Transcript On Some Aspects of Praguian Functionalism

Praguian Functionalism and Its
Challenges for Linguistic
Theory
Eva Hajičová
Charles University, Prague
1
Distinctive features of
Prague School
• Prague Linguistic School: generally characterized by two
attributes:
‘structural’ - common denominator of several
linguistic trends, de Saussure
‘functional’ - a distinctive feature of Prague scholars
• ad (a): recognized the necessity to describe and explain
the collection of language phenomena as a structured
whole rather than as mechanical agglomeration
• ad (b) emphasized that this structured whole – language
– should be understood as a functioning means of
communication
2
Unity in diversity
• the Prague group: never a dogmatically closed body:
united in the basic acceptance of the structuralist
and functionalist standpoint
a great variety of opinion in matters of
implementation of the common principles
• Roman Jakobson (1963, p. 482):
“there is a typical drift which ties the work of all these
explorers and strictly distinguishes them both older
tradition and from some different doctrines … in the
‘30’s.”
“this common drift … (aims) toward a means-ends model
of language”
3
Some historical data
• first meeting of the group of linguists: October 6th 1926
• L’École de Prague: invitational prospectus of the First Int.
Congress of Phonetic Sciences in Amsterdam 1932
• some of the most progressive ideas appeared even in
print long before:
• Vilém Mathesius, 1911 (in Czech): On potentiality …
• the oscillation: serves as an indicator of the forces at
work at any given moment
Roman Jakobson: if Mathesius had delivered his
lecture in Moscow  it would have caused a veritable
revolution in linguistics
4
Basic features of Prague
functionalism
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. The notion of phoneme
2. Teleology
3. Therapeutic changes
4. System of levels, their relations
5. Communicative role of language
6. Function as meaning
5
1. The notion of phoneme
the beginnings of the functional view can be found already
with the students of the Polish linguist Jan Baudouin de
Courtenay (1845-1929)
however: the functional difference ascribed to phoneme
is understood purely psychologically
Praguian conception (Trubetzkoy, Jakobson): the basic
criterion for the determination of phoneme is the
opposition between sounds that is supposed to be
linguistically relevant if and only if it serves to distinguish
between semantically different words or other
morphemes
these oppositions are based on markedness (binary or
not)
6
The notion of phoneme
(Cont.)
definition of phoneme –
• do vs. to: the opposition of d/t distinguishes two
morphemes, words; they are two different phonemes;
• n and ņ: variants of a single phoneme (Cz. ven – venku)
• distribution itself: not a sufficient criterion, since e.g.
Engl. h (occurring only before a vowel) and ng (just after
a vowel) do not occupy a distinctive position, but cannot
be called mere variants
with morphs (lexical and other strings of phonemes): it is
possible to ask the speakers if two of them differ in their
functions or are synonymous (Zwicky)
no anti-semantic bias!
7
2. Teleological concept
Roman Jakobson: the concept of function in linguistics in
the general theoretical framework of finalism or
teleology
• three main sources:
Husserl’s phenomenology,
de Saussure
the Russian formalist school
“A phenomenon x is a means for the realization of an end
F” =
“A phenomenon x has a function f”
 to have a function f is equivalent to ”to serve as a
means for the end (purpose) F”
8
3. Principle of ‘therapeutic
changes’
Jakobson: language system always tends to a certain
balance and the distortion of this balance initiates
changes – which removes this insufficiency – but evokes
imbalance in some other parts of the system and the
process of therapeutic changes continues ad infinitum
 Language was found to be of teleonomic nature – goaloriented system
9
4. The system of levels
the need for a systematic and integrated description of the
relation of functions and forms  to conceive the core of
language system as consisting of levels
the units of the levels have their functions in that they
represent units of the adjacent higher levels, up to the
non-linguistic layer of cognitive content
10
The system of levels (Cont.)
• Mathesius (influenced apparently by Marty):
- adopted the speaker’s point of view
- emphasized the necessity to proceed from function
to form = from needs of communication, common
needs (influenced by
sociology)
 form is subordinated to function
• Jakobson’s structural morphology: from form to function
Leška: such a new arrangement opens the way to a
stratification model of language, introduced by
Skalička (1935) and fully developed by Trnka
(1932, 1943, 1958, 1964)
11
The hierarchy of levels &
relations between their units
• two hierarchies:
(i) the relation between the (units of the) adjacent
levels
Hockett (1961): “R” (representation) relation
(ii) the relation between units of a given level: complex
units composed of more elementary units (morph of
phonemes, morpheme of semes, word of
morphemes, sentence of word form
Hockett (1961): “C” (composition)
12
The hierarchy of levels
(Cont.)
How to account for the two hierarchies:
(i) combined approach - Trnka (1964): four levels, higher
levels impose their categories upon the lower ones,
leaving the choice of effective expedients entirely to
them
- the units of a plane do not only form sequential chain,
but by being signs (realizations, implementations) of
units of the higher order, they are integrated into them
and assume certain qualities that transcend the
characteristics of the mere sum of the units
13
The hierarchy of levels
(Cont.)
(ii) elementary units are understood as having their
functions in the patterning of the more complex units,
which means that the relation of composition C is
repeated in several steps (Daneš)
difficulties: some units (genitive, preterit, … as semes),
subject (sentence parts), actor, locative (syntactic
dependency) appear to be elementary units of different
kinds, not directly connected with any phonemic items
14
The hierarchy of levels
(Cont.)
(iii) levels based on the hierarchy R and within each
level the hierarchy C obtains
Sgall’s (1964) model of functional generative description
y
|
R
|
x -- C -- z
15
5. The communicative role
of language
language adapted to its communicative role:
diversified in more or less different social and local
varieties, open to possible “variation”, to change
(Havránek, Mathesius and others)
 reflected in the system itself: stable (solid central)
core and peripheral domains (irregularities, obsolete or
recent marginal phenomena, need not be in complete
accordance with the laws and tendencies governing the
central core)
16
6. Function as meaning
• in contrast to descriptivism: the Prague scholars a
steady concern for meaning
• Saussurean fundamental distinction between linguistic
(literal) meaning and cognitive (ontological) content –
also discussed by Hjelmslev, Coseriu – instantiated by
Jakobson’s meaning invariants
- later discussed in Prague by Dokulil, Daneš, Leška,
Sgall and others
• one of the crucial points: Karcevskij (1929): vagueness
as a necessary property of the linguistic units, which
otherwise could not denote the ever changing and thus
unlimited phenomena of reality as perceived by humans
17
Prague School Continuation
• Vachek (1966): École de Prague is not simply a chapter in
the history of linguistics
= a groundwork for the younger generations of Czech
linguists to build upon
a testimony of the development of the positive, fruitful
heritage of the Prague theory:
Travaux linguistiques de Prague started in 1964 =
continuation of Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague
- not more than 4 volumes could be published
after political changes:
• renewal of the Prague Linguistic Circle (Honorary
Chairman Josef Vachek and the first Chairman Miloš
Dokulil, followed by Oldřich Leška until his death in 1996)
• new series called Prague Linguistic Circle Papers was
launched in 1995 (John Benjamins Publishing House)
18
Ideas developed
What maintained its value:
• the need for a systematic and integrating description of
functions and forms
• the necessity to proceed from function to form
- free of antisemantic bias
- topic-focus articulation
• due regard to the communicative role, including variation
19
Conclusion
Functionalism presents challenges for
linguistic theory!
20
THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION!
21