The Subject-matter of Comparative Typology - Ingliz tili - Referatlar

The Subject-matter of Comparative Typology

Yuklangan vaqt:

20.09.2019

Ko'chirishlar soni:

0

Hajmi:

58.5 KB

Ko'chirib olish

The Subject-matter of Comparative Typology Plan:  Typological Classification of Languages  Classification of L inguistic T ypology  Language Universals  Unrestricted universals .  Substantive .  Formal .  Comparative typology  The Port-Royal Grammar

The word typology consists of two Greek morphemes: a) typos means type and b) logos means science or word. Typology is a branch of science which is typical to all sciences without any exception. In this respect their typological method is not limited with the sphere of one science. It has a universal rise. So typology may be divided into: 1. Non-linguistic and 2. Linguistic typology Non-linguistic typology is the subject matter of the sciences except linguistics. Linguistic typology is a new branch of general linguistics, which studies the systems of languages comparatively, also finds common laws of languages and establishes differences and similarities between them. Typological Classification of Languages In linguistics we may come across many terms as to the terminological nature of linguistic typology. They are: 1. Comparative Method, 2. Comparative-historical Method, 3. Comparative (or Contrastive) Linguistics, 4. Comparative Typology, 5. Comparative Grammar, 6. Confrontational grammar, 7. Descriptive-Comparative Linguistics and so on. The terms used in Russian and Uzbek are not exact either. They are: сравнительная грамматика , сопоставительная грамматика , сравнительно - историческое язикознание , контрастивная лингвистика , сравнителная типология in Russian and қ иёсий типология , қ иёсий - тарихий тилшунослик , қ иёсий грамматика , қ иёсий тилшунослик and so on in Uzbek. Classification of L inguistic T ypology

According to the notion of comparison of linguistics phenomenon and the aim directed on we may classify linguistic typology into the following parts. a) genetic or genealogical typology, b) structural typology, c) areal typology and d) comparative typology. Geneological typology is a branch of linguistic typology which studies the similarities and the relationship between the related languages. It is applicated to the systems of genetically related languages. Geneological typology developed from the comparative-historical linguistics dominated during the 19th century in Europe. It’s origin was stimulated by the discovery of Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India. The discovery of Sanskrit disclosed the possibility of a comparative study of languages. The concept of relative languages was confirmed by the existence in India of a sister of the familiar languages of Europe e.g. Sanskrit “ mata” means “mother”, in the accus. case “matarum” dvau - two trayah - three as ti - he is etc. Before the discovery of Sanskrit European linguistics possessed very vague similarities for the current grammars built on the Greek model. They didn’t set clearly the features of each languages. It is worth to mention that at the same time Sanskrit discovery gave rise to confuse notions of linguistic relation which lived for a brief time that European languages were derived from Sanskrit. But this opinion gave way to a correct explanation, namely Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and others were later forms of one prehistorical language. Comparativists gave two kinds of classification of languages - geneological and morphological. Geneological classification deals with the family relationship of languages which descend from one common ancestor. It distributes languages into different families.

Morphological classification deals with the classification of languages according to their structural features instead of a geneological origin. According to the morphological classification the languages are divided into: isolating (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.), analytic (Russian, English, German, etc.), agglutinative (Turkic languages) and others. Genetic Typology compares the systems of languages in two ways: diachronically and s synchronically . But in the second case genetic relationship is not taken into consideration. Structural Linguistic Lypology can be understood as a systematisation of linguistic phenomenon from different languages according to their specific structural features. Structural typological research makes it possible to establish some traits that are universal, unique and special . Language Universals The languages of the world present us with a vast array of structural similarities and differences/ One way of answering this question is to adopt a historical persrective, investigating the origins of language and pointing to the importance of linguistic change/ An alternative approach is to make a detailed description of the similarities or differences, regardless of their historical antecedents, and proceed from there to generalize about the structure and function of human language. There are two main ways of approaching the similarities and differences of language structures: If we look for the structural features that all or most languages have in common, so we are searching for the languge universals ; If we focus our attention on the features that differentiate the languages so we are involving ourselves in language typology. In principle, the two approaches are

complementary (going together), but sometimes they are associated with different theoretical conceptions of the nature of linguistic enquiry. As has been mentioned above the notion of language universals is closely connected with the process of unification of linguistic facts with a process of establishing common features between the systems of different languages. With the process of generalisation of linguistic phenomenon the investigations or language universals began at the end of 1950 s The main event in this field is the international conference held in April, 1961 in New-York. At this conference a report called “Memorandum” concerning the language universals was presented by the American linguists J. Greenburg, Ch. Ostgood and J. Genkins. In the former Soviet Union B.A. Uspensky published his monographic research “ Структурная типология язика ” (1965). In 1966 there appeared J. Greenberg’s book “Language universals with special references to feature hierarchies”. These works were followed by a number of other research works published as articles and special volumes. According to the “Memorandum” language universals are by their nature summary statements about characteristics or tendencies shared by all human speakers. As such they constitute the most general laws of a science of linguistics. Language universals study the universal features in the systems of different languages of the world. They find similarities which are typical of the absolute or overwhelming majority of languages. Types of universals are as follows: 1. Definitional universals, 2. empirical universals. Definitional universals are connected with the fact which the speaker possesses and uses his extrapolation. It means that linguistic phenomenon exists in the system of those languages which the scholar does not know. E.g. Indo-European languages have the opposition of the vowels and consonants. This phenomenon may be considered to be systems of other languages of the world.

