Oppa Chomsky Style
domingo, 24 de febrero de 2013
LONDON SCHOOL ACTIVITY
HEY CHOMSKYIERS!!!! LET'S STAR PLAYLERNING!! :)
WITH THIS CROSSWORDS ABOUT LONDON SCHOOL
http://www.proprofs.com/games/crossword/london-school-2/
HEY CHOMSKYIERS!!!! LET'S STAR PLAYLERNING!! :)
WITH THIS CROSSWORDS ABOUT LONDON SCHOOL
http://www.proprofs.com/games/crossword/london-school-2/
The London School
Linguistic
description becomes a matter of practical importance to a nation when it
evolves a standard or “official” language for itself out of the welter of
diverse and conflicting local usages normally found in any territory that has
been settled for a considerable time, and it happens that in this respect
England was, briefly, far in advance of Europe. From the sixteenth century,
England was remarkable for the extent to which various aspects of “practical
linguistics” flourished here: orthoepy, lexicography, invention of shorthand
systems, spelling reform, and the creation of artificial systems.
Phonetic
study in the modern sense was pioneered by Henry Sweet, he was the greatest of
the few historical linguistics whom Britain produced in the nineteenth century
to rival the burgeoning of historical linguistics in Germany, but, unlike the
German scholars based his historical studies on a detailed understanding of the
workings of the vocal organs. Sweet’s phonetics was practical as well academic;
he was actively concerned with systematizing phonetic transcription in
connection with problems of language teaching. Sweet’s general approach to
phonetics was continued by Daniel Jones.
Daniel
Jones stressed the importance for language study of thorough training in the
practical skills of perceiving, transcribing, and reproducing minute
distinctions of speech-sound.
The man who
turned linguistics proper into a recognized distinct academic subject in
Britain was J. R. Firth. Firth’s own theorizing concerned mainly phonology and
semantics he said that the phonology of a language consists of a number of
systems of alternative possibilities which come into play at different points
in a phonological unit such as a syllable, and there is no reason to identify
the alternants in one system with those in another.
Firth
argues that phonemicists are led into error by the nature of European writing
systems. A phonemic transcription represents a fully consistent application of
the particular principles of orthography on which European alphabetic scripts
happen to be more or less accurately based. Polysystemic ignores a
generalization about human language which is valid as a statistical tendency
even if not as an absolute rule. Another respect in which Firth felt that
phonemic analysis was unduly influenced by alphabetic writing was with respect
to the segmental principle. A phonemic transcription, like a sentence in
ordinary European orthography, consisted of a linear sequence of units.
A Firthian
phonological analysis recognizes a number of “systems” of prosodies operating
at various points in structure which determine the pronunciation of a given
form in interaction with segment-sized phonematic units that represent whatever
information is left when all the co-ocurrence restrictions between adjacent
segments have been abstracted out as prosodies.
To
understand Firth’s notion of meaning, we must examine the linguistic ideas of
his colleague Bronislaw Malinowski for him to think about language as a “means
of transfusing ideas from the head of the speaker to that of the listener’ was
a misleading myth. Firth accepted Malinowski’s view of language, and indeed the
two men probably each influenced the other in evolving what were ultimately
very similar views.
Malinowski
clarifies his idea of meaning by appealing to a notion of “context of
situation”.
In a
systematic grammar, on the other hand, the central component is a chart of the
full set of choices available in constructing a sentence, with a specification
of the relationships between choices- that is, one is told that a given system
of alternatives comes into play if and only if such-and-such an option is
chosen in another specified system, and so on.
As in the
case of prosodic phonology, so in syntax the London School is more interested
in stating the range of options open to the speaker than in specifying any
particular set of choices from the range available is realized as a sequence of
words.
In order to
grasp the rationale of systemic grammar, it is important to appreciate that its
advocates do not normally suggest that it is more successful than
transformational grammar at carrying out the task for which the latter was
designed- namely defining the range of grammatical sentences in a language.
Systematic
grammarians claim, with some justice, that their sort of theory is much more
relevant than the generative approach to the needs of various groups of people
who deal with language.
lunes, 18 de febrero de 2013
Prague School Activity
emjoy this activity abut prague school, find the correct words :)
http://puzzlemaker.discoveryeducation.com/code/BuildWordSearch.asp
emjoy this activity abut prague school, find the correct words :)
http://puzzlemaker.discoveryeducation.com/code/BuildWordSearch.asp
domingo, 17 de febrero de 2013
sábado, 16 de febrero de 2013
Prague school
Functional linguistics: the Prague School
In this chapter with a summary I
going to mentions some ones scholars that working in Prague school and theirs
contributions and how influence in others by realized the investigation and
advantages in the linguistics also we can see how this language in the time and
with those differences between words are used in the world.
Vilém Mathesius (1882-1945) a
Czech University of Prague, he published his first call for a new,
non.historial approaches to language study a circle of like-minded linguistic
scholars “”Prague School”. The Prague School practiced a special style of
synchronic linguistics; the term is used also to cover certain scholars
elsewhere who consciously adhered into the Prague style. They analyzed a given
language with a view to showing the respective functions played by the various
structural components in the use of the entire language.
