DOCSLIB.ORG

ED 027 346 These Proceedings Contain Six Conference Papers With

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ED 027 346 These Proceedings Contain Six Conference Papers With DOCUMENT RESUME ED 027 346 UD 004 912 Research Planning Conferenceon Language Development in Disadvantaged Children, June 7-8, 1966. Yeshiva Univ.; New York, N.Y. Graduate School of Education. Spons Agency-Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. Pub Date Jun 66 Note- 147p. MRS Price MF-$0.75 HC-$7.45 Descriptors-*Communication Skills, *Curriculum Development, Demonstration Programs,*Disadvantaged Youth, Junior High School Students, *Language Development, LanguageResearch, Linguistic Theory, Literacy, Research Methodology, Research Problems, *Social Dialects, Sociolinguistics,Syntax, Workshops These proceedings containsix conference paperswith commentary and discussion: (1) Dell Hymes, "On Communicative Competence,"(2) David McNeill, "How to Learn a First Language," (3) Wayne O'Neil, "A Theory ofLinguistic Performance," (4) William Stewart, "Social Dialect," (5) Paul Cohen,"Some Methods in Sociolinguistic. Research," and (6) S. Alan Cohen, "A CurriculumDemonstration Proiect for Teaching Literacy Skills to Disadvantaged 7th and 8th Graders."Also included are topical summaries of the conference workshops anda summary of an earlier conference on the language development of disadvantagedchildren, held at Yeshiva Universityin . 1965. (EF) , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLYAS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTSOF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICEOF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. RESEARCH PLANNING CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN JUNE 7-81966 Sponsored by PROJECT ON RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THE DISADVANTAGED AND/OR SEGREGATED EDMUND W. GORDON, CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND GUIDANCE FERICA.UF GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION YESHIVA UNIVERSITY 55 Fifth Avenue New York, New York Supported by the Cooperative Research Program of the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Opening Remarks Beryl Bailey and Edmund W. Gordon Participants vi Paper: On Communicative Competence . 1 Dell Hymes Commentary on Ibimes Paper 17 Courtney. Cazden Discussion of Hymes' Paper 18 Paper: How to Learna First Language- 23 David McNeill Commentary on McNeill'sPaper 32 Vera John Discussion of McNeill'sPaper 34 Paper:A Theory of LinguisticPerformance 41 Wayne O'Neil Commentary on OiNeil's Paper Stanley Sapon Response by O'Neil 53. Paper:Social Dialect William Stewart 5 3 Commentaryon Stewart's Paper 62 John Gumperz Paper:Some Methods inSociolinguistic Research 66 Paul Cohen. Paper:A Curriculum DemonstrationProject for 74. Teaching LiteracySkills to Disadvantaged 7% and 8% Graders S. Alan Cohen Commentaryon Cohen's Paper 82 -2- Selected Excerpts From the Conference Workshop Sessions Goals 86 Intervention 89 Techniques 96 Description 99 Language in Society 102 Communication and its Relationship 104 to Verbal Behavior Harvey Sarles Summarization Joshua A. Fishman 110 Addendum Summary of the Proceedings of the FirSt Working Canference on Lamguage Development in Disadvantaged Children Page i Introduction The conference reported herein isone of a series focussing on issues related to the education of disadvantaged children and youth. The history and intent of this particular conferenceare discussed by Dr, Edmund Gordon, in his opening statement whichcan be found beginning on pageiii of these proceedings. It is aur intention here to speak briefly about the organization of this document and about the organization of the conference it purports to represent. The two-day conference consisted of 3 general sessions de- voted to the presentation of six papers with comments and dis- cussions following each. There were also two workshop sessions during each of which the eanferees divided into 3 groups to dis- cuss various issues raised at the general sessions. A final general session heard reports from the workshops and a summari- zation by Dr. Fishman. The degree to which the papers presented were delivered from written texts varied widely from speaker to speaker. Oonsequently the speedheswere transcribed from tape recordings of the sessions and sent to the participants for addi- tion or correction; because it is our conviction that English to be standard need not always be stiff,we have asked the partici- pants whose speedhes were delivered informally to refrain from translating them into formal English. They have