Major Parameters identifying the Branches of Linguistic typology - Английский язык - Рефераты

Major Parameters identifying the Branches of Linguistic typology

Загружено в:

20.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

39 KB

Major Parameters identifying the Branches of Linguistic typology Plan: 1.Genetic diachronic typology; 2.Genetic synchronic typology; 3.Distinctive features of Genetic typology

The scholars who contributed to elaboration of major parameters of Linguistic ty - pology are Roman Jacobson, Vazlav Skalichka, Joseph Greenberg, Boris Uspenskiy, Yuri Rojdestvenskiy, Vladimir Ghak, etc. I. System/Structural identity II. Genetic identity III. Quantitative limitation/non-limitation IV. Areal limitation V. Etic/emic identity VI. Deep and Surface identity VII. One level approach to comparison VIII. Cross-level approach to comparison IX. Content approach X. Formal approach XI. Limitation of ctalon language XII. Completion of typological operations. I. System/Structural identity implies identity of language types. Here we should distinguish between type of language and type in language. a) The type of language is related to structural/typological classification of lan guages is meant. The most popular classification of language types includes: agglu tinating, flexional, isolative and polysynthetic languages. These types are identified based on the unity of leading structural features; b) The type IN lang ua ge is related to the structural features typical for a certain language. E.g. the degree of synthetism/analytism of grammatical forms, presence of phonetic changes (fusion (neib - neicy), agglutination inclusion/ exclusion of grammatical morphemes. a) II. The Genetic identity means historically conditioned material identity of cross language elements characterized by both etic and emic identity (mother (Eng) Muter (Germ); ona (uzb.) - ene (Azer); of the same group of Turkic languages. III. Quantitative limitation of compared languages: a) maximal limitation (2 lan -

guages); b) Minimal limitation (open list of languages); c) limitation by a certain language type (e.g. by agglutination in Turkish and Hungarian languages); d) limita - tion by geographic location; e) by a certain type of linguistic universal, etc. IV. Areal limitation/non-limitation looks at the expansion of a certain linguistic phenomenon which is geographically conditioned (Centum and Satem languages, study of dialects, sub-stratum and super-stratum languages). V. Etic/emic identity. Etic identity means coincidence of material units. VI. Deep and surface identity. S urface structure includes all material units of a language. Surface structure units may belong to different levels of hierarchy. For example, English category of defi- niteness may be expressed by articles and demonstrative pronouns. Deep structure is a generalized language meaning lying in the basis of compared languages. Deep structure maybe of three types: a) minimal or internal language structure; b) typological deep structure, c) maximal deep stricture. Minimal deep structure characterizes the units of content plan of a separate lan guage. Each language has its own categorial notions, e.g. categories of definiteness/ indefiniteness, transitiveness, etc. which constitute a deep structure of that particular language. In such category as definiteness/indefiniteness in Turkic languages is not expressed by articles, while in German, Romanic and other languages the article is very important. Typological deep structure is characteristic to the groups of genetically or struc - turally related languages. This deep structure may be sub-divided into two types: a) typological deep struc ture with etic-emic organized surface, b) typological deep structure with emic orga nized surface. Typological deep structure is with etic-emic organized surface correlates with Genetic typology and is typical for closely related languages. Substantial or etic correspondence at the same time stipulates emic conformity. But we should say that not every language of the same genetic group can have maximal coincidence of the surface structure units. For example, modern German languages stay far from each

