пятница, 24 февраля 2012 г.

Linguofolkloristics.Genres of Folklore




         In  modern  usage     folklore  is  an   academic   discipline  the   subject   matter  of   which  comprises  the   sum   total   of   traditionally   derived   and  orally   or   imitatively   transmitted   literature   material   culture  and   custom  of   subcultures   within  predominantly   literate   and   technologically   advanced   societies. Comparable  study   among   wholly  or  mainly   non-literate   societies  belongs   to  the   discipline  of   ethnology   and   anthropology. In   popular   usage   the  term   folklore   is   sometimes   restricted   to  the  oral  literature   tradition.
Folklore   studies  began  in  the   early   19-th   century. The   first  folklorists  concentrated   exclusively   upon   rural   peasants, preferably   uneducated. Their   aim   was   to   trace  preserved   archaic   customs  and   beliefs  to their  remote   origins in  order  to  trace  the  mental  history  of  mankind. In  Germany   Jacob   Grimm   used   folklore  to  illuminate   Germanic   religion  of  the  Dark  ages. In  Britain  Sir   Edward   Tylor  Andrew   Lang    and   others  combined  data   from  anthropology    and   folklore   to ‘reconstruct’  the  beliefs  and    rituals   of   prehistoric   man. The  best-known   work  of  this  type  is  Sir  Thomas  Frazer’s “The   Golden   Bow”(1890).
Large   collections  of material   were    amassed  in  the   course  of  these   efforts. Inspired  by  the  Grimm  Brothers  , whose   first  collection of   fairy   tales   appeared  in  1812   scholars  all  over   Europe  began  recording   and  publishing   oral  literature  of  many   genres: fairy   tales  and  other   types   of   folktales, ballads   and  other  songs, oral  epics, folk   plays, riddles, proverbs  etc. Similar   work   was  undertaken   for   music   dance  and   traditional   arts  and   crafts; many   archives  and  museums   were   founded.. Often the  underlying   impulse   was   nationalistic; since  the  folklore   of  a   group  reinforced   its  sense of   ethnic  identity, it   figured  prominently  in  many   struggles   for   independence   and   national  unity. As  the   scholarship  of  folklore  developed   an  important   advance   was  the  classification   of   material   for  comparative  analysis. Standards  of   identification   were  devised   notably   for  ballads( by   F. J. Child)    and  for  the  plots   and  component   motives of  folktales   and   myths( by  Antti   Aarne   and   Stith   Thompson).
Using   these    Finnish  scholars   led   by  Kaarle   Krohn, developed  the  ‘historical  geographical’  method  of  research, in  which   every   known   variant  of  a  particular   tale, ballad, riddle   was   classified   as  to  place  and   date  of   collection   in  order  to   study   distribution  patterns  and   reconstruct ‘original’  forms. This  method  more  statistical  and  less   speculative   than  that  of the  anthropological   folklorists, dominated  the   field   throughout  the  first  half  of  the  20-th  century.
After   World  War    II   new  trends   emerged   particularly  in  the  U.S.A.. Interest  was no  longer  confined   to  rural   communities, since  it   was recognized  that   cities   too   contained  defineable   groups   whose  characteristic    arts, customs, and   values  markes  their  identity.
In  the  view  of  “contextual” and  “performance”   analysis   in  the   late   20-th  century  a  particular   story,    song,   drama   or   custom   constitute more   than  a  mere  instance  to   be  recorded  and  compared   with others   of  the   same   category. Rather  each   phenomenon  is  regarded  as   an   event   arising   from  the   interaction   between  an individual  and   his  social   group, which   fulfills  some   function  and   satisfies   some   need   for  both  performer  and  audience. In  this   functionalist-social   view  such  an   event  can   be  understood  only  within  its  total  context, the  performer’s   biography  and  personality, his  role  in  the   community,   his  repertoire  and   artistry,  the   role  of  the    audience  and  the  occasion  on  which  the  performance  occurs  all  contribute  to  its  folklore  meaning.
As  it   was   mention  above   a  number  of   genres   can  be   found   within  the  limits  of  folklore. They   are   various  and   very  interesting. Among  these   genres   we  can  mention  myth, legend, epic, fairy   and  folk  tales, ballad, riddles, anecdotes. We   will  speak   about  these   genres   separately.

