INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

So far you have read and enjoyed only our literature courses. But, as you are aware,
, to really appreciate literature, you need to understand the medium in which it is
written, i.e, language. This course - Aspects of Language - gives you a bird's eye
view of the nature of language, its characteristics and functions, its relationship with
thought, the dimensions of power or lack of it that it controls. The course also
engages you with the major ways of looking,at language which emerged in the 20"'
century, i.e. the Structuralist - Behaviourist and the Generative - Mentalist.

In Block 2 of the Course, we touch upon the origin and the formation of the English
Language. Speakers of a language have an illusion of the changelessness of language.
, But language, like the human body is changing all the time, although we may not be
aware of it. In this Block we look at the development of the English language in
terms of its structure - sounds, words and its grammar.

In a later block, we describe the origin and development of the English language in
terms of the sociolinguistic factors which have contributed to ~ t making
s
and proliferation. We also introduce you to the notion of Standard English, and
examine in some detail the question of Indian English.

In Blocks 3 and 3a, we describe the souilds of English and tlie different ways they are
patterned. We also touch upon word accent, stress and rhytlul~in collnected speech
and intonation of Englisli. You will realize that English follows a different rliytl~n~
fro111 your native !anguages.

In Block 4 we help you understand something about how words are formed in
English. We show you the processes of word-formation which have contributed to
word-creation and the enrichment of English. ,

In Block 5 we study the structure of English sentences (Syntax). The study of syntax
acquired a special significance from the mid-fifties with the advent of Chomsky.
While the Structural linguists merely described the structure of the language, the
Generativist (following Chomsky) considered explanation as the primary goal, and
attempted to relate it to the human mind.

In the next two Bloclcs, we look at the relationship between language and society from
the point of view of class structures, bilingualism, language planning, ways of
conversing and so on.

In the last Block we bring about a marriage between language and literature through
the discipline of Stylistics.

In order to get the best out of this Course you nekd to read it through. Read it like a
story on the history and development of English.

Good luck and happy reading!

-
UNIT 1 THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE
Structure
Objectives
Introduction
Definition of Language
How and Why did Lailguage Originate?
The Characteristics of Hun~anLanguage
Using Language
Let Us Sun1 Up
Key Words
Suggested Readings
Questions

1.0 OBJECTIVES

The aim of this unit is to understand the nature of human language, to examine the
various theories dealing with its origin, and to examine in what ways human
language is different kom other animal systems of communication.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

According to Hockett (1958), latiguage is "the most valuable single possession of

tlie h~unanrace", Each one of us makes use of language in' virtually everything we
do. The use of language is an integral part of being human. Humboldt has even
gone to the extent of saying that "man is man through the use of language alone".
Vet, the use of language is so spontaneous and natural that we pay no more attention
to it than we do to our breathing or to the beating of our hearts. We take language
too much for granted, Just for a brief while, try and imagine what our life would be
like without language. Extremely difficult, if not impossible ! What then is this
~ ~ n i thing
q ~ ~called
e la~lguages.Let LISfind out in the coursc of this ~mit.

It is not easy to define language. Most cornm~npeople.define it as a means of

conii~~unication. For the professional grammai-ian, language is the pairing of a lexicon
and a set of rules of syntax. But, as we will see in this block, language is far more
coli~plexand we need to make a sustained effort to explore its nature and structure.

1.2 DEFINITION OF LANGUAGE

Tl~cterm language has been defined differently by different people. Let us look at
some oi' these definitions to understand what language is :

'Language is that system by which sounds and meanings are related' (Fromkin and '

Rodnian, 1974)

'Language is the most sophisticated and versatile means available to human beings
for the communication of meaning' (Brown, 1984).

'Language is purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, .

emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols. (Sapir 1921). 5
IVlint i s Lnngunge?
'Language is the institution whereby humans communicate and interact with each ,
other by means of habitually used oral-auditory arbitrary symbols.' (Hall, 1964)

'A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which the members
of a society interact in terms of their total culture1(Trager,1949)

Language is a 'System of sounds, words, patterns, etc, used by humans to

communicate thoughts and feelings.' (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. 1989)

'Language isbapatterned system of arbitrary sound signals, characterised by structure

dependence, creativity, displacement, duality, and cultural transmission.' (Aitchrson.
1987) (we discuss some of these features in later sections)

One of the best ways to understand huinan language is to compare it with animal
communication, and to see where the similarities and differences lie. We will do
that in a while, but, before that, let us try to understand how and why language
originated.

