Linguistics Discussion 2013 and Beyond discussion

Again, the name says it all, this folder is for discussing various linguistic theories which are of significance in the field.

:(:( I thought I was going to be a voyeur on what linguists normally talk about, but there's just an empty echo in here... :P

Well I did just finish a whole unit on sociolinguistics, which to me is the most fascinating element. I learnt about language and culture which allows one to understand that many things can be seen through the lens of culture and therefore explains different uses of language...

Jonathan, any particularly fascinating aspect you might be interested in discussing?

Personally, I'm interested in the fact that the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis, basically that the language spoken in a culture shapes how that culture conceptualizes the world, has been rejected by many modern linguists yet its conclusions still appear from time to time in news articles in the NY Times, WSJ and others (although it's rarely mentioned by name). Here's one such article: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...

Apparently something about this idea, regardless of whether or not the famous hypothesis is widely accepted in the field anymore, seems to resonate with writers and linguists.

Jason wrote: "Jonathan, any particularly fascinating aspect you might be interested in discussing?

Personally, I'm interested in the fact that the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis, basically that the language spoken in a..."

Well it's much like how Freud and Neische get thrown up despite some of their popular ideas being shown to be ungrounded in factual evidence I suppose. Same for Noam Chomsky and his Language Acquisition Device - since it has been better suggested that language is developed in a variety of ways.

The text we were studying did show up the false nature of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. I suppose many of the theories were connected to the idea that language and culture combine together in terms of conceptualising the world. While language can help shape culture, culture equally shapes language.

One theorist (Liddicoat) suggested that there were four ways in which culture worked.

Culture as context: This is the idea that culture – the “customs and expectations of a particular group of people” - provides the context or framework for how an individual understands the world. This is expressed through the use of language.

Culture in text structure: This is the idea that a culture defines and is defined by particular set of texts or genres.

Culture and pragmatics and interactional norms: Liddicoat here provides the idea that culture determines particular ‘norms’ by which interactions occur.

Culture and linguistic form: This final idea is that every language holds or helps create in an individual the sense of a particular perspective of life.

Your course sounds very interesting, Jonathan!
I love the aspect that it investigates language from a cultural POV.

In any case, to me it looks more interesting than the linguistics aspects (I think it it might be part of linguistics--not sure if this actually touches on linguistics proper?) that I've been doing. I've been touching on what I think might be a part of linguistics via media studies and philosophy of language.

So, the angle in my most recent reading matter doesn't look at different languages as I understand most linguists do, but more at how meaning is formed in human language, from semiotics, narratology, discourse analysis etc.

I've been involved with some literature on discourse analysis, text analysis, semiotics and narratology, which had quite a lot of focus on structuralists and formalists.

A large part of it focused on semiotics, the latter being the study of of how meaning is created via sign processes, signs and symbols, or signification and communication. It embraces four main fields of study: The sign, sign systems, codes and meaning.

Theorists we touched on: Tzvetan Todorov, Vladimir Propp and Umberto Eco and Roland Barthes, Charles Sanders Peirce, Jacques Lacan, a bit of Derrida (differance) which for me interestingly ties back to Eco's binary oppositions - I know Derrida's difference (Barthes also touches on this) is in relation to language itself, and Eco's binary oppositions are in reference to the structure of narratives, but the idea of how one defines the other, seems rather similar).

Claude Lévi-Strauss Strauss was also into binary opposites, proposing that binary pairs, particularly binary opposites, form the basic structure of human culture, of human systems of thought (or paradigms), and of all human systems of signs.

Now, interestingly enough, one of the founders of structuralist narratology, Vladimir Propp, started this movement with his analysis of 100 Russian Folk tales (see Morphology of the Folktale ), which divides the narrative of all the folk tales up into 31 common elements.

Initially I thought this would be very interesting, but, actually, I found that dividing narratives up into such basic repetitive functions can become boring. So, I'm with the post-structuralists, I must say...

I haven't read much linguistics to support my arguments, but the coursework we had did include the four ways culture and language work in conjunction as described by Jonathan's theorist. I pretty much agree to it, out of experience.