суббота, 18 февраля 2012 г.

Classification of languages


Afro-Asiatic

 
  • Ancient Egyptian

Ancient Egyptian, Coptic
  • Berber

Tamasheq (Tuareg), Kabyl, Rif
  • Chadic

Hausa, Mandara
  • Cushitic

Beja, Somali, Oromo (Gallinya)
  • Omotic

Walamo
  • Semitic

Arabic, Hebrew, Maltese, Amharic, Tigre, Tigrinya, Akkadian, Assyrian, Aramaic

Algic

Yurok, Wiyot, Cree, Ojibwa, Micmac, Fox, Shawnee, Blackfoot

Altaic

 
  • Mongolian

Classical Mongolian; Moghol, Dagur, Kalmyk, Oirat, Buriat, Khalkha (Modern Mongolian)
  • Tungus

Even, Evenki, Manchu, Orok
  • Turkic

Old Turkish; Turkish, Chuvash, Gagauz, Turkmen, Azerbaijani, Uighur, Uzbek, Bashkir, Tatar, Kazakh, Kirghiz, Yakut, Altai

Andean

Iquito, Quechua, Aymara, Mapudungu (Araucanian)

Australian

All the aboriginal languages of mainland Australia (but not of Tasmania)

Austro-Asiatic

 
  • Mon-Khmer

Vietnamese, Muong, Khmer (Cambodian), Khasi, Nicobarese
  • Munda

Korku, Santali, Mundari, Korwa

Austronesian

  • Central Malayo-Polynesian

Maluku languages (Taliabo, Geser, Kei, Yamdena); Timor-Flores languages (Sikka, Tetun, Letri Lgona); Waima'a; Bima-Sumba languages (Bima, Savu, Manggarai, Ngada)
  • Formosan

Atayal; Tsou; Paiwan
  • Oceanic

Polynesian languages (Samoan, Tahitian, Maori, Hawaiian); Rotuman, Fijian; Micronesian languages (Marshallese, Trukese); Others (Sissano, Motu, Arawe, Simbo)
  • South Halmahera - NW New Guinea

Kaiwai, Onin, Irahutu; Gane, Misool, Waigeo, Waropen
  • Western Malayo-Polynesian

Philippines languages (Tagalog, Cebuano); Sundic languages (Malay, Bahasa Indonesia, Sundanese, Achinese, Javanese); Borneo languages (Melanau); Celebes languages (Bugis, Makassarese); Malagasy

Aztec-Tanoan

Tanoan, Northern and Southern Paiute, Comanche, Hopi, Nahuatl (Aztec)

Caddoan

Wichita, Pawnee

Caucasian

 
  • North Caucasian

Kabardian, Abxaz, Chechen, Ingush,  Avar, Dargwa
  • South Caucasian

Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz

Chibchan-Paezan

Tarascan, Yanonamö, Timucua, Guaymi, Paez, Cayapa-Colorado, Sanuma, Katio, Chibcha, Cuaiquer

Chimakuan

Chimakum, Quileute

Chukchi-Kamchatkan

Chukchi, Kerek, Koryak, Kamchadal

Daic

Thai, Lao, Zhuang, Northern Thai, Southern Thai, Bouyei, Shan, Zhongjia, Kam, Li

Dravidian

Brahui, Malto, Gondi, Kuvi, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Toda

Equatorial-Tucanoan

Cocama, Guarani, Tucano, Ticuna, Apurina, Baniwa, Guajajara, Kaiwa, Nhengatu, Terena

Eskimo-Aleut

Aleut, Inuit, Yupik

Ge-Pano-Carib

Chulupi, Vejoz, Toba, Galibi (Carib), Fulnio, Kaingang, Cayapo, Makushi

Gulf

Yuki, Wappo, Natchez, Choctaw, Muskogee, Tunica

Hokan

Karok, Shasta, Pomo languages, Washo, Yuma, Seri, Tlapanec

Indo-European

Little-attested IE languages from antiquity: Illyrian, Venetic, Thracian, Dacian, Ligurian
  • Albanian

Albanian
  • Anatolian

Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Palaic
  • Armenian

Armenian (Classical and Modern)
  • Baltic

Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian
  • Celtic

Old Irish; Irish, Manx, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Cornish, Gaulish
  • Germanic