other in material conformity. Regarding modern Turkic languages there is a lot of material/substantial conformity. On the basis of etic-emic organization in every language family or language group special areal groups are distinguished. b) An example typological deep structure with emic organized identity: typologi cal classification based on level coincidence (agglutination, fusion, isolation). Maximal deep structure is a common deep structure peculiar to several language types: e.g. analytism /synthetism 1. One level approach to comparison or level isolation. It is effective when comparing closely related languages which have similar level means to express the same categorial notion. E.g. Morpheme of plurality: Uzb -Jiap, flap, Tap, Hap; refer to the same morphological level. 2. Cross-level approach is opposed to level isolation and used to identifycross- level correspondences. For example, how can we compare the category of reflexivity of English and Russian when English does not have a grammatical category of reflexivity. In such cases other level units are used to find correspondences (e.g. self pronouns, etc.) 3. Content approach to comparison is used in case of notional, typological cateegories, lexical-grammatical fields, etc. when common categorical meaning serves as a base of identification and comparison. 4. Formal approach to comparison is related to comparison of language units of the formal level: graphics, transcription, formal structure of syllabus and sentence, punctuation, alphabet, etc. 5. Limitation of etalon language. Etalon language is the object of study for of typological theory. It represents all languages of the world in one language for example, dealing with purposes, scholars distinguish two types of etalon language maximum and minimum(1) is used to identify linguistic universals: grammatical or lexical category, a phenomenon of certain features of a language might serve

etalon or instrument for comparison of compiling languages, therefore it appears the term meta-Ianguage.' 9 6. Completion of typological operations. Any typological operation undergoes two steps: a) synthesis b) correspondence of typological operation may be complete or limited/unlimited. Limitation is possibly to be applied in different languages considering the levels of hierarchy,etc. It mainly depends on the purposes of comparison and research. In both languages there is a possibility to express age on the morphological level, but in English morpheme - ies cannot be used with any other morpheme while in Uzbek other morphemes can be added to -lar, thus showing that English refers to fiexional languages according to its structure and Uzbek is an agglutinating language. The above example illustrates structural non-identity of compared languages. In genetically closely related languages etic and emic identity is observed as is seen in the above table, while etic non-identity is observed in genetically non- related languages. In Turkic languages there is both etic and emic identity (-lar -ler) are used as morphemes of plurality. If compare the Turkic and English languages, there is no identity on the etic level (the level of material units of the language), but there is an identity on the emic level as in both languages plurality is expressed by the inflexional morphemes. d Examples of One level and Cross-level approach to comparison of categorial notion of gender in Russian/Uzbek and English languages. When comparing the Russian and English, or Russian and Uzbek languages using one level approach, in particular, isolate the morphological level, it will be impos sible as there is no grammatical category of gender both in English and in Uzbek. But it becomes possible to compare Russian/Uzbek and English if we

apply the cross-level approach to comparison and go up to the lexical, lexical- grammatical and or syntactic levels of linguistic hierarchy. e. Examples of Content and Formal approach to comparison of English and Uz - bek/Russian languages 1) the system of alphabets 2) the notion of color in compared languages.

Bibliography 1. Modern English in Action, Henry I. Christ, DC Heath and company, Boston 2001. 2. Mountains are climbing, study book, Boston 2003y. 3. English phonetic, A.A. Abduazizov издательство « Укитувчи » Т . 1972 г . 4. Reference guide to English, Alice Maclin, USA Washington 1994 5. Improve your sentence, Ann M. Sala, McCraw-Hill, USA. 1999y 6. Language for daily use Mildred A Dawson New York, 2001y 7. New English voyages in English, Francis B. Connors, Loyola University. Press, Chicago 1991y 8. Writing skills, Suzanne Chance, Clencoe, McCraw-Hill. New York 9. Reading and writing, Natasha Haugnes 10. Contemporary English, Mechella Perrott, contemporary publisher group, Illinois USA. 11. Beginning English writing skills, Mone Scherago, National textbook company, Illinois USA. 12. Lectures of comparative typology, C. Satimov, M. Просвещениею 1991 г . 13. Comparative typology V.D. Arakin, M. «Prosveshenie» 1991 14. Comparative grammar, J.I.

Похожие

Stages of Development of Linguistic typology

Linguistic Typology as a subject

Structural typology and its parts

The Subject-matter of Comparative Typology

Comparative typology and its major distinctive features