kindly complied. The responses and the discussions following the speeches have not been edited by the participants, but by the editor, who as- sumes full responsibility for amy misunderstandings which may result from infelicitous editing. It has seemed to us that substance is oftenmore mtaningfUl and useful than sum. For this reason we have chosen to reproduce some of the discussiona almost verbatim, rewoving only those non,- substantive digressiona and occasional repetitions in which scholars sometimes indulge. Because of this bias in favor of substance, we have also chosen a rather unconventional way of reporting the work- shops. The workshop summariesas delivered at the conference quite rightly gave the impression that the issues dealt with were similar from workshop to workshop and that similar approadhes to them were often taken. However, in looking over the available tapes of the workshops, it seemed to us that most of the participants had man- aged, (often in spite of their fellow discussants rather than with their cooperation) to "get their licks in". It seemed to us that it would be wasteful to let these always thoughtful and often use- ful statements simply be absorbed into generaland therefore much less suggestive-summaries. We have therefore omitted the summaries of the workshops as theywere presented aad in their place we have brought together under some very general headings, a series of statements made in the workshops which we felt should be a 'permanent part of the proceedings. Due to the fallibility of tape recorders, we did not have full transcriptions of all or the workshops. Some contributions are, unfortunately, irr,trievably lost. This conference was full of controversy. While it proved Page ii possible physically to bringtogether researchers froma number of disciplines and professionaleducators of varying pointsof view, it often seemedduring these two days muahless possible to stimulatea dialogue fram which the children withwhose lan- guage we are concerned might profit.For those of you who did not attend the conference,it is Our hope that theproceedings will affordyou not only information and insights tutsome indi- cation of the passionwith which frankly Opposingpoints of view were offerd and defended. For those ofyou who participated in the conference itis our hope thatyou may discover as did those of us who have assumedthe task of pulling theproceedings together for publication,that much of what seemed likeheat alone at the time, appears intht absence of itsparalinguistic surround to shed some considerablelight on the issues with whichwe are all concerned. Beryl Bailey, Ph.D. Joan Gussow, LB. Vivan Horner, N.A. "How hardone must work in order to acquirehis language,--words by which toexpress himself! I have knowna. particular rush, for instance, for at leasttwenty years, but haveever been prevented from describingsome (of) itspeculiarities, because I didnot know its naaenor any one in the neighborhood who could tellme it. With the knowledge ofthe name comesa distincter recogni- tion and knowledgeof the thing. That shore is nowmore describ- able, and poeticeven. My knowledgewas cramped and confined before, andgrew rusty because not used,-- forit could not be used. My knowledgenow becomes communicable andgrows by communi- cation. I can now learn whatothers know about thesame thing." H. D. Thoreau1.1858 Thoreau, H. D. A Writer'sJournal. (Laurence Stapleton: Ed), New York: Dover, 1960. pg. 184. Page iii Colleagues and students, I want to thank you all for the enthusiasm with which you accepted our invitation to take part in this research planning conference on language development in disadvantaged children. I take it that this is a burning issue which each of us here present finds to be of utmost importance at this time, and that this is the reason that a conference of this kind has generated such tremendous response from those of you who are now present. Since the purpose of this conferencewas to get a sort of cross-poZination, the sessions have been organized so that we will hear papers not necessarily related to each other.People from a number of different disciplines have been looking et this issue of language disadvantage, but we have all tended togo aur own ways, not paying too much attention to what our colleagues were doing. Quite often, even within the confines of a single univer- sity, people will be workingon the same problem who do not know of each other's existence aad Nho certainly don't know, each of them, what the others are doing. At this conference we hope to acquaint each other-tliith the kinds of research-in whi6h each ofus is