Lecture 4. The notion of a ‘language type/ type of a language / type in a language

The content of the lecture:

This lecture discovers the structural essence of typological studies, giving the leading features of such, at first sight, near in meaning notions as ‘ a language type’, ‘type of a language’and ‘type in a language’. In this chapter it becomes clear that the analysis of structural forms in different languages makes the process of their perception more productive and understandable.

Key words: structural type, language type, synthetic languages; asymmetry; analytical languages; type of a language, type in a language,agglutinative type; inflectional (inflective) type; isolating type; polysynthetic; introflective type; common/individual features; typological comparisons; agreement /adjoining; typological significance.

Objectives and tasks of the lecture:

After completing your work over the material of a lecture you should be able to discuss the essence of the notions:

1. a language type: the two versions of manifestation;.

2. type of a language;

3. type in a language.

4. structural types suggested by V.Skalichka

Re commendations for the students on lecture 4: When working over the material presented below it is advisable to keep in mind the common structural features may be characteristic not only for kindred languages but for those of a different genetic origin. Predominantly the structural types of any genetic group are subdivided into synthetic and analytic.

The material for lecture 4:

§1. As we know that typology as a branch of linguistics aims at establishing similar general linguistic categories serving as a basis for the classification of languages of different types, irrespective of their genealogical relationship. One of the main notions in linguistictypology is ‘type of a language ’. To understand this notion better we must remind of a correlation of the common and individual features in this phenomenon It is this unity which makes the essence of the notion ‘type’ in abstract way. To make clear the notion ‘type of a language’ the investigator must put off all which is individual in a composition of a language or in a group of languages in question. All the rest after such procedure will make common features and may be used as an authentic material for distinguishing the structure of language in the whole. Concerning all common features discovered in a language or group of languages I/I/Meschaninov, an outstanding Russian scholar, marked the following:”Common for all languages are not only the relations of the words in the composition of a sentence but also the notions rendered in a language such as substance and process, as subject, predicate, object, attribute with all modal styles, etc. This ‘common’ lies in the basis of all typological comparisons on that ground that grammatical forms in concrete languages do not give some general scheme”. To justify this position will be easy if, for instance, to take the concrete speech units of age from different languages, the grammatical forms of which in their manifestation really do not give a single scheme. Сf.: ‘ему 20;-ep-il a vingt ans, англ. lu is 20 years ted, нем. ist zwanzig jahre alt’, where the full correlation of German and English is evident while Russian falls out of the pattern used.

§2. It is worth noting that the things in the matter of typological investigation are not always so simple as it may seem, especially when the scholar has to deal with the languages not only little investigated but also little known if compared with the civilized and advanced languages. As for instance, if in European culture the notion of substance as some generalized notion is designated through the nouns, characterized as abstract or uncountable, and the procedures of generalization concerning material objects result in concrete, countable nominations, in languages of American Indians such discrimination is purely irrelevant. Logical dismembering of all that exists in this world into material and immaterial for American Indians seems as useless and artificial. One more example in this group of languages seems not less interesting and proves that even in the sphere of notions, seeming universal without any reserve, may be observed rather surprising things. So, in a language ‘houpi’ the grammatical category of plurality through the cardinal numerals is designated only in relation to those objects which may make some real group. They /Indians/ will never say «they stayed ten days; instead ‘houpi’ will say: they left after the tenth day». They never say «ten days more than nine days» but «the tenth day is later that the ninth one».

§ 3. To all that had been said of a language type it is necessary to note that, in spite of the fact of genealogical or territorial belonging of this or that language they are subdivided into two main structural types: analytical and synthetic.

Synthetic languages are defined as languages of the ‘internal’ grammar of the word. Synthetic languages are inflectional because in such languages most part of grammatical meanings and grammatical relations of the words are expressed with the help of inflectional devices primarily.

Analytical languages can be conveniently defined as the languages of the’ external’ grammar of the word. Analytical devices of grammatical expression are preferably used in languages of such type for rendering grammatical meanings and relations of the words

It is necessary to recognize that in modern languages may be observed the features characteristic for some other language type with that essential difference that these alien for a given language features are presented in minimal quantities and the main processes of language building are the result of a leading grammatical tendency. Thus in Russian may be observed purely analytical forms of the Future tense with the auxiliary verb ‘быть’ – я буду читать; superlative in the same language is formed analytically, сf. самый крупный, etc. In English, alongside the absence of such typological feature as ‘agreement’, in case with the demonstrative pronouns we meet purely synthetic forms, cf: this boy - these boys, that town - those towns. This case cannot be qualified as a typological case, i.e. typologically significant, as it is not regular and presented only in four words reflecting a different typology. Though we have all rights to say of such case as’ a type in a language’.