1.3 WOW AND WHY DID LANGUAGE ORIGINATE?

No one kno\vs exactly how language originated. And because of this, there is no
dearth of speculations about the origins of human speech. Let us briefly consider
some of these.

The Divine Source Theory : According to one view, God created Adam and
"whatsoever Adam called every living creaturc that was the name thereof'
(Genesis, 2: 19). According to Hindu tradition, language came from goddess
Saraswati. In most religions, there appears to be a divine source that provided
humans with language. Generally, every society has a divine story to tell about I he
origins of its language. We also notice that the alphabetical symbols or ideographs
used in writing are often associated wrth divine images.

The Natural Sound Source Theory : Another view of the origin of human speech is
based on the concept of natural sounds. The theory suggests that first words were
imitations of the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them.
The fact that all languages have some words which seem to echo naturally
occuring sounds could have led to this theory. "Cuckoo", "bang", "buzz". "hiss".
"bow-wow", etc., are some examples from English. In fact, this type of view has
been called the "bow-wow theory" of language origin.

Altliough it is true that a number of words in every lailguage are echoic or

onomatopoeic, these are few in number. Another argument against this theory is Ihal
our language also seeins to iilflueilce the way we hear ai-id imitate the soiul~dsof
natiire, e.g., the roasters crow cock-a-doodle-doo' in English; 'kuk-ru-ka-roo' i11
Iiindi and 'kikeriki' in Genila~i!

The Pooh-Pooh Theory : In 1871, in his Descetrt of Mtin, Darwin proposed that
like man himself. his language also developed from a more primitive form.
probably from expressions of emotions. For exarpyle, a feeling of contai1pt is
accompanied by the action of puffing of air out through tlle nostrils or the mout11 and
this action makes sounds like "pooh" or "pish" . The critics of Darwin's theory
scornfully named it . the Pooh-pooh theory.

The Ding-Dong Theory : Muller, a contemporary of Darwin, proposed the ding-

dong theory of theorigin of language. According to this theory, there was a myslic
relationship between sound and meaning. There was an instinct in the primitive The Nature of
human being, by which every impression fiom without received a vocal expression Language .
from within. Just as a particular sound is produced when any object is struck by a
solid body, similarly human being's mind gave a particular response to every
impact the world made upon it. For example, the sight of a snake rang a bell and the
primitive human instinctively said "snake".

As is clear from the above discussion, it is a big puzzle as to how language began
But, why language began seems to be rather clear. Language must have evolved
because humans needed it for the following purposes :

To give factual information and to convey commands. This is also called information
talking.

To convey emotions and feelings.

To maintain social contact on a friendly level. This is also called phatic

communication or language of social chitchat or small talk.

For aesthetic reasons like poetry.

To relieve nervous tension.

1.4 THE'CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN LANGUAGE

As mentioned earlier, one of the best ways to understand what human language is,
is to compare it with other Systems of animal communication and try to understand
the similarities and differences between the two. This is precisely what we will do in
this section.

Use of sound signals

The use of sound signals is perhaps the most obvious characteristic of human
language. But this feature is neither unique to human beings nor all-important. It is
not unique to humans as a lot of other animals also use sounds for communication.
And it is not all-important because human beings can transfer language to visual
symbols (as in the case of sign language, or writing) and to tactile symbols
(as in the case of Braille). So, this characteristic is of little use in distinguishing,
human communication from animal communication.

Arbitrariness

In the case of animals there is generally an apparent relation between the signal
and the message the animal wishes to convey. For example, an animal who wishes
to warn off an opponent will generally simulate an attacking attitude. A cat, for
example, will arch its back, spit and appear ready to pounce.

On the other hand, if we look at human language-carefully, we see that except in

the case of onomatopoeic words or expressions, there is no logical relationship
between the signal and the message. The symbols used by human beings are
arbitrary. For example, there is no logical relationship between the word 'water'
and the thing it symbolises. Had there been an intrinsic or logical relationship
between the two, then why would the same thing be called 'pani' in Hindi ? It is
all the more interesting to note that in Hindi itself there is another word for water,
Le., 'jal'.
Wlrat is Language? The need for learning

It appears that the role played by 'learning' in animal communication is very little.
Their language is more or less genetically inbuilt. For example, bee-dancing, which is
used by the bees to convey information about the source of nectar, is quite the
same in bee colonies all over the world. And since, we do not expect the bees all
over the world to be holding international conferences, we have to agree with the
hypothesis that they are 'born with this language .