Empirical universals are connected with the mental or imaginary experience that is a definite linguistic feature may exist in all languages, secondly he or she does not know if this or that feature exists in all languages. E.g. composition may exist in all languages in spite of their morphological structure. Unrestricted universals . According to this type of universals linguistic supposition of hypotheses is not restricted. E.g. all languages have vowels or for all languages the numbers of phonemes is not fewer than 10 or more than 70 or every language has at least 2 vowels. The universalist ideal is to be able to make short and interseting statements that hold, without exeption, for all languages. In practice, very few such statements can be made; short ones often seem to state the obvious (e.g.: All languages have vowels); and the interesting ones often seem to require considerable technical qualification. Most of the time, in fact it is clear that absoluta (or exeptionless) universals do not exist. As a result, many lanuists look instead for trends or tendencies across languages - ‘relative’ universals - which can be givenstatistical expression. For example, in over 99% of languages whose word order has been studied, grammatical subjects precede objects. And in a phonological study of over 300 languages less than 3% have no nasal consonant. Linguistic features that are ststistically dominant in this way are often referred to as ‘unmarked’, and grammar that incorporates norms of this kind is knownas a ‘core grammar’. Substantive . Substantive universals comprise the set of categories that is needed in order to analyse a language, such as ‘noun’, ‘quesyion’, ‘first- person’, ‘antonym’ and ‘vowel’. Do all languages have nouns and vowels? The answer seems to be ‘yes’. But certain categories often thought of as universal turn out not to be so: not all languages have case endings, prepositions or future tenses, for example, there are certain surprising limitations or the range of vowels and

consonants that typically occur. Analytical considerations must also be born in mind. Do all languages have words? The answer depends on how the concept of ‘word’ is defined. Formal . Formal universals are a set of abstract conditions that govern the way in which a language analysis can be made - the factors that have to be written into a grammar, if it is to account sucsessfully for the way sentences work in a language. For examp;e, because all languages make statements and ask related questions (such as ‘The car is ready vs Is the car ready? some means has to be found to show the relationship between such pairs. Most grammars derive question structures by some kind of transformation. (In the above example move the verb to the beginning of the sentence.) It is claimed that such transformations are necessary in order to carry out the analysis of these (and other kinds of ) structures, as Chomskyan theory does, then they would be proposed as formal universals. Other cases include the kinds of rules used in grammar or the different levels recognized by a theory. Implicational . Implicational universals always take the fom ‘If X, then Y’, their intention being to find constant relationships between two or more properties of the language. For example, three of the universals proposed in a list of 45 by the American linguist Joseph Greenberg(1919- ) are as follows: Universal 17.: With overwelming more-than-chance frequency, languages with dominant order VSO have the adjective after the noun. Universal 31.: If either the subject or object noun agrees with the verb in gender, then, the adjectivenalways agrees with the noun in gender. Universal 43.: If a language has gender categories in the noun, it has gender categories in the pronoun. As is suggested by the phraising, implicational statements have a statistical basis and for this reason are sometimes referred to as ‘ststistical’ universals. Universal implication involve the relationship between two characteristics. If a language has a certain characteristics, it has also some particular characteristics but

not vice-versa i.e. the presence of the second doesn’t imply the presence of the first. E.g. If a language has a category of dual number it has also a category of plural but not vice-versa. Such implications are numerous particularly in the phonological aspect of languages. Comparative typology is a branch of general linguistic typology. It deals with a comparison of languages. Since the end of 18 th century, the chief concern has been to explain the nature of of linguistic diversity. This was the focus of comparative philology and dialectology, and it led to eraly attempts to set up genetic and structural typologies of languages. Comparative method is a way of systematically comparing a series of languages in order to prove a historical relationship between them. Scholars begin by identifying a set of formal similarities and differences between languages and try to work out (or reconstruct) an earlier stage of development from which all the forms could have derived. The process is known as internal reconstruction. When languages have been shown to have a common ancestor they are said to be cognate . The clearest case are those where the parent language is known to exist. For example, on the basis of various words for “father” in the Romance languages, it is possible to see how they all derived from the Latin word “pater ”. If Latin no longer existed, it would be possible to reconsruct a grat deal of its form, by comparing large numbers of words in this way. Exactly the same reasoning is used for cases where the parent language does not exist, as when the forms in Latin, Greek, Sanscrit, Welsh, etc., are compared to reconstruct the IndoEuropean form *”pater”.