engaged. If we don't get them to.know what's happening,we should 0 least look into ways of bridging the communication barriers. I would now like to callupon Dr. Eddund Gordon, Director of the project under which this conference and othersof its kind are bding conducted, to give a word of weldome.and tosay something about-this research program. Beryl Bailey Thank you Dr. Bailey and Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. We are always pleased to have visitorscome to New York and visit Yeshiva University, particularly those who have deep interests in some of the areas that are of primary concern to us. The project under which we are operating today isa project funded by the Office of Education, concerned with the stimulation of research activity related to problems of educating the disadvantaged. The precursor to this particular meeting was a small working conference last fall where a number of the participants in this conference came together for two days to look at some of the developments, issues and problems related to language development in disadvantaged children; and trying to specify these with greater clarity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grammar: a Historical Survey
    IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 10, Issue 6 (May. - Jun. 2013), PP 60-62 e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.Iosrjournals.Org Grammar: A Historical Survey Dr Pandey Om Prakash Associate Professor, Dept of English, Gaya College, Gaya (Under Magadha University, Bodh Gaya India) The term grammar has been derived from the Greek word ‘grammatica or grammatika techne’ which means ‘the art of writing’. The Greeks considered grammar to be a branch of philosophy concerned with the art of writing. In the middle ages grammar came to be regarded as a set of rules, usually in the form of text book, dictating correct usage. So in the widest and the traditional sense, grammar came to mean a set of normative and prescriptive rules in order to set up a standard of ‘correct usage’. The earliest reference of any grammar is to be found in 600 B.C.. Panini, in 600 B.C., was a Sanskrit grammarian from Pushkalvati, Gandhara, in modern day Charsadda District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Panini is known for his formulation of 3959 rules of Sanskrit morphology, syntax, semantics in the grammar known as Ashtadhyayi meaning eight chapters. After Panin observations on Language are found in the records we have of pre-Socratic philosophers, the fifth century rhetoricians, Plato and Aristotle. The sources of knowledge of the pre-Socratic and the early theoraticians are fragmentary. It would be wise therefore to begin with Plato. The earliest extinct document in Greek on the subject of language is Cratylus, one of Plato’s dialogues.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistics in the Preparation of Modern Foreign Language Teachers
    71 - 74-39 EDDY, Peter Armes, 1941- LINGUISTICS IN THE PREPARATION OF MODERN FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHERS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Language and Literature, linguistics University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © 1971 Peter Armes Eddy ALL RIGHTS RESERVED LINGUISTICS i n t h e preparation OP ITODBRN FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHERS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University , By Peter aC Eddy, B.A, M.A. ****** + *** The Ohio State University 1970 Approved by Adviser College of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer's interest was first attracted to linguistics by work in phonetics done with Andre Mal^cot at Middlebury College. At Ohio State, an introductory course with Charles J. Fillmore served to rekindle this interest and to persuade the writer to pursue further linguistic studies. During the writing of this dissertation, the en­ couragement and aid of friends and colleagues were a constant source of stimulation. Although their many contributions could not be measured in so short a space, two individuals, Terrence J. QuinJi and George M.Landon, were particularly generous with their time and personal resources. The writer is greatly indebted to A. Bruce Gaarder, of the United States Office of Education, who permitted him access to the records of NDEA institutes. Chapter II of the dissertation could not have been written without this information. Finally, this brief mention cannot sufficiently acknowledge the support, both financial and moral, given by Edward D. Allen, the writer's major adviser, and by Paul Pimsleur, Director of the Listening Center.