Another interesting thing to notice is that if a human child is brought up m isolation,

(s)he does not acquire language, whereas birds reared in isolation sing songs that
are recopisable. Human beings require a long exposure to language in order to
aquire it. This does not mean that human language is totally conditioned by the
environment. According to Chomsky, human beings are born with an innate
'language acquisition device' (LAD), but environment plays an important role m
triggering this innate ability. We should note that every normal c h ~ l dlearns an
extremely complex grammatical system before s h e is 3 ycals oltl. I,a~igiiagcI S certa~nlyone
of the greatest wonders of human societies, it cannot be accomplished unless we were
endowed with an innate language faculty.

So we can say that although both humans and other animals seem to be genetically
predisposed to acquire language, it seems in humans, this latent potentiality can only
be activitated by long exposure to language, which requires careful learning.

Displacement

Most animals can communicate about things in the immediate environment only. A
bird utters its cry of danger when danger is present. It cannot give information about
a danger which is removed in time and place.

Human BelllgS , on the other hand, can communicate about things that are absent as
easily as about things that are present. This phenomenon, is known as displacement.
It occasionally occurs in the animal world, for example, in the communication of
honey bees. If a worker bee finds a new source of nectar, it returns to the hive and
performs a complex dance in order to inform the other tces of the exact locnt~onof
the nectar, which may be severaI miles away. But even bees are limited in this
ability. They can inform each other only about nectar. Human , belngs can cope
with any subject whatever, and it does not matter how far away the topic of
conversation is in time and space.

Creativity

Most animals have a fixed number of messages which are sent in clearly definable
circumstances. For example, a North American cicada can give only four
messages and a male grasshopper has a choice of six. Research conducted on
dolphins, birds and bees has also shown that they are unable to say anything new.

Human beings, on the other hand , can talk about anything they like. They can
produce and understand utterances which they have never produced or heard
before. It is also not necessary that the same situation would make them utter the
same thing each time.

So we can say that creativity is an important characteristic which distinguishes

human communication from animal communication.

Duality or double articulation

Animals who use sound signals for comn~unicatinghave a finite set of basic
8
sounds . The number of basic sounds varies from species to species. Cows, for
example, have less than ten, whereas foxes have over thirty. Most animals usc each
 basic sound only once, or occasionally few simple combinations of these basic The Nature of
sounds. This means that the number of messages that an animal can convey is Language
I
almost limited to the number of basic sounds that that animal possesses.

In contrast, human language works very differently. Every language has a set of
thirty to forty basic sounds which are called phonemes. These phonemes are
generally meaningless in isolation. Imagine a person uttering the basic sounds
'a ..k..u..t..v..r..l..j..h...Do you think it would be possible for this person to convey
any meaning ? These basic sounds or phonemes become meaningful only when they
combine with each other in accordance with the rules of a 1anguage.So we can say
that human language is organised into two levels or layers, i.e,, a layer of
individual sounds which combine with each other to form the second layer of
bigger units like words. This kind of organisation into two layers is called duality or
double articulation.

At one time, it was thought that duality was a characteristic unique to human
language. But now some people claim Duality is also not unique to humans as it is
present in bird song where each individual note is meaningless. It is the combination
of notes which conveys meaningful messages. However, the complex ways in which
words are combined to create an infinite number of sentences inay indeed be unique
to humans.

Patterning

Close to the phenomena of duality is patterning. As you are aware most animal
, systems of communication comprise a simple list of so~u~ds.
There does 1101seem to
be any internal organisation within the system.

Human language, on the other hand, has well defined internal patterns. There are
firm restrictions on which elements (sounds, words, etc.) can occur together, and
in which order. For example, take the sounds lo', 'p', 't', 'sf in English. These
sounds can be arranged in the following six ways only : 'spot', 'stop', 'pot', 'pots', 'top'
and 'tops'. Other possibilities like 'tsop', 'ptos', 'opst', are not possible because the
rules of English do not allow these.

Similar kind of patterns are followed when words are combined to form sentences.

Structure dependence

1-Iuman beings instinctively understand the patterned nature of language, and

manipulate 'structured chunks' of language, e.g., they understand that a group of
words can be, at times, the structural equivalent of one word. Consider the
Following sentences :
I

The boy who proposed to me gave me a bouquet of flowers He gave me a really

I
beautiful bouquet of flowers.
: This chunk can be rearranged according to the rules of the language, for example, the
rule of passivization:

A bouquet of flowers was given to me by the boy who proposed to me.

This kind of a thing does not seem to be present in any other animal system of
1
communication.

