Structuralism (Chapter 4: The Descriptive Period)
Structuralism began its evolution in the 19th century due to historical-comparative studies. This view has two powerful ideas on language development. The first idea is that language can be studied irrespective of its history and genetic relationships to other languages. Idea #1 derives from Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), a Swiss professor of linguistics at the University of Geneva. Even though he published little while he was alive, three years after his death he came to be known as the "father" of structural linguistics because of his impact on the development of linguistics as a field of study. Saussure had the idea to differentiate diachronic and synchronic linguistics. Diachronic being the study of relations that bind together successive terms not perceived by the collective mind but submitted for each other without forming a system. And synchronic concerns with the logical and psychological relations that together coexisting terms and form a system in the collective mind of speakers. To conclude idea #1, Saussure viewed two items in one language as a structure and two items in two different languages as outside the psychological system of the speakers.
The second idea that linguistics is properly viewed as a physical science was formed by an American Linguistic, Leonard Bloomfield. Bloomfield showed two influences of his linguistic view. One was that his work involved the analysis of American Indian languages, and secondly that the influence was based on behaviorist psychology, brought on by the American psychologist J.B. Watson. Bloomfield and his followers reduced the study of language as a whole down to only focus on the study of physical speech. They viewed language as a habit of an uncomplicated organism that learned sentences and words only to fill them with vague memory and association. Edward Sapir (1884-1939) was not a behaviorist; his group came out of anthropology and never adhered to behaviorism. Sapir used the study of language as a mental reality in his work, "La Realite' Psychologique des Phonemes." Sapir and his best known student, Benjamin Whorf (1897-1941), came up with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and published it in a series of articles written from 1936-1938. The Hypothesis stated that the structure of a person's language (especially syntax and morphology, or word structure) influences non-linguistic activity and the person's view of reality. Although, Bloomfield and Sapir had dramatically different views on idea #2, they had very similar careers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree with the first idea: language can be studied without focusing on information regarding its origin, development, etc. I don't know if anyone is trying to say this, but I wouldn't agree that this should be the only approach to study or instruction. How could information on origin not provide insight to the study of a living language and how could it not aid in aquisition of a language or an understanding of its innner workings (or at least support what is learned)?
As for the influencing reality part of idea 2, I entirely agree. Language can work to exclude or include certain ideas from conversation. Has anyone read -1984-?
Language origins must be known and understood in order to fully analyze language. Just analyzing modern language leaves out so many of the nuances and subtleties that have stood the test of time.
As far as language influence reality, the whole nature of reality hinges on language, and how the nature of the world is spoken or written. Without language, reality could not truly exist.
Language can be studied by itself, but to really, truly understand a language, origins should be studied as well. Besides, etymology is fascinating! You can learn so much just by looking at how words are made and where they come from.
Language origins can be an interesting topic to learn. I agree that it is important for people to learn. If you only take into account what is happening now with the language you would not fully be able to understand it. You have to see where the language came from to fully understand where it is going.
I believe that you must know the origin of a language to fully understand. It will make more sense to know the origin and help you in the long run learn the language. You have to understand the language in order to succeed.
I think the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is right. The way a person speaks their language influences the way they view the environment around them. We can only identify things around them by using our language. Therefore, if there is not a word in our language that can describe what we see, then it will affect how we view it.
I don't know that language can be studied irrespective of its history. The history of a language is very important in understanding how it has changed.
I agree with my fellow classmates that the origin of language needs to be understood if you want to be an effective communicator. I love when I hear a word for the first time and can then apply it to my verbal as well as written work because I have a general understanding of what the word now means do to the fact I looked up its origin. Language use and words are a true thing of beauty. Language is constantly changing on a day to day basis, so therefore it is essential that we as a society understand the importance of language and where it came from. Fully understanding language means putting in the time and effort to discover where it originated.
If there was no reason to study languages no one would. Plus, we need to know why languages are the way they are. It is like if we didn't know history then we would be doomed to repeat. It is the only way to understand it fully. I agree with the most of the summary though.
I agree that you should study the origin of the language, not just the language itself. Languages evolve so much over the course of the years that it is important to go all the way back to see where they started and why they changed.
I believe that it is a good idea to learn the origin of a language that you are trying to learn. I believe that if you don't know the origin of a language, you will never get the real meaning behind it. It also might be fun to learn about language origins. Although learning a language can be done without knowing the origin, I believe that it will benefit you in the end by learning it.
Post a Comment