Stages of Development of Linguistic typology - Английский язык - Рефераты

Stages of Development of Linguistic typology

Загружено в:

20.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

41.5 KB

Stages of Development of Linguistic typology Plan: 1. The History of Linguistic comparison. 2. The Major factors fostering development of Linguistic typology. 3. Discussion on different classifications/periodization of the history of Lin guistic comparison and factors of its development

In the beginning of its development Linguistic typology tried to respond the issue of what could serve the basis for classifying the languages into "more primitive" and "more developed". But very soon it became clear that this starting point was incor rect: it turned to be impossible to make a judgment on the level of development of a language basing on its typological characteristics. Absolutely different languages can fall into the same structural type, e.g. English or modern Chinese languages are perfectly developed and have the richest literature. Still they belong to the same type with the language of Tzin folks residing in the North of China and having no letter. Moreover, one and the same language in the course of its development can sev eral times change its structure. E.g. the history of French can be classified into early Indo-European and isolated, late Indo- European flexional, analytical mid-French, and practically isolated modern oral French. The history of linguistic comparison The questions of timing the history of linguistic comparison are quite compli cated and are the ones which haven't yet found their final solution. The history of linguistic comparison is an integral part of linguistic science development, history of linguistics per se which is in its turn bound with the history of nation and cogni tion. Yet there are no generally accepted criteria for timing the history of development of linguistics. In "the Essays on the History of Linguistics" by Amirova T.A., Rojdestvenskiy Yu.V, Olkhovikov B.A." six periods are defined for the history of development of linguistics as a science. As all of them imply systemic comparison, this classification can be to a large extent applied to linguistic typology. I. Theory of naming in Antique philosophy. It established the rules of naming in the frames of philosophy. It also looked at relations between the names and the ob jects of reality. There were 2 main schools of philosophers who supported opposite standpoints (analogists and anomalists) on the nature of names, (motivated and non- motivated names). As the theory of naming did not contain a specialized knowledge on language it was not included into general linguistics; II. The Antique Grammar traditions of West and East. Theory of grammar emerged at this time. It describes language system through establishing relations between linguistic names (and some other parts of language). At this period the basic pri mary grammatical categories — parts of speech were distinguished and described: the names such as the noun (proper and common), the adjective; the numeral; the verb, the pronoun. Also some secondary grammatical categories, i.e. the categories of parts of speech were identified: the category of number, gender, case, mood, etc. III. The Universal Grammar (the first period of scientific linguistics) reveals com mon features of language structures basing on the comparison of languages with different typological structure. IV. Comparative linguistics. That period falls into 3 stages: a) Comparative -His torical linguistics dealing with the study of genetic similarities and relations of lan guages; b) Comparative Typological linguistics dealing with language study and identifying language types irrespectively of their cultural historic origin; c) theory of linguistics which forms philosophy of language and serves the basis of General linguistics.

V. System linguistics working with the language philosophy, basically with psy cholinguistics and sociolinguistics. VI. Structural linguistics which deals: a) study of the language internal structure, formulates between language and other sign systems; 2) elaborates the theory of linguistic methods and strategies thus creating basis for linguistic modeling . Dr. Buranov J. identifies 4 periods in the history of typological studies: 1) Spontaneous or evolutionary. It begins with the emergence of the first linguis tic works. That period was over not long before the Renaissance. In Ancient Greece the language was studied in the frames of philosophy. The major issue which was in the focus of discussion was correlation of substances to their names. Still already in the works of Protagoras and Aristotle there are statements related to distinguishing words, word combinations, linguistic categories like gender, case, number, definition of the sentence, classification of words into names and actions /parts of speech. These works served the basis for distinguishing linguistics into an independent science. E.g. many scholars, while compiling grammars of separate languages used the models of the languages with already described grammatical structures. (The prin ciple of analogy). For example, while compiling the first English grammars the models of Latin were widely used. The first grammars for the European languages were based on the Latin Gram mars. The second period is characterized as a period of establishing the first scien tific comparison of languages and this period is related to the General and Rational Grammar: Port-Royal Grammar by Arnauld A., Lancelot C., 14 (XVII c.) in Indo-Eu ropean languages. Port-Royal Grammar can be considered one of the most precious contributions into development of Linguistic typology. It was developed by 2 French monks in the small abbey Port-Royal in the suburbs of Paris (published in 1660). It is the synthesis of linguistic and philosophic ideas of that time. The languages (French, Latin. Greek and ancient Jewish/ Ides) with different genealogic origin and typological structure were compared basing on the criteria and principles elaborated by Arnauld A. and Lancelot C. Comparative study of Turkic language has its own history. Divan-Lugat At-Turk by Mahmud Kashgariy is considered the most solid work on linguistic compari son of Turkic languages. Mahmud Kashgariy analyzed phonetic, grammatical and lexical units of a group of Turkic languages and defined the level of their genetic relation to each other. Further development of comparative study can be traced in appearance of glossaries and dictionaries, e.g. Turkic-Mongol-Persian dictionary-compiled in Egypt (1245), Latin-Persian Kypchak dictionary (Kumanikus Code, XII c), and other works. One of the most prominent work is the poem of Alisher Navoi "Muhokamatul ai-Lugatain" (Debate of two languages) written in 1499. Navoi compares lexical, grammatical and word building specificities of 2 geneti cally non-related languages: old Uzbek and Persian. Navoi reveals a number of lan guage specificities of Uzbek which did not have direct correspondences in Persian, e.g. suffixes of reflexivity, reciprocity, causation, modality, comparativeness, etc. The third period is related to development of comparative historical linguistics, genealogical and typological classification of languages, (mid- XIX c.)