Other characteristics

I Human language has many more characteristics besides the ones discussed above.
These are generally not unique to humans. Some of these are :
I
9

I
Who*is L~~~~~,? Recipocrity or interchaogeability : any speakerlsender of a linguistic signal can
also be a listenerlreceiver.

Rapid fading : auditory signals are transitory. They disappear quickly.

Spontaneous usage : speaking'is not something which humans do under any

compulsion. They speak spontaneously and out of their own will.

Turn-taking : humans take turns while talking.

Specialisation : vocal signals are used for conveying meaning only. They do not
normally sellre any other type of purpose, such as breathing or feeding.

Complete feedback : speakers of a vocal signal receive the message themselves

as well.

1.5 USING LANGUAGE

We have so far discussed 'what is human language?' and how it differs from other
forms of communication, especially animal communication. Now we shall briefly
study some of the ways in which human beings use language and the disciplines
which study this.

For instance, you must have noticed that human beings speak the same language with
each other, but there could be perceptible differences in their speech. These
differences are due to a number of factors such as social class, region, caste, ethnic
group, age, sex and so on. The differences could also be due to the subject matter
and the relationship between the participants in the speech act. For instance one
would be formal with one's boss and informal with a colleague and intiinate with
one's husband.

The disciplines which studies the role of language in society is known as

sociolinguistics. Then there are general principles followed by huma~ibeings when
they communicate with one another. Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics which
studies this aspect of language use.

Another dimension, which we wish to bring to your notice is the relationship between
language and power. Most people generally associate power with money. property.
status, etc. believing that language belongs as much to the poor as to the rich.
Unfortunately, it is not true. Like money, land, property and status, language is also
used to acquire, exercise, consolidate and maintain power. Everybody speaks
language and everybody uses it to 'mean something' in a given context but it is only
a select few whose language is regarded as pure and standard. This so-called
standard language is used as an extremely effective and powerful asset in the unholy
appropriation of the surplus produced by the poor people who are constantly denied
any access to the standard variety. What is more important, the standard language 1s
used as a legitimizing toolsfor perpetuating the'status quo. Knowledge statures
encoded in the standard language are the only ones that receives social appl-oval:
local literacies are dismissed as sub-standard or as dialects and pldgins.

We hope that after reading this unit, you will begin to look at language differently.
You will begin to examine what's written between the lines and what lies liidden on
the margins. Texts are not innocent and neutral social constructs, they are often
carefully crafted to sustain power.
 1.6 LET US SUM UP- Tile Nature of
Language

In this unit we have seen that one of the most important possessions of mankind is
language.

We have tried to understand the nature of human language by comparing it with other
animal systems of aommunication.

We have also made an attempt to see how and why language originated.

Then we have mentianed other dimensions of language such as language in society

and language and power.

1.7 KEYWORDS

arbitrariness: The property of human language which

relates to the fact that there is no logical
relationship between the signal and the
message.

creativity: Refers to the ability of human beings to

produce and understand utterances which
they have never uttered or heard before.

displacement: Refers to the ability of human beings to talk

about things which are not present at that
place or that time.

duality or double articulation: Refers to the fact that human language is

organised at two levels: level of articulation
of sounds and level of words.

infor&ation talking: language used for the purpose of

imparting factual information and
conveying essential commands

language acquisition device A hypothetical construct referring to the

innate ability of human beings to acquire
language.

onomatopoeic or echoic words: words or group of words that imitate the

echoic natural sounds, e.g., 'bow-wow' in
English.

patterning: human language combines sounds into

words and words into sentences according
to certain rules ,or patterns.

phatic communion: language used for maintaining social

contact on a friendly level

phoneme: ' the smallest unit in the sound system of a

language which can bring about a
difference in meaning.
Aitchison,J. 1978. Linguistics.London: Hodder and Stroughton.

Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. 3rd Ed. 1983. An I~ztroduction to Langulrge. New

York: Bolt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hockett, C.F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. Macmillan.