    [Show full text]
  • A Logical Reconstruction of Leonard Bloomfield's Linguistic Theory
    A logical Reconstruction of Leonard Bloomfield’s Linguistic Theory Thomas Meier Draft, October 2012 Abstract In this work we present a logical reconstruction of Leonard Bloom- field’s theory of structural linguistics. First, the central notions of this theory are analyzed and discussed. In the following section, a recon- struction with the so-called structuralist approach in the philosophy of science is presented. After defining the general framework of Bloom- field’s theory, questions of lawlikeness and theoretical terms will be discussed. In a further step, this work aims to contribute to the dis- cussion of theory change and scientific realism, applied to linguistic theory. After the reconstruction of further theories of linguistics, it can be studied whether certain inter theoretical relations hold. It aims to be a contribution to the discussion on the foundations of linguistics. structural linguistics - structuralist approach - lawlikeness - theoretical terms - theory change 1 1 Introduction The aim of this work is to provide a logical reconstruction of Leonard Bloom- field’s linguistic theory. Only few work has been done so far in the philosophy of linguistics, concerning logical reconstructions of linguistic theories. By the application of the methodological framework of the so-called structural- ist approach (see Balzer, et.al. 1987), we reconstruct Bloomfield’s theory. The reconstruction will provide new insights as it shows how the notions of Bloomfield’s theory are interrelated. Furthermore, the issues of lawlikeness and theoretical terms in Bloomfield’s theory will be addressed. A logical reconstruction of Bloomfield’s theory also opens a way for future work on intertheoretical relations between linguistic theories and, in a broader philo- sophical sense, can be seen as an important fundamental contribution that can be used in the discussion on theory change and scientific realism, applied to linguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Some Historical and Methodological Backgrounds Semantic Syntax is a formal theory of grammar, introducing an entirely new method of syntactic description. It takes a grammar to be a formal system map- ping well-motivated semantic analyses (SA’s) onto well-formed surface struc- tures of sentences. My claim is that no other formal grammatical theory has achieved the level of success reached by Semantic Syntax, which is unique in the way it accounts for, often so far unobserved, syntactic complications in the languages analysed in the terms of a unified theory. Grammars are, naturally, language-specific but it is a central tenet of Semantic Syntax that all grammars of individual languages or language varieties are subject to strong universal constraints. Consequently, it is a central concern of Semantic Syntax to search for those constraints, so that a maximally unified account can be provided of natural languages and their grammars. Semantic Syntax is characterised by the one overarching hypothesis that every sentence in every natural language is to be seen as a composition of prop- ositional structures (under a speech act operator), each consisting of a predi- cate and its argument terms. In its present form, this hypothesis goes back to James D. McCawley (1938–1999) but it is, in fact, the continuation of medi- eval and renaissance thinking about language, reaching a first apogee in the great work by the Salamanca professor Franciscus Sanctius, Minerva seu de Causis Linguae Latinae, published in 1587, and in Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot’s famous Grammaire générale et raisonnée, known as the Port Royal Grammar, published in Paris in 1660.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 14, Issue 2
    History of Anthropology Newsletter Volume 14 Issue 2 December 1987 Article 1 January 1987 Volume 14, Issue 2 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han Part of the Anthropology Commons, and the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation (1987) "Volume 14, Issue 2," History of Anthropology Newsletter: Vol. 14 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol14/iss2/1 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol14/iss2/1 For more information, please contact [email protected]. H istory of A! nthropology N ewsletter XIV:2 1987 History of Anthr pology Newsletter VOLUME XIV, NUMBER 2 DECEMBER, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY . 3 FOOTNOTES FOR THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY Margaret Mead, Franz Boas, and the Ogburns of Science ... 3 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS . • . • • • • . • • . • . 10 BIBLIOGRAPHICA ARCANA Bibliographic History of Physical Anthropology . 11 Recent Dissertations . 11 Recent Work by Subscribers . 11 Suggested by our Readers . 13 GLEANINGS FROM ACADEMIC GATHERINGS . 15 The Editorial Committee Robert Bieder Regna Darnell Indiana University University of Alberta Curtis Hinsley Dell Hymes Colgate University University of Pennsylvania George W. Stocking William Sturtevant University of Chicago Smithsonian Institution Subscription rates (Each volume contains two numbers: June and December) Individual subscribers (North America) $4.00 Student subscribers 2.50 Institutional subscribers 5.00 Subscribers outside North America 5.00 Checks for renewals, new subscriptions or back numbers should be made payable (in United States dollars only) to History of ·Anthropology Newsletter (or to HAN). ·· Direct all correspondence relating to subscriptions and editorial matters to: George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammatical Analysis and the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Aidan Francis Gara Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1974 Grammatical Analysis and the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Aidan Francis Gara Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Gara, Aidan Francis, "Grammatical Analysis and the Teaching of Foreign Languages." (1974). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 2726. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/2726 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Linguistics Citation for Published Version: Joseph, JE 2015, Structural Linguistics