Linguistic typology has been developing step by step using descriptive and com parative grammars. Thus Linguistic typology can be considered one of the most ancient but simultaneously the least developed branch of linguistics. The Comparative Historical linguistics can be considered the next step of scien tific comparison. The representatives of that field elaborated a complicated system of scientific tools for precise comparison and restoring the origins of languages on pho netic, and morphological levels. At that time the classic genealogical and typological classification of the majority of known languages of the world were developed by various authors.(brothers Shleghel, Sapir, etc.). The Indo-European languages were studied by prominent scholars of the XlXth c. F. Bopp, J. Grimm, Carl Bruggman, F. Ditz, Rasmus Rask, A. Vostokov, F. Mis-telli, F.Fink, E. Sapir, Bodwen de Courtene, E.Polivanov, I. Meschaninov. Since XVII c. the comparative study of Turkic languages was in the focus of the works of F. Tabbert- Stralenberg, O. Beotlikk, V. Radlov, M. Ryasyanen, G. Ramst-edt, N. Dmitriev and others. The 4th period is related to establishing of Linguistic typology as a separate science with the bulk of General linguistics. It coincides with the XX century. In the former Soviet Union the most developed and popular field of compara tive study was comparison of Russian and national languages. The major material for comparison served numerous translations of Russian classics into national lan guages. Lexicography has also got considerable development. At that time the first na tional grammars were compiled basing on the grammar of the Russian language, e.g. the first Uzbek Grammar by Evgeniy Polivanov" used the system of Russian gram mar for description: system of parts of speech, cases, numbers, etc. Major factors fostering development of Linguistic typology The science of linguistic comparison was developing quite slowly and a number of factors played an important role to foster that process. I. The first factor is typological imitation. It is the use of certain methods or mod els of one language while describing the system of another language. For example the first Latin grammar "De Lingua Latina" (117-27 BC) by Varron" was compiled with the use of the ancient Greek language grammars compiled by Greek philoso phers. Varron distinguished six cases (5 in Latin), article and seven parts of speech. The first English Grammars were later compiled on the model of "De Lingua Latina" where Latin served a meta or etalon language . Also while studying certain categories of one language scholars very often use the models of more researched languages, e.g. the ancient Indian models of com pound words are used to describe many European languages (dvandva, tat purusu, dvigu, etc.). 2. The second factor is the appearance of scientific comparative works. Language comparison started with comparison of two languages. Later there appeared multi language comparisons based on substantial similarity i.e. mainly genetically related languages or groups of languages were compared.

The next stage was comparison of genetically non-related languages. Structural similarity is related to identity of structure and types of languages in the principles of their organization. Some lan guages have both genetic and structural identity. Usually these are genetically re lated languages. Currently the most elaborated part of linguistic comparison is grammatical typol ogy. Its component - morphological typology is based on the study of morphemic structure typical for certain languages. t A more systemic comparison starts with the Port Royal Grammar where French, Latin, Greek and ancient Jewish/Ides languages were analyzed. The latter did not have material identity with the rest three languages. The Port Royal Grammar was extremely popular and gave an impetus to rapid development of comparative studies. 3. The third factor of development of comparative language studies is the study of unknown languages or the ones with no letter. There is an enormous bulk of research done on the material of folks and tribes of Latin America, Asia, Africa, Australia, Oceania. The process of study of these languages started with defining the level of their relationship to other, known languages and with the comparison of their systems with the Indo-European languages. 4. The fourth factor is the influence of the translation and translation science. Any process of translation deals with a kind f comparison of the language of origin and the language of translation. A translator needs to deal with comparison of the style, grammatical structure, etc. 5. The fifth factor is the influence of lexicography. The appearance of dictionar ies was bound with applied need to transform and compare languages and national cultures. While compiling bi or multi lingual dictionaries a lexicographer conducts comparison of all levels of linguistic hierarchy: phonetic units, grammatical struc ture, lexical units, word formation, punctuation, etc. 6. The sixth factor is practical and theoretical study and teaching of foreign languages. While studying/ teaching a foreign language a learner/teacher very often goes for comparison of the units of his/her native language with the system of a foreign one.

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

Major Parameters identifying the Branches of Linguistic typology

The Subject-matter of Comparative Typology

Linguistic Typology as a subject

The place of English in morphological and genetic typology of languages

Mastering the sounds of the language