does not allow to disregard the
relationship between what is spoken and what is thought. The
concept of Mentalese (= what is thought) has much in common with
the concept of synoptic meta-language. Human beings cannot
communicate with each other unless the communication is mediated by
some sensorially perceived objects; but these objects are not
designata, the former are the latter’s morphological parts of the
linguistic signs; twenty-three and a half centuries have passed and
we are still in Plato’s cave. Phonemes are part of the mental
sphere, so they cannot be perceived sensorially, they are mental
models or descriptions of physical sounds (phones). Similarly,
morphemes are not actual forms but their descriptions; semantemes
are not actual meanings but their descriptions, and so on; and
finally, metalanguage is not a language but its description.
Pic. 1.1. The Linguistic Triad [ta.æd]
Language is a multi-level phenomenon; its analysis may comprise the
whole of it, or concentrate on one level or stratum only. In most
cases, when la langue is being analysed, the analysis is usually
deductive, i.e. from a whole to a part; when la parole is being
analysed, the analysis is usually inductive, i.e. from a part to a
whole (Tab. 2.1).
The levels of a linguistic analysis are presented in Tab 1.1
().
· The vertical arrows (( show the directions of the analysis. La
langue is usually analysed deductively, and la parole – inductively
(but not necessarily).
· LF1 is the set of the phonemes of the analysed language; a
phoneme is a cluster of distinctive and relevant phonological
features, presented descriptively. Phonemes are ideas and therefore
can be only understood or imagined mentally, and cannot be
experienced sensorially; that is why the word ‘sensorial’ is in
round brackets. Phonemes (and morphemes) resemble mathematical
concepts. Phonemes are virtual minimal phonic elements, and at the
same time they are virtual formal primary minimal elements,
imagined mentally as if perceived by the sense of hearing. When
imagined as if perceived by the sense of sight they are called
‘graphemes’ (virtual formal secondary minimal elements); virtual
formal minimal elements may also be imagined as if perceived by the
sense of touch, smell, and taste (tertiary minimal elements).
Tab. 1.1. Linguistic analysis
LC5
PC5
· PF1 is the set of the minimal sounds (phones) of the analysed
speech; speech sounds (phones) are phonetic (or phonal) and
acoustic minimal utterances, and may be presented both virtually
and physically, which means they can be both imagined mentally and
experienced sensorially. Phonetics concentrates on the production
of speech sounds, and acoustics – on their reception.
· LF2 is the set of all possible relevant suprasegmental elements
(= suprasegmentals) of the language (la langue), such as: stress,
intonation, tones, etc.
· PF2 is the set of all possible suprasegmental elements of the
speech (parole).
· LF3 is the set of all possible phonic group patterns. A phonic
group is a minimal meaningful utterance analysed from the phonetic
/ acoustic or phonological point of view. The set of phonic group
patterns is a set of all possible combinations of LF1 and
LF2.
· PF3 is the set of all possible phonic groups; it is an infinite
set.
· LC1 is the set of all the minimal language signs; from a strictly
methodological point of view they should be presented symbolically
and defined with the most possible precision. Traditionally, they
are called morphemes and divided into grammatical and lexical
ones.
· PC1 is the set of all the real stems and roots of the analysed
language.
· LC2 is the lexicon of the language, described symbolically.
· PC2 is the lexicon of the language, in the form of a word
list.
· LC3 is the finite set of all meaningful phrase patterns below the
level of the clause, presented symbolically.
· PC3 is the infinite set of all meaningful phrases below the level
of the clause and above the word level.
· LC4 is the finite set of all possible clause patterns presented
symbolically.
· PC4 is the infinite set of all possible clauses of the analysed
language, which may be produced in that language.
· LC5 is the finite set of all possible clause combinations
patterns presented symbolically.
· PC5 is the infinite set of all possible clause
combinations.
In some languages (e.g. agglutinative and analytic ones) the number
of the intellectual content strata may be reduced.
( ( (
1.4. Linguistic Communication
Many linguistic analyses – the synoptic analysis included – seek
the answer to the question what the main function of language is.
Undoubtedly, the principal function of a language is supplying
human beings with a tool thanks to which they may communicate with
each other. A communication tool is always – ex definitione – a
code; a language is the most sophisticated and efficient code human
beings have at their disposal; it is actually a system in which
human beings are submerged. When some human beings want to get
across with their messages to other human beings they have to pass
two interfaces (if they use one language): the one between
themselves and the linguistic system they are using (A) and the one
between that system and their interlocutors (B) (Pic. 1.2).