Thus, to conclude our discussion of a language type, we may deduce the following theoretical position:

In typology there are three notions and, correspondingly, three terms the meaning of which is to keep strictly in mind: 1) type of a language, by which is meant the steady totality of the leading features of a language which are in certain relations with the fact of presence or absence of any feature providing the presence or absence of another feature: if we have A, we must have B, i.e, if in a given language ‘agreement’ is the type of a syntagmatic connection in gender, than with the necessity in this language there is a category of gender – велик-е сел-о / велик-а деревн-я (Ukrainian). In English language, where the type of syntagmatic connection is presented with ‘adjoining’, such grammatical phenomenon is impossible; 2) language type, by which is to be understood a stable totality of the leading features of a language which are in certain relations without reference to any concrete language (flective languages, agglutinative languages with the prevalence of their synthetic or analytical features), etc;

3) type in a language, i.е. the presence in one language of the features correlating with the features of another language type. Of specific interest in Modern English are, foe example, the units which by their structural characteristics remind of the nominalized complexes mostly characteristic for incorporative languages and may be regarded as ‘a type in a language’:

-I don’t want to break this marriage up but I like her youth, her animal-like behaviour and don’t- give- -a- damn attitude.

- Perhaps this ‘ What’s his name’ will prepare us cocoa’

- She looked at him with a move-if-you-dare expression”

§ 4. Alongside the theoretical conclusion that the type of a language is sooner defined by the set of structures mostly characteristic for each and every language in question it is possible to add that the linguistic signs can also manifest language type they belong to through the type of realization their ontological property of asymmetry. The property of asymmetry manifests itself most convincingly in all developed languages, making them more expressive and stylistically refined. Though the degree of realizing this propertydepends on a language structural type when the number of different meanings inside the structure of meaning varies. Especially it is evident on the examples of formal units: in a Ukrainian adjective ‘гарний ‘ inflection - ий is polysemantic (gender, number, case), while in English ‘beautiful’ a derivational suffix –ful is monosemantic which is explained by analytical structure of Modern English and, accordingly, the absence of a grammatical category of gender. Though, in Modern English other grammatical morphemes as in ‘a dog’, dogs’, ‘to look’, ‘looked’, ’nice ‘ also express several grammatical meanings at once though not so widely as in synthetic languages: in ‘a dog’ - ‘a’ is a marker of the categories 1/ noun; 2/ number, 3/ countability; ‘dogs’ -zero /-s inflection gives a notion of the categories of 1/ number and 2/ countability; in “to look” the particle ‘to’ signals the categories of 1/ verb, 2/ indefiniteness; in ‘looked ‘ ‘-ed’ gives a notion of 1/ action 2/ time both implying such a feature as ‘animateness’ too, ‘ aa adjective ‘nice’ includes the features of 1/attributiveness, 2/quality and 3/ degree of quality. So the property of asymmetry presupposes the ability of a linguistic sign to develop certain additional characteristics when being used in speech. The type of correlation of the two planes in the structure of a linguistic sign depends on different intralinguistic factors, i.e. those pertaining to the very essence of the language organization – synthetism or analyticism.

5. V. Skalitchka pointed out the main features of language types irrespective of any concrete language and suggested the list of these features though not full:

A – agglutinative type; B –inflectional (flective); C – isolating type; D – polysynthetic; E – introflective type.

Agglutinative type is characterized with the bound cases of agreement between the linguistic elements and monosyllabism. Instead of agreement we may observe here the combination of the elements according to adjoining type. These features are very distinctly are manifested in modern English, cf.: in all cases of relationships the two members of a structure retain their zero indexes – nice boy/ girl/ /cat/ boys / girls/ cats – adjoining, and only in a very few cases as these boys but this boy - partial agreement. Moreover, the word-stock of this language predominantly consists of the monosyllabic words which, in their linguistic status are determined as the root-morphemes – morphological level, and lexical units – lexicological level. Here seems quite reasonable to regard Modern English as language the grammatical tendency of which is analytical. In Ukrainian or Russian we also may see the monosyllabic words but the matter lies ina developed system of case inflections what is categorially not characteristic of the present-day English.

Inflected type is strictly discriminated from other types with the clearly expressed agreement of the components within a structure. The categories of gender, number, case and determination in languages of this type are presented explicitly. Agreement as the type of syntagmatic connection presupposes at least two morphemes structure, i.e. root-morpheme + affixed morpheme, as in Russian or Ukrainian вод + а, сел + о.

In i solating type of a language instead of agreement as the type of a syntagmatic connection we may distinguish adjoining, rigid word order in a sentence structure, the presence of prepositions and various particles to express relationships of the words in a sentence.

For polysynthetic (incorporative) type of a language the presence of word-sentences or nominalized complexes is very characteristic (see above).

Developing Skills in Preparing for linguistic typology:

- Speak on the main principles of typological comparisons;

- Try to discriminate the notions 1)language type; 2) type of a language; 3) type in a language and illustrate your position with the examples;

- Give your opinion on the essence of 1/ synthetic language; analytical language;

- Explain the structural essence of different language types.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11