1

BY JOHN G. FOUGHT

PRESENTED BY CHRIS FARINAFOR LING 739

OCTOBER 1 , 2014

American Structuralism

2

Introduction

Focus: Bloomfield (and Boas/Sapir) Theory of language View of linguistics

Foundations Dialectology IE philology Linguistic anthropology

3

1. Franz Boas

Interest: Amerindian languagesMethodology

Elicitation Fieldwork

Transcription Phonetic accuracy Phonemic categorization

Analysis of tons of spoken discourse Systematic paraphrasing and alterations Covariation of meaning and forms

Ethnographic focus Language as the means culture is transferred Four-field anthropology

4

Boas & Relativism

“Soft”/Community-oriented relativism: “cultural and linguistic categorization is imposed on experience in ways that differ from culture to culture and from language to language” (296) Any such structure is equal to any other Actually means: Stop imposing IE concepts

Theoretical offshoots: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis = “Hard” relativism Ethnoscience = Structure-based semantics

Phonology-type analysis Contrasting pieces compose meaning

5

2. Edward Sapir

Interests: Amerindian languages; psychologyMethodology

Item and process Word order Composition, Affixation, Internal modification, Reduplication Accent (stress/pitch)

Structure/Patterning “…not in some mysterious function of a racial or social mind…” “…outlines and demarcations and significances of conduct…”

(298)

Goal Classify languages by patterns of use (using processes) Include all means of expressing concepts and grammatical

relations

6

3. Leonard Bloomfield

Interests: Tagalog; AlgonquinWhat studying Amerindian languages does to

someone Inadequacy of IE-based systems

Word division is arbitrary and lacks applicable convention

Same structures can’t be used with Am. In. languages Basic analytical element: Sentence, not word

No adequate criteria for word division in Am. In. languages

7

“Introduction to the Study of Language”

Theoretical framework: (Mentalist) psychology

Methodology Applied semantic contrastive analysis to overt forms Organized results of analyses into formal structures Selected/Edited language data to create a norm

Explanation Mental acts Shape and significance of language of…

What is said Linguistics as a field

8

“Language”

Contrastive analysis on overt forms Establish structural categories for each language indiv.

Hierarchical and relational structures Form-meaning correspondence at each level Semantic types created via collocation

Taxemes: Kinds of grammatical forms1.Modulation - suprasegmentals2.Phonetic modification – phonemic segmentals3.Order – sequence/arrangement4.Selection – picks appropriate (sub)classOnly meaningful in their relations/combinations

Natural sciences must provide “exhaustive account of impersonal reality” (300)

9

Bloomfield’s Descriptive Linguistic Work

Tagalog Texts No presupposed structure

Even basic categories (like N and V) are not assumed Arises out of analysis Inductive: Specific data Formal structure

Structure is language specific Not relabeled traditional, IE categories Reflect structural map of Tagalog

The Language of Science Analyzes math as a technical sublanguage “…lost forerunner of the generative approach to

syntax…” (302)

10

4. Distributionalism

Methodology Where/when forms occur

Opposed to semantic contrasts Skeptical of meaning-based criteria

Critical threshold of difference Complementary distribution privileged Two forms with the same distribution had to be different

No true synonymsa) Identical = always substitutableb) Forms with different meanings are not substitutablec) Forms always have different distributiond) Difference in form = distribution = meaning

11

Distributionalism, CONT.

Language structure hierarchy Syntax Morphology Phonology

Layers contain varying levels of meaningZellig Harris

Goal: description wherein free combination is possible No constraining grammatical rules

Account be known by Chomsky

12

5. Summary

Focus on contrastive distribution Not contrastive meaning

Organized distributional relationship by level Top-down/bottom-up relations Syntax, morphology, and phonology kept separate

“The debt Transformational Grammar and linguistics itself owes to these now maligned books and their authors is difficult to measure, but is surely far greater than has ever been acknowledged” (305)