Gothic, Old High German, Old English, Old Norse; English, Frisian, Dutch, Afrikaans, German (High), Low German (Plattdeutsch), Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese, Icelandic
  • Greek (Hellenic)

Greek (Mycenaean and Classical Greek, ancient Greek dialects, Koine, Modern Greek)
  • Indo-Iranian

Sanskrit, Avestan, Old Persian; Prakrit, Pali; Sinhalese, Kashmiri, Marathi, Konkani, Gujarati, Sindhi, Punjabi, Hindi-Urdu, Nepali, Oriya, Bengali, Assamese; Ossetic, Bactrian, Pashto, Baluchi, Kurdi, Farsi (Persian), Tajik; Romani (Gypsy)
  • Italic

Latin, Oscan, Umbrian
  • Romance

Romanian, Italian, Sardinian, Friulian, Romansh, Occitan, Franco-Provençal, French, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese
  • Slavic

Old Church Slavonic; Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Sorbian, Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Bulgarian
  • Tocharian

Tocharian (A and B)

Indo-Pacific (Papuan)

Languages of New Guinea and of islands to its E and W which are not in the Austronesian family; also (possibly) extinct Tasmanian, and the (mostly) extinct languages of the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal.

Iroquoian

Huron, Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Cherokee

Japanese

Japanese, Ryukyuan

Khoisan

Hadza, !Kung (Qxû), Naron

Korean

Korean

Mayan

Huave, Totonac, Mixe, Yucatec (and other Mayan languages)

Miao-Yao

Miao, Laka, Punu, Mien (Yao)

Na-Dene

Tlingit, Haida, Athabaskan languages (incl. Navajo, Apache)

Niger-Kordofanian

 
  • Adamawa-Eastern

Sango, Baya
  • Benue-Congo

Swahili, Kongo, Zulu, Xhosa, Lingala, Shona
  • Gur (Voltaic)

Mossi
  • Kordofanian

Kadugli, Rere
  • Kwa

Ga, Yoruba, Igbo, Akan, Ewe
  • Mande

Maninka, Mende
  • West Atlantic

Fulani, Wolof

Nilo-Saharan

Songhai, Luo, Maasai

Oto-Manguean

Amuzgo, Otomi, Mazahua, Pame, Mazatec

Penutian

Yokuts languages, Miwok languages, Klamath, Lower/Upper Chinook, Tsimshian, Zuni

Salish

Lillooet, Shuswap, Bella Coola, Comox, Sishistl, Squamish, Halkomelem, Straits Salish, Quinault, Tillamook

Sino-Tibetan

 
  • Karen

Pa-o, Pho, Kayeh
  • Sinitic

Old Chinese;  Mandarin, Yue (Cantonese), Wu, Gan (Hakka), Min
  • Tibeto-Burman

Tibetan, Lepcha, Newari, Dzongkha (Bhutanese); Burmese, Kachin, Lolo, Lepcha; Bodo

Siouan-Yuchi

Crow, Dakota (Sioux), Yuchi

Uralic

 
  • Finno-Ugric

Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Xanty (Ostyak), Mansi (Vogul), Udmurt (Votyak), Komi (Ziryen), Mari (Cheremis), Mordvin, Saami (Lappish), Votic
  • Samoyed

Nenets, Enets, Selkup, Kamas
  • Yukaghir

Yukaghir

Wakashan

Kwakiutl, Bella Bella, Heiltsuk, Kitamat, Haisla, Nootka, Nitinat

Language Isolates

Meroitic (in Africa); Beothuk, Chiquitano, Karankawa, Keres, Kutenai, Timucua (in the Americas); Ainu, Burushaski, Elamite, Gilyak, Hurrian, Ket, Nahali, Sumerian (in Asia); Basque, Etruscan, Pictish (?) (in Europe)

среда, 15 февраля 2012 г.

Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice


"Pragmalinguistics"  or  the  occupation  with  pragmatic  aspects  of  language  can  be  important  where computational  linguists  or  artificial  intelligence  researchers  are  concerned  with  natural  language  interfaces  to  computers,  with  modelling  dialogue  behavior, or  the  like.  What  speakers  intend  with  their  utterances,  how  hearers  react  to  what  they  hear,  and  what  they take  the  words  to  mean  will  all  play  a  role  of  increasing  importance  when  natural  language  systems  have matured  enough  to  cope  readily  with  syntax  and  semantics.  Asking  a  sensible  question  to  a  user  or  giving him  a  reasonable  response  often  enough  depends  not only  on  the  "pure"  meaning  of  some  previous  utterances  but  also  on  attitudes,  expectations,  and  intentions  that  the  user  may  have.  These  are  partly  conveyed  in  the  user's  utterances  and  have  to  be  taken into  account,  if  a  system  is  to  do  more  than  just  give factual  answers  to  factual  requests.
Thus  someone  who  wants  to  construct  a  natural language  system  might  look  at  Mey's  book  Pragmalinguistics  with  some  expectations  as  to  what  he  should consider  or  what  guidelines  he  should  follow,  or  maybe just  to  find  out  what  the  current  state  of  the  art  in pragmatics  is.  However,  he  will  find  little  of  that  in this  book.  Pragmalinguistics  is  a  collection  of  articles dealing  with  many  different  thingssome  of  the  articles  could  instead  of  being  called  pragmatic  or  pragmalinguistic  be  labelled  sociolinguistic.  Most  authors that  have  contributed  to  this  volume  are  located  in Scandinavia,  and  thus  maybe  it  gives  a  good  impression  of  the  concerns  of  North  European  linguists. The  article  by  Bang  and  Door  gives  a  critique  of the  linguistic  theories  of  Lyons,  Habermas,  Bernstein, and  Ehlich  and  Rehbein  from  a  Marxist  point  of  view. The  article  by  Qvortrup  criticizes  Transformational Grammar--and  in  particular  the  Language  Acquisition Devicemagain  from  a  Marxist  point  of  view  and  with a  breath-taking  ignorance  of  what  TG  is  all  about. Lindberg's  article  on  units  of  speech  is  trivial  and Utaker's  on  semantics  is  outdated. Blakar  writes  on  language  as  a  means  of  social power.  His  paper  is  anecdotal;  he  draws  conclusions without  stating  from  what  premises;  and  he  is  on  the whole  not  very  explicit.  Gregersen  postulates  in  his article  on  the  relationships  between  social  class  and language  usage  that  an  economic  analysis  of  "objective class  positions"  has  to  precede  sociolinguistic  studies proper,  but  fails  to  show  how  the  results  of  such  an analysis  will  influence  sociolinguistics. Haeberlin  writes  on  class-specific  vocabulary  as  a communication  problem.  His  ideas  have  been  published  before  and  in  more  detail.  But  he  at  least makes  substantial  and  concrete  claims,  and  he  has  a reasonable  framework  for  his  research,  even  though  he admits  that  the  results  he  has  obtained  in  his  statistical studies  are  only  preliminary  in  nature.  He  found,  for instance,  that  members  of  the  middle  class  have  a higher  ability  to  gather  the  meanings  of  new  words  in conversations  than  members  of  the  lower  class  do. Jacobsen  writes  on  language  and  emotions  much  from the  point  of  view  of  a  psychotherapist.  The  emphasis of  his  article  is  more  on  explaining  emotions  than  on explaining  the  relationship  between  language  and  emotions. Olsen's  paper  is  on  psychopathology,  interaction and  pragmatic  linguistics.  Sondergaard's  topic  is  the neurolinguistic  concept  of  the  ontogenesis  and  disinte- gration  of  smooth  articulation. Andersen  is  concerned  with  the  syntax  of  texts  and the  syntax  of  actions.  He  has  been  influenced  by work  done  at  SRI  International,  and  his  analysis  of actions  resembles  the  SRI  action  graphs.  It  may  be worthwhile  to  look  at  the  differences  in  detail.  Bjerg wites  on  public  speech  acts,  and  Gloy  states  some postulates  for  a  theory  of  linguistic  manipulation. Schank's  article--the  only  one  in  the  book  that carries  the  term  computational  in  its  title--gives  a  summary  of  Conceptual  Dependency  Theory  because  he
feels  that  is  the  (only?)  prerequisite  for  computational pragmatics. In  his  closing  paper  on  critical  language  theory  Mey points  out  a  number  of  phenomena  having  to  do  with the  pragmatics  of  natural  language  that  should  be  dealt with  by  an  integrated  linguistic  theory. Pragmalinguistics  is  a  book  with  an  unfortunate history,  which  delayed  its  publication  for  a  long  time maybe  for  too  long.  It  is  not  very  useful  for  some- one  who  expects  concrete  results  applicable  to  the construction  of  a  natural  language  system.  But  it  may be  of  interest  anyway,  as  it  gives  a  different  (often Marxist)  perspective  on  linguistic  phenomena  that some  may  not  have  considered  to  be  linguistic  phenomena  at  all. 

