|
Showing 1 - 10 of
10 matches in All Departments
o. Theoretical linguistics is a term not very often used in Soviet
Linguistics. The terms 'structural linguistics', 'mathematical
linguistics', 'applied lin guistics' (which, incidentally, has
another meaning here than in other parts of the world) all may
cover theoretical work in linguistics. In older days serious
theoretical work was done under the heading 'machine translation'.
Very often the need for a special term for theoretically oriented
studies in linguistics does not even arise. Does this mean that
there is no real theoretical linguistics in the Soviet Union? This
would be, of course, a completely false conclusion. Some lin guists
tend to identify theoretical linguistics with generative grammar.
Though it might be true - and I am myself very much inclined to
subscribe to this view - that generative grammar has been the most
fruitful linguistic theory up to now, this does not justify,
however, the above identification. Incidentally, as we shall see
later on, generative grammar has not been left unnoticed in the
Soviet Union either. There are different trends within theo retical
linguistics, one of which is generative grammar. While generative
grammar (though one can worry about the content of this notion for
many. internal and external reasons) seems to be the mean
theoretical trend in the United States and in Western Europe, it
represents only one of the main trends in Soviet linguistics."
In the study of language, as in any other systematic study, there
is no neutral terminology. Every technical term is an expression of
the assumptions and theoretical presuppositions of its users; and
in this introduction, we want to clarify some of the issues that
have surrounded the assumptions behind the use of the two terms
"speech acts" and "pragmatics." The notion of a speech act is
fairly well understood. The theory of speech acts starts with the
assumption that the minimal unit of human communica tion is not a
sentence or other expression, but rather the performance of certain
kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions, giving
orders, describing, explaining, apologizing, thanking,
congratulating, etc. Characteristically, a speaker performs one or
more of these acts by uttering a sentence or sentences; but the act
itself is not to be confused with a sentence or other expression
uttered in its performance. Such types of acts as those exemplified
above are called, following Austin, illocutionary acts, and they
are standardly contrasted in the literature with certain other
types of acts such as perlocutionary acts and propositional acts.
Perlocutionary acts have to do with those effects which our
utterances have on hearers which go beyond the hearer's
understanding of the utterance. Such acts as convincing,
persuading, annoying, amusing, and frightening are all cases of
perlocutionary acts."
In the last decade a profound change has occurred in linguistic
science. Not only have old problems been tackled from an entirely
new point of view but also quite a few new fields of linguistic
research have been opened. The common characteristic of the
majority of the theories and methods developed recently is the
search for a more adequate description of language. Adequacy does
not mean simply that the theory must conform to the facts. It must
also meet the general requirements of present-day theories:
coherence, clear-cut notions, rigor of presentation. It has also
become abundantly clear that linguistic research cannot be content
with the registration and classification of linguistic phenomena.
In one way or another linguistics must try to explain the
deep-seated regularities in language which in general do not appear
on the surface in some straightforward way. Therefore, we find the
attribute 'deep' very often in contemporary linguistic literature.
Linguistic theories seek an explanation for the observed facts in
terms of a system of hypotheses about the functioning of language.
As research proceeds these will undergo essential changes. Some of
them will be waived, others com plemented. The papers of the
present volume follow these general principles of linguistic theory
though they may differ from each other in the way of presentation
considerably. Some of the papers make use of the framework of
transformational-generative grammar (e. g. Kuroda; Perlmutter),
others approach the pertinent problem from a different angle (e. g.
Dupraz and Rouault; Apresyan, Mel'cuk, and Zolkovski)."
The present volume is intended to give an overall picture of
research in pro gress in the field of generative grammar in various
parts of Europe. The term 'generative grammar' must, however, be
understood here rather broadly. What seemed to be an easily
definable technical term several years ago is becoming more and
more vague and imprecise. Research in generative gram mar is
carried on according to rather diversified methodological
principles and being a generative grammarian is often more a matter
of confession than any adherence to the common line of methodology
which can be traced back to the conception of grammatical
description initiated by Noam Chomsky. The direct or indirect
influence of this conception is, however, clearly recog nizable in
most of the papers of this volume. The most difficult thing was,
naturally enough, to select appropriate papers in the realm of
semantics. Apart from the special trend in generative grammar
referred to as 'generative semantics' (though here, too, we might
ponder on what 'generative' really means) the term 'generative' is
hardly employed in semantics. The search for semantic primes, the
application of the methods of mathematical logic, the inquiry into
the intricate relationships between syntax and semantics and the
utilization of syntactic information in semantics are perhaps the
most charac teristic traits of contemporary semantics. All of this,
of course, is at no variance with the principles of generative
grammar, on the contrary, most of it has been made possible through
the achievements of generative grammar."