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Structural linguistics Citation for published version: Joseph, JE 2015, Structural linguistics. in K Allan (ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics. Routledge, London & New York, pp. 431-446. <http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.droz.org/en/revues/%3Fcollection_id%3D 17&ei=pg5zT_uDNcrd8AOwleTdDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQ7gEwAA &prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcahiers%2Bferdinand%2Bde%2Bsaussure%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox- a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1264%26bih%3D815%26prmd%3Dimvns> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: The Routledge handbook of linguistics General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS John E. Joseph 1 Introduction The term ‘structural linguistics’ gained currency quite quickly starting in 1940, in both English and French. It was generally associated with the approach set out in the Cours de linguistique générale (Course in General Linguistics), published in 1916 and based on lectures given at the University of Geneva by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) between 1907 and 1911.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 9: American Structuralism
    4.41478 – Survey of Linguistic Theories Semester 1, 2018: Lecture 10 1 Lecture 10: American Structuralism In America, linguistics began as an offshoot of anthropology: at the beginning of the 20th century. Anthropologists were eager to record the culture of the fast-dying American Indian tribes, and their languages were, of course, a fundamental aspect of their cultures. A programme was undertaken to record the Amerindian languages, large number of which were in danger of extinction. Although quite interesting, the work of those early researchers was rather haphazard, and unsystematic. There were no firm guidelines or methodologies for linguists to follow in their attempt to describe unwritten languages. Leonard Bloomfield (1887 – 1949) got interested in language from a scientific, descriptive viewpoint. He believed that linguistics, just like the natural sciences, should deal objectively and systematically with observable data. In 1933 he published his masterpiece, called simply Language, which attempted to lay down rigorous procedures for the description of any language. It had a profound influence on linguistics, for it was a clear statement of principles that soon became generally accepted, such as . that language study must always be centred on the spoken language, as against written documents; . that the definitions used in grammar should be based on the forms of the language, not on the meanings of the forms; and . that a given language at a given time is a complete system of sounds and forms that exist independently of the past – so that the history of a form does not explain its actual meaning. The Americans developed techniques for phonemic analysis, which they used to identify which sounds in a language were phonemic and which were allophonic.
    [Show full text]
  • Maya Honda and Wayne O'neil, a Quick Look Back at Linguistics in US
    Maya Honda and Wayne O’Neil, A quick look back at linguistics in US classrooms [email protected] and [email protected] Latin and Linguistics Workshop, Stony Brook University, 13-14 October 2017 Note: We focus here on top-down efforts to introduce linguistics in schools, generally imposed on teachers. For teacher-initiated efforts, see the presentations by Connolly, Keyser, and Loosen given at the Latin and Linguistics Workshop. 0. In the beginning, there was traditional school grammar, which persists to this day. • Rationale: To pre-/pro-scribe: “On a single point, at least, grammarians are united. They hold that, by the study of Grammar, the pupil should acquire the art of using the English language with propriety. A study of the science that does not issue in this, all agree, fails of its proper end.” • Used sentence-diagramming technology to achieve this end. See: Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg. 1889. An elementary English grammar, consisting of one hundred practical lessons, carefully graded and adapted to the class room, 3. New York: Effingham Maynard & Co., Publisher. 1. American structural linguistics in the foreign language classroom, post World War II. • Rationale: To introduce a new method for teaching and learning a foreign language, for acquiring the ability to speak that language. • Replaced the grammar-translation method with the “process of ‘mimicry-memorizing’” of complete sentences (Haugen 1972: 201)—fallout from the “Army method” of teaching languages developed during World War II. • Embedded in behaviorism: Leonard Bloomfield “insisted upon the importance of constant practice and overlearning, since command of a language is not an insight, but a habit, not a knowledge, but a skill” (Haugen 1972: 203).