Lyons, J. 1981. Language and Linguistics. Cambridge : Cambridge University

Press.
'
Yule, G. 1985. The Study oflanguage. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

1.9 QUESTIONS
1

You have read how different people have defined 1111inanlanguage. Now, try
to define language in your own words.
In section 1.2 we have read how language has been defined in the Oxford
Advanced ~earnei'sDictionary. Look at the definition of language in two
more dictionaries. Discuss the similarities and differences between these
definitions.
You have read different theories about the origin of language. Which one
of these theories do you agree with ? Give reasons for your answer. If none
of these theories seems convincing to you, then discuss how, in your
opinion, language might have originated.
What, according to you, is the most important function of language'? Give
reasons for your answer.
What is the meaning of onomatopoeic expressions? Give three exalnples of
onomatopoeic expressions &om your language.
What are the characteristics of human communication that seein to be
comple'tely absent in other animal systems of communication ?
What is meant by the terms duality and displacement as they are used to
describe properties of human communication?
What is the nature of the relationship between the words used in a l~uman
language and their meanings? Are there any exceptions to this kind of a
relationship? Give, examples from English.
 UNIT 2 LOOKING AT DATA-1
Structure

Objectives
Introduction
Structuralism in Linguistics
Structural-functional Linguistics :The Saussurean Principles
2.3.1 Language and Parole
2.3.2 The Arbitrariness of the Sign
2.3.3 The Diachronic and the Synchronic Study of Language
2.3.4 The Oppositional Structure of Language
Structural Linguistics : The Saussurean Heritage
American Structuralism
2.5.1 Difference between American and European Structuralism
2.5.2 Sapir
2.5.3 Bloomfield
2.5.4 Bloomfieldian Methodology
Let Us Sum Up
Key Words
Questions

In this unit we shall trace the development of structuralism in Europe and in

America. In Europe it was largely based on the principles laid down by Ferdinand
de Saussure, and in America it was associated with the approach known as
Bloomfieldean/Post-Bloomfieldean.Structuralism, as a school of thought, led to the
emergence of structural linguistics which provided one of the perspectives for
looking at data. We shall also see how as a reaction to structuralism, formal
linguistics and ultimately Generative Grammar emerged which brought about a
shift in methodology and orientation in linguistic theory for looking at data.

On completing this unit, you should be able to do the following:

(i) . trace the development of structuralism in Europe and America,

(ii) differentiate between the two versions of structuralism, and
(iii) differentiate between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, langue and
"
parole, diachronic and synchronic studies.

In the next unit you will read about the emergence of Generative enterprise and how
it makes a point of departure for the Post Bloomfieldean studies.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

, The term 'structuralism' stands for a school of thought that developed in the 1960s in
France in the wake of Claude Levi~Strauss'sAnthropologie structurale (1 958) and
his attempt to discover the objective meaning af human culture. Levi-Strauss sought
to isolate kinship systems as objective systems of meaning that existed, that could be
analyzed, independently of their particular application or of their meaning for
particular individuals, and that are amenable to study by the methods of the positive
sciences, Structuralism appears to make possible the establishment of
autonomous and objectlve human sciences, because it provides those sciences
with their own independent and objective fields of study. Therefore as a school of
thought structuralisin cannot be reduced to a single movement or trend. rather ir has
had a strong impact on many disciplines during the entire twentieth century -be it
linguistics, literature, music, myth, art or even systems of kinship. In fact,
structuralism can best be described, to adapt a telin proposed by Basil Bemstein. as a
"thematic region", that brings together " disciplines and the technologies they nialtk
possible, much as cognitive science, management, engineering and medicine do "
(Thibault 1998: 598). The 20th century scholarship was based on the principle thal
our knowledge of the world will not be complete unless we arrive al the str~rctureof
the system, i.e the relationship between the members of the system. Hence the
search for the structure became a characteristic of the 20th century scholarship and
propelled an era of structuralism in scientific research. Structuralism believes that the
individual phenomena of human experience exist but are intelligible through their
interconnections and not in isolation. The interconnections can be "accounted for
rationally- rather than just described and classified or intuitively grasped in their
unique peculiarityn-by looking at them "in their relational character'', perceiving
"their connections as constituting a structure", and finding "behind endless variatioils
some abstract patteins subject to simple general rules" (Lepschy 1992: 163).

2.2 STRUCTURALISM IN LINGUISTICS

Although Levi-Strauss' work has stimulated the developiiient of strucluralisni as a n

intellectual movement, this stimulus has owed much of its force to the facl that 1.w-
Strauss' work reproduces an approach that had been developed quite independently
within linguistics. In hct, it was only with his encounter with linguistics that lie
became fully aware of the theoretical, methodological and philosophical implications
of his approach. His encounter with linguistics further gave him the confidence lo
generalize his findings and to offer structuralisni as a iiiethod for all the hu~iian
sciences.

