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;