In almost all principled accounts of questions questions are
related to the corresponding answers. Zellig Harris (Harris
1978:1), for example, maintains that" ... all interrogative
sentences can be derived, by means of the independently established
transformations of the language, from sentences which assert that
someone is asking about a disjunction of statements which are the
relevant possible answers to that interroga tive." This amounts to
the claim that a yes-no question such as Will John stay? is derived
from I ask you whether John will stay and a wh question such as Who
came is derived from something like I ask you whether A came or B
came or ... or X came .. Though in generative grammar
interrogatives are not derived from the corresponding declaratives,
the semantic interpretation of questions is akin to the syntactic
source of questions posited by Harris. Jerrold J.Katz and Paul
M.Postal (Katz-Postal 1964:113-117) state a reading rule for Q, the
interrogative constituent, which boils down to (1) in the case of
yes-no questions and to (2) in the case of wh-questions. (1) Tell
me which of the following is true: John will stay or John will not
stay. (2) Tell me which of the following is true: A came or B came
or ... or X came. Thus, the semantic interpretation of questions
makes reference to the set of possible answers represented here by
a disjunction of statements."
The present volume is intended to give an overall picture of
research in pro gress in the field of generative grammar in various
parts of Europe. The term 'generative grammar' must, however, be
understood here rather broadly. What seemed to be an easily
definable technical term several years ago is becoming more and
more vague and imprecise. Research in generative gram mar is
carried on according to rather diversified methodological
principles and being a generative grammarian is often more a matter
of confession than any adherence to the common line of methodology
which can be traced back to the conception of grammatical
description initiated by Noam Chomsky. The direct or indirect
influence of this conception is, however, clearly recog nizable in
most of the papers of this volume. The most difficult thing was,
naturally enough, to select appropriate papers in the realm of
semantics. Apart from the special trend in generative grammar
referred to as 'generative semantics' (though here, too, we might
ponder on what 'generative' really means) the term 'generative' is
hardly employed in semantics. The search for semantic primes, the
application of the methods of mathematical logic, the inquiry into
the intricate relationships between syntax and semantics and the
utilization of syntactic information in semantics are perhaps the
most charac teristic traits of contemporary semantics. All of this,
of course, is at no variance with the principles of generative
grammar, on the contrary, most of it has been made possible through
the achievements of generative grammar."
o. Theoretical linguistics is a term not very often used in Soviet
Linguistics. The terms 'structural linguistics', 'mathematical
linguistics', 'applied lin guistics' (which, incidentally, has
another meaning here than in other parts of the world) all may
cover theoretical work in linguistics. In older days serious
theoretical work was done under the heading 'machine translation'.
Very often the need for a special term for theoretically oriented
studies in linguistics does not even arise. Does this mean that
there is no real theoretical linguistics in the Soviet Union? This
would be, of course, a completely false conclusion. Some lin guists
tend to identify theoretical linguistics with generative grammar.
Though it might be true - and I am myself very much inclined to
subscribe to this view - that generative grammar has been the most
fruitful linguistic theory up to now, this does not justify,
however, the above identification. Incidentally, as we shall see
later on, generative grammar has not been left unnoticed in the
Soviet Union either. There are different trends within theo retical
linguistics, one of which is generative grammar. While generative
grammar (though one can worry about the content of this notion for
many. internal and external reasons) seems to be the mean
theoretical trend in the United States and in Western Europe, it
represents only one of the main trends in Soviet linguistics."
In the study of language, as in any other systematic study, there
is no neutral terminology. Every technical term is an expression of
the assumptions and theoretical presuppositions of its users; and
in this introduction, we want to clarify some of the issues that
have surrounded the assumptions behind the use of the two terms
"speech acts" and "pragmatics." The notion of a speech act is
fairly well understood. The theory of speech acts starts with the
assumption that the minimal unit of human communica tion is not a
sentence or other expression, but rather the performance of certain
kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions, giving
orders, describing, explaining, apologizing, thanking,
congratulating, etc. Characteristically, a speaker performs one or
more of these acts by uttering a sentence or sentences; but the act
itself is not to be confused with a sentence or other expression
uttered in its performance. Such types of acts as those exemplified
above are called, following Austin, illocutionary acts, and they
are standardly contrasted in the literature with certain other
types of acts such as perlocutionary acts and propositional acts.
Perlocutionary acts have to do with those effects which our
utterances have on hearers which go beyond the hearer's
understanding of the utterance. Such acts as convincing,
persuading, annoying, amusing, and frightening are all cases of
perlocutionary acts."
In the last decade a profound change has occurred in linguistic
science. Not only have old problems been tackled from an entirely
new point of view but also quite a few new fields of linguistic
research have been opened. The common characteristic of the
majority of the theories and methods developed recently is the
search for a more adequate description of language. Adequacy does
not mean simply that the theory must conform to the facts. It must
also meet the general requirements of present-day theories:
coherence, clear-cut notions, rigor of presentation. It has also
become abundantly clear that linguistic research cannot be content
with the registration and classification of linguistic phenomena.
In one way or another linguistics must try to explain the
deep-seated regularities in language which in general do not appear
on the surface in some straightforward way. Therefore, we find the
attribute 'deep' very often in contemporary linguistic literature.
Linguistic theories seek an explanation for the observed facts in
terms of a system of hypotheses about the functioning of language.
As research proceeds these will undergo essential changes. Some of
them will be waived, others com plemented. The papers of the
present volume follow these general principles of linguistic theory
though they may differ from each other in the way of presentation
considerably. Some of the papers make use of the framework of
transformational-generative grammar (e. g. Kuroda; Perlmutter),
others approach the pertinent problem from a different angle (e. g.
Dupraz and Rouault; Apresyan, Mel'cuk, and Zolkovski).
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|