Strictly speaking structuralism in linguistics ineans a new approach to the ihcts

already known . The facts of treating languages as structurt?s-i.e, as total systems or
connected wholes-in terms of their internal patterns of connection, rather than as sets
of isolated ~ t e n and
~ s in tenns of their historical sequence of developnient are merely
reconsidered with regard to their fiinctiorz in the system. It is the study of how the
structures of these entities affect the way they function. Inasmuch as language. as a
coinniunicative system, has a function, the structuralisl ;xodel of language insists on
the social (i.e communicative) function of language. Structuralism in linguistics
also implies an insistence on making a clear distinction between historical
phenomena and the characteristics of a linguistic system at a given point in time.
This insistence on the two-fold distinction was largely a reaction to the 19th century
scholarship which stressed on studying language through classical languages and
subsequently made historicisln their fundamental inark of thinking. It may be ~ioted
here, that in spite of insisting on studying language at a given moment, the
structuralist approach is still capable of shedding some historical light on the subjec~.
Historical differences between the structures of the same or two different languages
can still be shown by the structuralist model of language.

2.3 STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS: THE

SAUSSUREAN PRINCIPLES

The foundational principles of structural-functional linguistics were based 011 the

lecture notes of the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-19 13). published
posthumously as Cours de Linguistique Gerzerrrb (CLG). These principles entered
 I

into the structuralist model of linguistics and provided a turning point in the history Looking at Data-1
of linguistics. The following are the general methodological principles of Saussure:

2.3.1 Langue and Parole (language structure vs speaking in a language)

While making distinctions between the linguistic system and its actual
manifestations, we arrive at the crucial opposition between langue andparole.
Lungtie is the system or structure of a language whereasparole is the activity of
speaking 1n.alanguage or actual speech. According to Saussure, within the whole
field of linguistic activity (langage), we should distinguish between the language
system (langue) and speaking or writing the language @arole). The three way
d~stinctionmay be understood as following:

larrgage-as the general capacity that distinguishes man from the animals.

Iarzgue-as language structure which consists of vocabulary, principles of

construction, idioms, rules of pronunciation, etc.

parole-as language, both speech or writing used in context.

For Saussure, langue is something that is at once social and constrairrirzg : "It is both
a social product of the faculty of speech and a collection of necessary conventions
that have been adopted by a social body to permit individuals to exercise that faculty"
(CLG,25,9). While the former means that it is the possession of the community of
speakers, the latter suggests that it is something fixed. Parole, on the other hand, is
the realm of freedom : "It is an individual act ... wilful and intellactual" (CLG, 14).
Langue-Parole distinction has formed a basis for all later structuralist model of
l~nguistics.

2.3.2 The Arbitrariness of the Sign

The linguistic sign is an arbitrary linkage between a signijier and a signified. The
fonner is a sound-image while the latter is a concept. Saussure believed that there is
no natural connection between sound and meaning. There is no natural or intrinsic
connection between sound-images and concepts. It is purely arbitrary or conventional
and there is nothing particularly cat-like about the word 'cat' or sense of continuity
about the verb-ending '-ing'.
7

signifier

Here is a linguistic example:

Sign: The written word 'tree'

,Signifier: The letters 't-r-e-e' <

Signified : The category 'tree'

This concept will come up again in later units, and has already been mentioned in
unit 1.
p ~ h .is~ L ~ ~ The
~ , , ~ ~2.3.3 ~ ?Diachronic and the Synchronic .Study of Language (History
vs Structure)
;Discussion of the factors which explain the changes or mutability of language led lo
awareness of the importance of time. Although Saussure grew ~ l pin the tradition of
19th century historical and comparative linguistics, he could not reconcile hi~iiself
with the historicism of the neograinmarians. He argued I1la.t an adequate treatiiient of
the effect of time calls for a radical distinction between the two branches of
linguistics, synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Synchronic linguistics studies
langue, which is a system that is psychologically real, whereas diacluoiiic ling~~islics
is concerned with relations of succession between irtrlividunl itenzs. which speakers
are unaware of and which are not quite systematic. The synchronic study of language
is, thus, tlie study of linguistic system in a particular state, at a point of time.
whereas the diachronic study of language is the study of its evolution in time.

2.3.4 The Oppositional Structure of Language

Language is a set of oppositions without positive teims. According to this Sa~iss~irean
principle, the arbitrariness of the sign is limited by the systematic nature of sign
systems. The signs that make up a language stand in opposition to each otlier.

The linearity of signs coupled with the notion of oppositions formed the basis of
Saussurean distinction between two inain types of structural relations between signs :
tlie syntagmatic and iltegaradignratic. Syntagmatic relationship is linear, while the
paradigmatic relationship is associative. In the syntagmatic relationship, units as
sounds, phrases, clauses, sentences and discourse are chained together in a fixed
sequence and combination and they get their force by standing in opposition to wliat
precedes or Follows them. This relationship holds at various levels of languagr. Tlie
following example shows it at the sound level. Let LIS take a simple word l~lcecar.
This word consists of three units - the phonemes /W, / z / u t ~ d /t/. The relationsl~ip
that exists between these three units is syntagmatic.