Pragmalinguistics.Politeness Strategies and Face


The aspects of  face (i.e., a self-image or impression of oneself presented publicly) are studied within the theories of politeness among which a prominent place is held by Brown and Levinson´s (1987) model. They claim that in any social interaction participants devote much of their time to face-work, i.e., strategies attending to aspects of their own face (viz. attempting not to lose it) as well as of other´s face (not threatening it by performing a face-threatening act, such as requesting, denying an invitation, rejecting an offer, or an other-repair).  There are two types of face: negative face (the freedom of indvidual action, a desire to be unimpeded) and  positive face (the need to be treated as equal, a desire for approval).
  Corresponding to these are the two types of strategies: negative politeness strategies (strategies of independence, also called deference politeness strategies) attend to hearer´s negative face and include the use of expressions indicative of indirectness, tentativeness, impersonality, social distance: mitigators (Sorry to interrupt, but...), euphemisms and politically correct language; positive politeness strategies (strategies of involvement, also called  solidarity politeness strategies) attempt to save hearer´s positive face by emphasizing closeness, intimacy, commonality and rapport.  The key factors determining the choice of appropriate strategy are, a) the relationship between participants, i.e., their relative power (social status) difference, and their social distance (the degree of closeness), and, b) the degree of imposition/urgency (K.C.C.Kong (1998) adds a mutual expectation of relationship continuity  as another factor). Depending on the degree of threat upon the addressee´s face, five politeness strategies can be identified: a) bald-on-record (open, direct) in case the risk of loss of face is minimum (Fetch me some water), b)  solidarity politeness which addresses the common ground (I know I can always rely on you, could you lend me your typewriter?), c) deference politeness, when the imposition is serious (I hate to impose on you but I wonder if you could possibly let me use your computer?), d) off record, an imposition is so great that it must be proffered indirectly  (I´m all out of money - this may be a source of ambiguity since it is up to the hearer to interpret this as a request), e) not saying anything, since the threat of loss of face is too great (for the politeness strategies employed in radio phone-in talk shows see Ferenčík (2002b)). From the viewpoint of language users´ intentions, their choices from the total pool of resources and the effects upon other participants, the legitimacy of the pragmatic perspective for stylistically-oriented study can hardly be denied.

Politeness Principle


The maxims of CP are often conventionally suppressed in favour of maintaining the ´social equilibrium´ which may be just as important as the cooperation itself (it may even be more important as in  white lies, i.e., minor, polite, or harmless lies). The need not to cause any damage to and to uphold each others´  face (e.g., not criticizing the quality of service or food in the restaurant directly) is the central problem of the theories of politeness. G. Leech (1983) proposes the six maxims of Politeness Principle (PP) as a way of complementing the CP and thus ´rescuing´ it from serious ´trouble´ (i.e., accounting for the situations when a strict adherence to CP would be unacceptable):  tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, sympathy.  The tact maxim regulates the operation of the directive speech acts (which are marked with highest face-threatening potential) and addresses the dominant type of politeness which, with regard to the addressee, can be ´measured´ on the  cost-benefit scale: the more costly an action, the less polite it is, and, conversely, the more beneficial it is to the addressee, the more polite it is. This helps explain why, for example, imperative mood is not necessarily associated with impoliteness: Bring me some water vs. Have another drink. Next, optionality scale is used to rank options according to the degree of choice offered to the addressee - the degree of politeness matches the degree of indirectness (tentativeness), and, vice versa, increased directness results in greater impoliteness (e.g., Lend me your car vs. Do you think you could possibly lend me your car?). It appears that while imperatives offer little option of whether or not to comply  with the action requested (Give me some change), questions (Have you got a quarter, by any chance?), hypothetical formulations (Could I borrow some money?), and ones using negatives (You couldn´t lend me a dollar, could you?) provide greater freedom to deny that request. Of course, politeness formulae (please) can always be added to give extra politeness. We should also differentiate between  absolute and  relative politeness; in the absolute sense, Lend me your car is less polite than  I hope you don´t mind my asking, but I wonder if it might be at all possible for you to lend me your car. However, in some situations, the former request could be overpolite (among family members) and the latter one impolite (as an ironic remark). 