Prague linguistics looked as one
might look at motor, seeking to understand what jobs the various components were
doing and how the nature of one component determined the nature of others.
They used the notions phoneme and
morpheme, for instance; but they tried to go beyond description to explanation,
saying not just what languages were like buy why they were the way they were.
American linguistics restricted them.
Matchesius´s own which has come
to be called Functional Sentence perspective.
Mathesius a sentence will
commonly fall into parts: the theme and the rheme, these divisions will
correspond to the syntactic distinction between subject and predicate, or
between subject-plus-transitive-verb and object.
Descriptivist since these
explanations make unavoidable use of concepts which do not correspond to
observables and are therefore illegitimate by behaviorist standards.
Prince Nikolai Sergeyevich
Trubetzkoy (1890-1938) was one of the members of the Prague school not based in
Csechoslovakia. Trubetzkoy began at an early age to study Finno-Ugric and
Caucasuan folklore and philology; he was a student of Indo-European
linguistics.
Trubetzkoy´s ideas through the
book, Principles of Phonology, which he struggled to finish in his last weeks
of life.
He an the Prague School were
interested in the paradigmatic relations between phonemes, he developed a
vocabulary for classifying various types of phonemic contrast: he distinguished
between privative oppositions, gradual opposition and equipollent oppositions.
Trubetzkoy, in the Principles,
establishes a rather sophisticated system of phonological typology - system which
enables us to say what kind of phonology a language has, rather than simply
treating its phonological structure in the take-it-or-leave-it American fashion
as a set of isolated facts.
The obvious function he called
distinctive function is that of keeping different words or longer sequences
apart.
Delimitative function, it helps
the hearer locate word-boundaries in the speech signal.
Culminate function: there is,
very roughly speaking and ignoring a few critics such as a and the.
In the American tradition there
is no room for such statements. The Descriptivist’s thought of all phonological
contrasts as “distinctive”.
Buhler (1934) distinguished
between the representation function, the expressive function, and the co native
function; distinctions between allophones of a given phoneme.
Another manifestation of the
Prague is that language is tool which has a job to do the fact that members of
that School were much preoccupied with the aesthetic, literary aspects of
language use.
Mathesius changes were to be explained
as the result of various conflicting pressures; for instance, the need for a
language to have a large variety of phonetic shapes available to keep its words
distinct conflicts with the need for speech to be comprehensible despite
inevitably inexact pronunciation.
Frenchman, Andre Martiner, the
scholar who has done most to turn the therapeutic view of sound change into an explicit, sophisticated theory, he describe
the chief proponent of mainstream Prague ideas, the book, Economie des
Changements Phonetiques.
The key concepts in Martiner account
is that of the functional yield of a phonological opposition. The functional
yeld of phonological oppositions the amount of work it does in distinguishing
utterances which are otherwise alike.
Martinet argues the pronunciation
of similar phonemes will overlap and will tend to merge.
King and Wang have tested the
hypothesis by evolving explicit, numerical measures of functional wields and
comparing the known histories of certain languages with the predictions which
follows from these statics.
Roman Osipovich Jakobson is a
scholar of Russian origins (1920), he was one of the founding members of the
Prague Linguistics Circle.
He represents one of the very few
personal links between European and American traditions of linguistics. Jacobson’s
work is his phonological theory, but his views represents a special development
which takes to their logical extreme ideas that are found only briefly
adumbrated in the work of Trubetzkoy and other members of the School.
The approach of Jakobson is the
notion that there is a relatively simple, universal psychological system of
sounds underlying the chaotic wealth of different kinds of sounds observed by
the phonetician.
Jakobson and his collaborates,
distinctive means is able to be used distinctively in a human language will
actually make use of almost all the twelve features.
An important part of the theory
is that certain physically quite distinct articulator parameters are
psychologically equivalent, as one might say.
Flat represents interchangeably
each of the following articulatory parameter values; pharyngalization: and
retroflex articulation.
Jakobson makes the point, to
begin with, that a study of children´s acquisition of language shows that the
various distinctions are by no means mastered in a random order.
Jakobson dismisses with some
scorn, as “completely untenable”, such alternative explanations for
synaesthetic associations.
Jacobson’s statements about
aphasia also seem to be based on very few cases. Preliminaries to Speech
Analysis consist essentially of a series of ex cathedra pronouncements about
the identity by Jacobson’s twelve features.
One of the characteristic of the
Prague approach to language was a readiness to acknowledge that a given
language might include a range of alternative system, registers, or styles,
where American Descriptive tended to insist on treating a language as a single
unitary system.
Prague scholars were interred in
the way a range of speech-styles appropriate to different social setting. This
aspect has recently been developed into a rich and sophisticated theory by the
American William Labov 1970, he recorded interviews with sizable samples, the
interviews being designed to elicit examples of some linguistics form- a variable
– which is known to be realized in a variety of ways in that community.
Labov´s work is the subtlety,
consistency and mathematical it reveals in speakers ‘use of statistical
linguistic variables and heares´reactions to them.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)