Paradigmatic relationship, on the other hand, refers to the relationship that holds
between units that are there and the units that are not iltere but potentially co~ildhave
been. Let us take the same example again. The first unit of the word cat is /I;/. There .
are many otlier sounds which could have come at this place, for instance (I)/ or /b/ or
!nz/, giving words likepat, bat and nzut. The relationship that holds between the be nit
in question that is /Ir/ and other probable candidates for example /E)/ or /b/ or /112/:are
paradigmatic. The syntagmatic relationship is the relationship inpreserttia, while
paradigmatic relation is the relationship in abserriia.The two relationships can be
diagrammatically shown as follows:

k a: t Syntagmatic

P
Paradigmatic b

These relationships can also be seen at the syntactic level. Let us take as example
John likes bananas. The sentence consists of three words John, likes and brrlrllnas.
The linear relationship between these three units is syntagmatic. But there is another :
relationship between Jolt11 and other possible units which can occur at the place of
John but are not there, for instance, Mary, Tim, The boy. This relationship in
absentia is called paradigmatic. Let us see the following diagram:
 Syntagmatic
John liltes bananas

paradigmatic Maiy
Tim

The boy

The Saussurean principles set out in Cours were developed by a number of important
I schools of thought and subsequently paved the way for an emergence of structural
I
I I~nguistlcs.
I

1 2.4 STRUCrrU-BBPaLLINGUISTB[CS:THE SAUSSUREAN

As mentioned earlier, structural linguistics owes its foundational debt to the great
Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). His insightful observations on
language as a system and his treatment of language primarily as a social phenomenon
became the guiding principle for stnictural linguistics. The central principle of tlie
Cours 1s that a well- defined subpart of language called Imzgue, can be abstracted
fro111 the total~tyof speech. It represents the abstract system of structural relationships
Inherent in language - relationships that are held in common by all members of a
speech community. Since kmgue, according to Saussure, forms a coherent structural
I system, any such approach to language which is devoted to explicating the internal
I
I
I
workiiigs of this abstract system is referred to as structural lirzguist'ics.The structural
approach to the analysis of language is not only concerned with explicating the
inle~iialworltings of Inrzgue, but it also involves the segmentation of utterances into
elenlents in teiiris of two basic and complementary relations : syntagmatic and
paradigmatic ('associative' according to Saussure). The former looks into those
eleilients which combine to form a larger unit, while the latter taltes those elements
which call be substituted for another in a given context.
I

In a structuralist description of language both an inventory of the linguistic elements

of the langusge under analysis and statement of the positions in which the elements
occur are taken into consideration -- the former refers to cliscoveryprocedure and the
latter refers to distributiort. The case for such a taxonomic or classificatory approach
I
I
to Iarzg~it.was made explicit in the Cours : "It would be interesting from a practical
fi v~eulpointto begin with units, to determine what they are and to account for their
diversity by classifying them ..... Next we would have to classify the subparts, then
I the larger units, etc." (Saussure 1959 : 111).

.T'he 1950s in the United States witnessed a spate of activities in structural linguistics
with a distinct Saussurean heritage. Later, structural linguistics in America took on its
dlslinctive cast and entered the period of its great success.
I

i
/ 2.5 AMERICAN STRUCTURALISM

Ailierican st~ucturalismhas been associated with the approach variously called "post-
Bloomfieldian", "neo Bloornfieldian" or simply "Bloomfieldian", The adherents of
this approach have commor~lycalled it "descriptive linguistics."

2.5.1 Difference between American and European Structuralism

Svucturalism in the United States grew illdependently to that of its European

cbunterpart. Their interests were different and they even differed in their
What is Lnngrrage?
understanding of the term 'structure'. The European linguists understood it as " the
arrangement of a whole in parts and the demonstrable coherence of these reciprocally
conditioned parts in the whole "(Benveniste 1971 :8). For inost of the American
linguists, structure is "the distribution of the elements as it is observed, and the
capacity of these element for association or substitution" (1971 :8). According to
Benveriste, a 'Bloomfieldian' will segmentalize the whole into its constitutive
elements and will define "each of these elements by its position in the whole and by
the variations and substitutions posible in this same position" (197 1 :8).