Cooperative Principle

What is implied can be, and often is, ´strategically manipulated´ with (the s.c.  strategic avoidance of expliciteness, Verschueren 1999), if not for outright lying, then certainly for attaining our goals in mundane conversational encounters. The  conversational implicature was proposed (H.P.Grice) as a rational model guiding conversational interaction. Better known as the Cooperative Principle (CP), it includes four conversational maxims: quantity, quality, relation, manner  (Sperber and Wilson 1986 in their Relevance Theory superimpose the principle of  relevance  over other maxims). Although presupposed to be adhered to by the participants, the maxims are often deliberately flouted, e.g., in phatic or small talk (quantity), ´white lies´ (quality), humour, irony, teasing, banter, puns (manner), topic shift, seemingly irrelevant remarks whose relevance is implied and may only be disclosed by inference (relation). Some  tropes (figures of speech) are  built on the breach of CP:  hyperbole(exaggeration: to wait an eternity), litotes (understatement, esp. that in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of its contrary: not bad at all), tautology (repetition: War is war, and there will be losers), paraphrase, euphemism, metaphor and esp. irony (conveys a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: How nice! said after someone´s  I failed another exam). The maxims of CP are succesfully applied in literary stylistics, for example in order to draw ´pragmatic portraits´ of fictional heroes (Leech 1992, Ferenčík 1999b).

Speech Acts


The theory of  speech acts (J.L.Austin and J.R.Searle) concerns the language user´s intention to attain certain communicative goals by performing acts through the use of language. From the stylistic perspective, Austin´s three types of speech act (locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary) are of special relevance, since it is esp. the variety of possible illocutions (i.e., uses which language can be put to) which offers innumerable choices. The types of speech acts as proposed by Searle (assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, declarations) are (loosely) associated with certain lingusitic categories (utterance types) (cf. Tárnyiková 1985). Of special significance is the relation between locution (locutionary meaning or propositional meaning) and illocution (illocutionary meaning, or illocutionary force) as this is not always of the one-to-one type: one locution may have more than one illocution. For example, The dinner is ready may be announcement, invitation, threat, command, etc. Conventionally, this utterance will be interpreted as an invitation to join the table rather than an announcement, hence an example of an indirect speech act. The use of indirect illocutions in preference to direct ones is often driven by the need to protect partner´s face (i.e., politeness concerns, esp. in requests and refusals). Similarly, the strategy of hedging is used to play down the illocutionary force of utterances (while demonstrating the metapragmatic awareness by explicitly referring to CP maxims) while employing a variety of linguistic manifestations (hedges, mitigators:  sort of, kind of, in a sense, I hate to say this, partial agreement before presenting disagreement: Yes, but..., using performatives in business correspondence: We are sorry to have to tell you..., etc.).
Weasel words are used to temper the straightforwardness of a statement making thus one's views equivocal (e.g., borrow instead of  steal,  crisis instead of war); in the pejorative sense they help avoid responsibility for one´s claim (e.g., The results of the experiment appear to be in direct contradiction with the stated hypotheses). Explicit use of performative verbs may cause a shift in formality level and create an atmosphere of authoritative claim (Sit down, I beg you).  

Deixis and Presupposition


The phenomenon of deixis fixes the utterance in the physical (temporal and spatial deixis) and social (social deixis, which includes  person deixis and  attitudinal deixis) context of its use. Deixis, which may also be used ´self-referentially´ to point to itself (discourse deixis), is realized by  indexical (deictic) expressions, such as personal and possessive pronouns,  adverbials, verbal categories of person and tense, but also by politeness and phatic formulae. Presupposition represents the amount of information assumed to be known by participants (background knowledge, common ground) and has direct impact on how much is explicitly said and how much remains implicit. Since it is normally not necessary, let alone possible, to be fully explicit, a certain level of balance is strived for by the participants who take into consideration various factors; for example, the medium of writing tends to be more explicit as participants do not share the time and space, often an unknown (general) addressee is projected with whom the amount of the shared knowledge can only be estimated.  