If one person (Sender) in Pic. 1.2 conceives an idea (s)he wants to
communicate to another person (Receiver) (s)he has to transform
this idea into a sensorial message; in order to do so, (s)he has to
pass his/her mental idea through a black box which is synonymous
with both la Langue and la Parole understood as one thing; as a
result the idea (the Sender’s input) changes into a sensorial
message (the Sender’s output) and becomes informatively digestive
for the Receiver, who again puts the sensorial message (the
Sender’s output = the Receiver’s input) into the same black box and
comes back – hopefully – to the original mental idea (Receiver’s
output). The black box is a function that transforms mental ideas
into sensorial messages and vice versa. Sensorial messages are
composed of a sensorial form and a semantic (intellectual / mental)
content; the overall semantic content is constructed with minimal
semantic elements called – at this stage of the analysis –
morphemes, which are divided into grammatical and lexical; the
overall sensorial form is constructed with minimal formal elements
called sounds (phones) and suprasegmentals.
Pic. 1.2. Traditional vision of linguistic communication
( ( (
1.5. Linguistic Classifications
It is impossible to assess the exact number of human languages.
According to different criteria and/or to different authors there
are 3,000 to 10,000 living languages. ‘The best available estimate
places the current figure [of living distinct languages] at about
six thousand, [of which] only around three hundred have a secure
future.’ The linguistic variety – in most cases – is not of
discrete character , which means that while analysing similar
languages it may be not feasible to determine whether it is one
language with dialects or several autonomous languages ; the test
of mutual intelligibility is not reliable enough . On the other
hand, languages are very different: for example, there is a
language with eight consonant phonemes (Hawaiian) and there is a
language with ninety-six consonant phonemes (!Kung or !Xuun, a
language spoken in Namibia).
Consequently, there cannot be just one classification of the
world’s languages; additionally, even for the same number of
languages there might be various classifications. Generally, there
are three modes to classify languages:
1) the genetic (or genealogical or historical)
classification,
2) the geographical (or areal) classification,
3) the typological classification.
All the three classifications are built on similarities and
differences of the analysed languages. The first mode is
historically-oriented, it goes back to proto-languages and their
off-springs, finally creating family trees of the languages; the
second mode groups the languages functioning in the same
geographical regions in linguistic leagues without regard to their
genealogical provenance; and the last mode classifies the languages
in typological types irrespective of their history or
geography.
The similarities and differences between languages are analysed in
four spheres:
· phonetic and phonological (phonetic and phonological
systems),
· morphological (combinations of lexical and grammatical
morphemes),
· lexical (lexicons of basic words),
· syntactic (sets of syntactic construction patterns),
and quantified by affinity indexes (indices). If the analysed
languages are genealogically related, it should be feasible to
trace back their common ancestors (proto-forms).
(1) The genetic classification dates back to the end of the 18th
century, when historical (diachronic) Linguistics was born together
with its comparative method. The genetic classification is based on
genealogical trees , which have been transplanted into the studies
on the history of languages from the natural sciences, but – unlike
in the latter – in Linguistics the idea has never been finally
codified. The widest category is sometimes called phylum (pluralis:
phyla) or macro-phylum, and beneath there are (in descending
order): macro-family, family, sub-family, group, sub-group,
branch.
Out of these classificatory / taxonomic(al) units, the unit of
family is best defined. The family of languages is:
a) ‘… a set of languages related with one another, and
b) not related […] with any other language.’
All the Indo-European languages:
a) are related with one another, as all of them have had the common
ancestor: the Proto-Indo-European (PIE);
b) and – as it seems – they are not related to any other languages
.
If all the Indo-European languages comply with requirements (a) and
(b), it means that they constitute a linguistic family. But the
definition of the linguistic family is based on one tacit
assumption: language emerged more or less simultaneously in several
places (the view called ‘polygenesis’ ); ‘poly’ means here a
definite number, for example 28.
(2) The languages whose populations have been living close to each
other for a long time might converge not only in their lexicons,
but in their phonetic and grammatical systems as well. These
phenomena are explored by linguistic geography. As a result, there
appear linguistic leagues (e.g. the Balkan league) and cycles (e.g.
the cycle of the languages south of the Sahara).
(3) The beginning of the typological classification is associated
with Wilhelm von Humboldt and his search for Volksgeist (= national
spirit) in ethnic languages through their innere Sprachform (=
inner form of the language) and äussere Sprachform (= outer form).