    [Show full text]
  • The Descriptivists
    THE DESCRIPTIVISTS Schools and Theories of Linguistics 1 Synchronic Linguistics in America Emerged independently and in a very different style at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries when Saussure was working out his ideas in Europe . 2 Linguists to discuss: 1. Franz Boas: 22..Leonard Bloomfield: 18581858--19421942 18871887--19491949 Physics, geography, Studying linguistics in anthropology, linguistics traditional style (a Language is important nephew of Maurice to understand and to Bloomfield, a leading describe various aspects American historical of a culture linguist) The s ta tus o f lingu isti cs as a science 3 Boas’ Belief and Works Related to Language (1) People are normally unconscious of the principles on which their language operates Organizer of Smithsonian Institution, focusing on languages of America north of Mexico His Handbook of American Indian Langgguages was published in 1911 Trainer of other language investigation; all the great names of American linguists learned from him at first or second hand 4 Boas’ Belief and Works Related to Language (2) Facin g wit h th e sev er el y pr acti cal pr obl em of working out what the current structure of various utterly alien languages was like The d escri pti on of an i ndi vid ual l anguage was an end in itself, or a necessary first step towards understanding the wider culture of a particular community Abstract linguistic theorizing as a means to the end of successful practical description of particular languages, and not vice versa. 5
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Two: American Structuralism Lesson 07: American Structuralists
    Mohamed Khider University, Biskra Level: second year Faculty of Arts and Languages Semester One Course: linguistics Teacher: Dr. SAIHI H. Unit two: American structuralism Lesson 07: American Structuralists Structural linguistics in Europe was partly concerned with meaning and interpretation but in N. America Franz Boas and Leonard Bloomfield took a more descriptive/ positivist stance. They also reversed de Saussure's emphasis on the creative aspect of everyday language. 1. Franz Boas (1859–1942) Major changes in the study of Amerindian languages came about as a result of the influence of Franz Boas. Boas took up linguistic work originally as a necessary tool for the investigation of culture, language being a particularly revealing aspect of culture. The Handbook of American Indian Languages written by Boas marks a major turning point in the study of linguistics in America. 2. Edward Sapir (1884–1939) The German-born American anthropologist Edward Sapir (1884–1939) was responsible for many enduring concepts in linguistic research. Author of the landmark volume Language (1921), Sapir emphasizes that language is tightly linked to culture. For Sapir, language is an acquired function of culture rather than being biologically determined. This view is diametrically opposed to that of the transformationalists, who believe (but have not proved) that human beings possess a genetically determined predisposition for language—including many of its most specific and distinguishing features—that is already present at the moment of birth. 3. Benjamin Lee Whorf, (1897- 1941) U.S. linguist noted for his hypotheses regarding the relation of language to thinking and cognition and for his studies of Hebrew and Hebrew ideas, of Mexican and Mayan languages and dialects, and of the Hopi language.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Ferdinand De Saussure in Cultural Sociology
    Becoming A Dominant Misinterpreted Source: The Case of Ferdinand De Saussure in Cultural Sociology Dustin S. Stoltz University of Notre Dame1 Cultural analysts in sociology typically cite the work of Ferdinand de Saussure to motivate a narrow theory of meaning. In so doing, sociologists incorrectly attribute to Saussure: (1) the postulate that meaning is arbitrary (2) the idea that signs gain meaning only through relations of opposition to other signs, and (3) the view that there is an isomorphic correspondence between linguistic signs and all cultural units of analysis, ergo culture is fundamentally arbitrary, and finally (4) he offers a Durkheimian theory of culture (i.e. Saussure was follower of Durkheim). Saussure’s project, rather, was specific to linguistics, and mainly one of theoretical and methodological clarification regarding phonology. Saussure never intended his analytical model of phonology to apply to the real operation of meaning in general, as done by contemporary interpreters and, furthermore, never argued that meaning is arbitrary. Keywords: Saussure, Durkheim, Linguistics, Cultural Sociology, Arbitrary, Meaning 1 This paper was awarded the 2018 Graduate Student Paper Award from the History of Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association. I would like to thank Omar Lizardo, Vanina Leschziner, and Michael Wood for helpful comments on previous drafts. 1 Sociologists often cite Ferdinand de Saussure to assert that the meaning of cultural elements is fundamentally arbitrary and that signs gain meaning only through relations of opposition to other signs.2 That is, rather than interpreting Saussure as primarily contributing to the philosophy of linguistics (i.e. ​ ​ how language is to be studied as a science), sociologists read his work as foremost an intervention in the philosophy of language (i.e.
    [Show full text]