Traveller wrote: "Your course sounds very interesting, Jonathan!
I love the aspect that it investigates language from a cultural POV.

In any case, to me it looks more interesting than the linguistics aspects (I thi..."

Well looking into the semiotics of language does help with understanding the process of writing I find, but it's more tedious than say the organic process of looking at how language defines culture, identity, gender, sexuality and so many other aspects of life. Which is what sociolinguistics is all about and what I've been looking at.

The linguistics part of my course is done for now, but I'll be able to draw on it for literature studies. For instance understanding how language is developed as a theory is fascinating. Chomsky had the idea of the LAD as I discussed, but it's been shown to have its flaws as language acquisition comes through several things...

Semiotics is tedious indeed. It does give one an interesting angle on narratives and language, especially when it comes to the relationships between signifier and signified, and the creation of meaning, but ultimately its scope is not a complete one when it comes to narratives and literature.

Traveller wrote: "Semiotics is tedious indeed. It does give one an interesting angle on narratives and language, especially when it comes to the relationships between signifier and signified, and the creation of me..."

Certainly not. Language is something that constantly changes and develops...

True, true, though I think that semiotics and structuralism tends to look at basic universal structures and formation of meaning, so basic that it is not really dynamic--it would and should hold true for all instances of human language and even, in some instances, the ways that animals perceive their world.

For instance, part of what it is about stretches wider than language alone, for instance in its various classification of codes.

Language itself, for instance would be arbitrary codes according to Peirce's definition, but there is a plethora of these classifications of codes. For instance, we have social codes, symbolic codes and so forth. Social codes would be, for instance, dress codes- such as swimwear on the beach, but the latter a total no-no at the opera house. Uniforms for the military, black togas in court etc blah blah.

Symbolic codes, for instance would be flags and insignias and, for instance, a cross for Christianity etc.
You get many other kinds of codes: referential, iconic, digital vs analogue etc etc.

Anyway, and narratology, again, looks at the basic structure of narratives from any language, such as for instance Aristotle's observation that narratives (should) have a beginning, middle and end... :D ...which was of course further embroidered upon by people such as Eco (14 constant binary groups), Propp (31 functions)and Todorov (five stages), and Freitag with his narrative triangle which also breaks it into five parts.

So yeah, very structural, actually, which is why it kind of dovetails into structuralism, I guess. But of course, as you also observe, structuralism does not really take note of the organic aspect of language and culture. And as the post-structuralists point out, neither does it address the deeper layers of meaning in narratives or the unique aspects of individual narratives, or the uniqueness of every individuals' interpretation of a narrative.

I've been researching languages and found an intriguing link between Sanskrit [-Indo-European] --a single, ancient, prehistoric language which has led to the development of many languages.. including a fascinating similarity with Latin and Greek.

Sanskrit cognates to more than just Latin and Greek words. Philologists have found that German, Old Norse, Gothic and Old Irish also have similar patterns of words!

It is intriguing when you consider how this philosophical language of Buddhism, is subtly reflected within Greek philosopher's writings or mirroring Religious doctrines..

From the Eliot Wasteland poem, and from the Upanishads, we have

Damyata, Datta, Dyadem

Be passified, give, be merciful.

After reading Guy Deutscher's book on the Unfolding of Language, it strikes me that
Shalom/Salaam in semitic languages could have evolved from Damyata in Proto-Indo-European. They share a similar long vowel, and the Sh/S is a softened form of D, by switching to unsounded fricative rather than sounded plosive, with the tongue on the same part of the hard palette.

Deutscher writes that Akkadian was the prototype Semitic language. Akkadian artefacts from 2000 to 3000 years BC, found in the archaeology of the Indus Valley civilisation are thought to have come from Akkadia, via trade links.

Deutscher is really fascinating with his theories of language evolution and borrowings from external languages. Surprisingly he does not have a chapter on phonology.

The following is interesting:
http://www.openculture.com/2015/10/he...