IE *pater Clas.Greak Sanscrit Latin Gothic Old Irish pat^er piter pater fadar fathir Latin pater Italian Spanish French Portuguese Catalon padre padre pere pai pare How the reconstructed forms were pronounced is a matter debate; some scholars are happy to assign phonetic values to the forms and pronounce them as if they were part of a real language; others argue that the forms are little more than abstract formulae, summerizing the sets of correspondences. In the 20 th century a new science of lingustics appeared, which continually stressed the variety of languages in the world, partly in reaction against the traditions of the 19 th century prescriptivism,where one language, commonly Latin, had been regarded as a standard of exellence. Since the 1950 s, the focus on diversity has been replaced by a research paradigm, stemming from the work of the American linguist Noam Chomsky (1928-), in which the nature of Lingustic Universals holds a central place. Chomsky’s generative theory of language proposes a single set of rules from which all the grammatical sentences in a language can be derived. The ‘rules’ of a genetive grammar have no implication of sosial correctnes. They are objective descriptions of the grammatical patterns that occur. In order to define these rules in an accurate and economical way, a grammar has to rely on certain general

principles - abstract constraints that govern the it takes and the nature of the categories with which it operates. These principles are concieved as universal properties of language-the properties that are biologically necessary and thus innate (natural). The notion of Universals is important, it is argued, not only because it deepens our understanding of language inits own right, but because it provides an essential first step in the task of understanding human intellectual capacity. In Chomsky’s view, therefore, the aim of linguistics is to go beyond the study of individual languages, to determine what the universal properties of language are, and to establish a ‘universal grammar’, that would account for the range of linguistic variation that is humanly possible. The question is simple: What are the limits on human language variability? Languages do not make use of all possible sounds, sound sequences or word orders. Can we work oyt the reasons? It might be possible to draw a line between the patterns that are essential features of language, and those that no language ever makes use of it. Or perhaps there is a continium between these extremes, with some features being found in most ( but not all ) languages, and some being found in very few. The Port-Royal Grammar Contemporary ideas about the nature of linguistic universals have several antecedents in the works of the 17 th century thinkers. The ‘Grammaire generale et raisonee’(1660) is widely recognized as the most influential treatise of this period. It is often referred to as the ‘Port-Royal grammar’, because it was written by scholars who belonged to the community of intellectuals and religious established between 1637-1660 in Port royal, Versalles. Although published anonimously, the authorship of the grammar has been ascribed to Claude Lancellot (1615-95) and Antoine Arnould (1612-94). Its substitute, refering to ‘that which is common to all languages, and their principle differences... ‘ provides a neat summary of the current preoccupation with

universals and typology. However, the approach of modern lingustics is less concerned with how language relates to logic and reality and more with its arbitrary properties. The distinction between typological and universalist approaches to language study is doubtless ultimately an arbitrary one; and bothe have considerable insights to offer. But the two approaches, as currently practised, differ greatly in their procedures. Typologists typically study a wide range of languages as part of their enquiry, and tend to make generalizations that deal with the more observable aspects of structure, such as word order, parts of speech,and types of sound. In contrust with the empirical breadth of such studies, universalists rely on in-depth studies of single languages, especially in the field of grammar... English, in particular, is a common language of exemplificcation and tend to make generalizations about the more abstract, underlying properties of language. As to N. Chomsky English is a human language, it must therfore incorporate all universal properties of language, as well as thoese individual features that make it specifically ‘English’. One way of finding out about these properties, therefore, is the detailed study of single languages. The more languages we introduce into our enquiry, the more difficult it can become to see the central features behind the welter of individual differences. On the other hand, it can be argued that the detailed study of single languages is enevitably going to produce a distorted picture. There are features of English, for exampe, that are not commonly met with in other languages, such as the use of only one inflexional ending in the present tense.(3 rd person sing. as in ‘she runs’) or the absense of a second-person singular/plural distinction (cf.: French lu/vous). Without a typological perspective, some way, it is notpossible to anticipate the extent to which sense of priorities will be upset. If languages were relatively homogeneous entities, like samples iron ore, this would not be a problem. But typologists argue, languages are unpredictably

irregular and idiosyncratic. Under these circumstanstances, a focus on breadth, rather than depth, is desirable. Comparative typology compares the systems of two or more concrete languages and creates common typological laws. The comparison of the system of languages is based on small systems, i.e. small systems of two languages are compared first of all. E.g. the category of mood in English is considered to be a small system. Having completed the comparison of languages investigator takes the third language to compare and so on. Comparative typology is sometimes characterised by some scholars as characterology which deals with the comparison of the systems only.

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.

O'xshashlar

The subject matter of the theory of translation

The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages

Divisions of the subject of lexicology

Linguistic Typology as a subject

Comparative analysis of the morphological systems of English and Uzbek