Pragmalinguistics and Stylistics


While the field of pragmatics in its widest sense is constituted of many diverse approaches (without clear-cut boundaries) united by a common  functional (social, cultural, cognitive) perspective on language in communication (cf. Verschueren 1999), pragmalinguistics (linguistic pragmatics, pragmatic linguistics, internal pragmatics) focuses primarily (though not exclusively) on the study of linguisitic phenomena (i.e., code) from the point of view of their usage. As it is impossible to offer an exhaustive definition of pragmatics, it might be easier simply to present a list of the topics studied: deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech acts and aspects of discourse structure (cf. Levinson 1983; for the scope of pragmatics and the detailed coverage of its major topics see Tárnyiková 2000).  

четверг, 2 февраля 2012 г.


Linguistics
     
     The study of the nature, structure and variation of language including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics and pragmatics. It deals with language of every period and in all the guises it assumes. Linguistics has to deal with the written language,and will often have to  rely on its insights of philology in order to take its bearings among these written texts what lies underneathe.
     The task or object of the scientific study of languages is to trace the history of all known languages, which in its turn brings to the studyof the history of a language family. Before Latin, there is a period which Greek and Slavic share in common. So this involves the history of language families, as and when relevant.
       Another task of linguistics is to derive from this history of all the languages themselves laws of the greatest generality. Linguistics recognises laws operating universally in language, and in a strictly rational manner, separating general phenomena from those restricted to one branch of languages or another. There are more special tasks to add; concerning the relations between linguistics and various sciences. Some are related by reason of the information and data they borrow, while others, on the contrary, supply it and assist its work.
     Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context:
     The first is the study of language structure or grammar.This focuses on the system of rules followed by the speakers(or hearers) of a language. It encompasses morphology, syntax and phonology. It is important to mention that Phonetics is a related branch of linguistics concerned with the actual properties of speech sounds and nonspeech sounds and how they are produced and perceived.
     The study of language meaning is concerned with how languages employ logical structures and real-world references  to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as  to manage  and resolve ambiguity. It encompasses semantics and pragmatics. Language in its broader context includes evolutionary linguistics, which considers the origins of language; historical linguistics, which explores language change; sociolinguistics, which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures; psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and function of language in the mind; neurolinguistics, which looks at language processing in the brain; language acquisition, how children or adults acquire language; and discourse analysis, which involves the structure of texts and conversations.

Philology


     Philology is the study of language through the use of classic or historical texts, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning. This field of study is named for the ancient Greek terms representing love and words, so that philology can be translated as a love of learning, or love of words. People who study philology are primarily concerned with historical language, rather than modern language development. Rather than focus on oral tradition, philology professionals concentrate on ancient written documents and texts, including both famous and everyday writings.
This field shares many features with linguistics, leading many people to confuse these two distinct methods of studying language.
     One major focus of philology is the historical development, or origins of a language. Academics within this field work to trace the roots of a language, and to determine how it spread to different regions or countries. They also attempt to analyze how language within a specific historical period relates to events taking place at that time. Finally, they try to see what kind of information or clues that language can provide about the people who spoke it, or about the period or place where it was spoken.
     Philology can be broken down into several sub-fields based on the goals and interests of different researchers. Comparative philology is concerned with how languages relate to one another, as well as similarities and differences between them. Those interested in the textual analysis of words use philological principles to analyze literature and to combine multiple versions of a manuscript. This type of study is particularly prevalent in studying the Bible.
     Cognitive philology focuses on how historical texts can help define the psychological and intelligence aspects of mankind, or of an individual. In this way, this field includes attributes of psychology and philosophy. Finally, philological researchers may specialize in decipherment, which includes deciphering old texts or even cracking the code of a dead language.
    Philologists typically choose to focus on a certain group of languages with similar origins. This is often necessary due to the vast differences in structure, history, and development between eastern and western dialects, for example. Many publications and study programs within this field are geared towards classical romance languages, like Greek and Latin, or towards eastern languages such as Chinese, Sanskrit, or Arabic.
In philology the text in all its internal aspects and external relations id the fundamental reality.Philology focuse its attention on the text in order to compile a working commentary-the most ancient prototype fr all philological work.thus philology is the close reading that does not depart  from the concrete text, and it is universal as whose  bounds are impossible to determine.