This classification may be based on phonology (phonological
typology), vocabulary (lexical and morphological typology) or
grammar (syntactic typology).
The earliest typologies, in the field of morphology , identified
four types of languages:
· synthetic / inflecting languages ( possessing inflectional
systems (= declension + conjugation) with changes in the internal
structure of the inflected words, e.g. Greek, Latin, Arabic,
Polish;
· polysynthetic languages ( whose words consist of long strings of
roots and affixes, e.g. Inuktitut (North America);
· agglutinative / agglutinating languages ( possessing affixes
(prefixes, suffixes or infixes) which are glued to the stems
without any changes in the constituent elements, e.g. Turkish,
Finnish, Japanese, Swahili;
· analytic / isolating languages ( based on word order, e.g.
Mandarin Chinese, Cantonese Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian,
Cambodian.
Typological research looks for structural patterns and traits that
occur in all (absolute universals) or most human languages
(universal tendencies). Thanks to such research it has been
discovered that the presence of one feature implies the presence of
another, this phenomenon is called ‘implicational universals’. A
typological method, called Markedness Theory, is closely related to
the study of implicational universals.
( ( (
1.6. The Indo-European Family Tree
The beginning of modern Linguistics dates back to 1786 when William
Jones remarked, ‘The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity,
is of 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 strong 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 philologer could
examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from
some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.’ In 1816
Franz Bopp published his book, «Über das Konjukationssystem der
Sanskritsprache, in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen,
lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache», in which he
confirmed Jones’s observations. For exactly the next 100 years,
between 1816 and 1916, when Ferdinand de Saussure published his
«Cours de linguistique générale» [«Course in General Linguistics»],
most linguists devoted most of their professional time to the
studies on the comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages.
Since 1916 the scope of linguistic research has been significantly
enlarged and diversified, nevertheless the Indo-European languages
have remained its pivot.
Thanks to the over 200-year-old efforts of the innumerable
linguists the Indo-European languages are the best explored
fragment of the world’s linguistic reality. All of these languages
must have had a common ancestor, the Proto-Indo-European, which
6000-4000 years BC started budding. As a result of the first
budding, there appeared two boughs [baz]: the Satem [s:tm] and the
Centum. The Centum bough had six consecutive gemmations: Tocharian,
Anatolian, Italic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic. The Satem bough had
four gemmations: Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Albanian, and Slavo-Baltic
(Pic. 1.3). The Indo-Iranian Sub-Family developed into the
Indo-Aryan Group and the Iranian Group; the Slavo-Baltic Sub-Family
– into the Slavonic Group and the Baltic Group. As a result, there
are 12 groups within the Indo-European Family:
1) Albanian,
( ( (
1.7.1. Semantics
Linguistics is part of semiotics; and semantics is part of
Linguistics (Pic. 1.4). Semiotics is the study of all signs,
whereas semantics is the study of linguistic signs only.
Pic. 1.4. Relation between Semiotics and Semantics
The place of semiotic(s) and semantics has been elegantly defined
by Rudolph Carnap: ‘If in an investigation explicit reference is
made to the speaker, or, to put it in more general terms, to the
user of a language, then we assign it to the field of pragmatics.
…If we abstract from the user of the language and analyse only the
expressions and their designate, we are in the field of semantics.
And if, finally, we abstract from the designate also and analyse
only the relations between the expressions, we are in (logical)
syntax. The whole science of language, consisting of the three
parts mentioned, is called semiotic’.
Pic. 1.5. Semiotic(s) according to Rudolph Carnap
In this book the terms «semiotics» and «semantics» are used as
defined in Pic.1.4, and not as in Pic 1.5. To be more precise, in
this book semantics is the study of the meaning of the whole sign
composed of its morphological (form) and semasiological (meaning)
parts, and the study of the relations between signs and their
consituations.
As stated above, each ethnic language is a code, and a code is a
coherent and autonomous system of signs, and the scientific
discipline dealing with signs – which Linguistics is part of – is
semiotic(s) . In order to call a psychological or
socio-psychological phenomenon a sign, it has to fulfill the
following conditions:
1) it has to be sensorial (perceivable by one of the human five –
or more – senses);
2) there has to be a sender;
3) the sender has to send a sign consciously and on purpose
(otherwise it is a symptom);
4) there has to be a referential system to encode and decode the
sign;