If European scholars were interested in ancient languages and the developiiient of

modem European languages from them, the American structural linguists were
primarily interested in describing and classifying the American Indian languages. The
representatives of American structuralism tended to write the grammar of 'exotic'
languages of Amerindian tribes such as Menomini, Hopi, Talcelma. Anierican
linguistics, slnce the beginning of this centuiy, has been oriented toward the current
of structural linguistics by the work of scholars such as Boas (185 8 - 1942),
especially by the works of Sapir (1884 - 1939) and Bloomfield (1887 - 1948) - the
two pioneers of structural linguistics in America.

2.5.2 Sapir

Following the methods developed by Boas, Sapir gave up his work in classical
philology and started analysing languages of Amerindian tribes. His analysis of
Takelma, an American-Indian language spoken in the Northwest, in fact, predated the
Saussurean principles of structuralism. Through his Takelrna grainmar of 19 1 1
(published as Sapir 1922), he had worked out the basic principles of struct~iralisn~
even before Saussure's Cours had been published. Language, according to Sapir, was
a communicative and social activity. His interests in language were iar - ranging. In
addition to grammatical analysis, he took into account the humanistic and cultural
aspects of language. He also published papers on the functioning of language in
creative literature, mythology and religion.Although he was a structuralist in his
orientation, he held a moderate position. He was not fully averse to liistoricisi-~~.
For
him, language was a prodzrct of history, "the product of long-continued social
usage" (Sapir 1921 :2).

In the structural conception of language formulated by Sapir, the most striking [act
was the aspect of universality. He conceived of language as a structure which is
universal: "Language, as a structure, is on its inner face the mould of thought" and
"[There] is no more striking general fact about language than its universality..... 'rlie
lowliest of the South African Bushmen speaks in the forms of a rich sy~-Iibolicsystem
that is in essence perfectly comparable to the speech of the cultivated Frenchman"
(1921:22). .

Sapir refused to look at language through mechanistic methods. He held that

"linguistic consciousness"of speakers must be taken into account. His approach was
inore nientrrlistic as opposed to the mecltnnistic or belraviouristic approach of
Bloomfield. His mentalism, which inakes claims about a relationship between
language and the mind, led to the belief that linguistic structure plays a role In
shaping our perception of reality.His student Benjamin Whorf further developed this
idea and came forward with the hypothesis widely known as Sapir - Wlzorf'
Hypotlrmis. You will read about this later in the block.

2.5.3 Bloomfield

The Mechariisnr of Bloomfield was closely related to behaviourism in psychology.

According to bekavioirrism, human cot-~ductis totally predictable i.e it can be
explained on the basis of situations in which it occurs, independently of all internal
18 factoi-s. Even speech must be explained by the external conditions surrounding its
production.
 In accepting the basic ideas of behaviourism, Bloomfield, in his book Language Looking a t Bata-1
( 1933), formulated his mechanistic and materialistic conception of language which is
based upon stinzulus-response schema:

He explained the stimulus-response schematic usage of language by means of his

fanlous story of Jack and Jill, walking down the lane. Jill sees an apple . She is
h~ungryand wants it. But she wants Jack to get her the apple. She makes a noise with
Iier larynx. tongue and lips. Jack hears her request, climbs a tree to get the apple,
which Jill then devours. Here real or practical events preceding the act of speech is
the stimulus (S) (in this case, Jill's feeling of hunger). If Jill had got the apple herself
lhen stiii~uluswould have directly caused the response (R) (her getting of the apple)
symbolized by S >ReInstead there is a substitute response (r) in the form
of a vocal movemeilt (i.e she asks Jack to do it). The substitute response of Jill leads
to a substitute stimulus or s linguistic stimulus (s) for Jack: he hears her request, and
this causes the real or a practical response (R).

Since Bloomfield's main concern was to develop linguistics into a science, the
principles through which this could be done were the exclusion of psychology fiom
liilguistics and the use of scientific descriptive statements. He refused to accept any
psychological interpretation of the linguistic fact and demanded a strictly mechanistic
approach. This is evident from his treatment of residual forms (or so-called
exceptions in 'sound change'). He insisted upon the regularity of sound change and
emphasized the scieniific necessity of assuming that 'conditioned sound changes are
purely phonetic' and 'independent of non-phonetic factors, such as meaning,
frequency. . .' This became a starting point fiom which emphases upon a so-called
nreckarrist~iarose. According to Bloomfield, linguists should deal with observable
events only which are located in the coordinates of time and space. His insistence on
dealing with only those events that were accessible to an observer in both time and
place niarked a definite shift from mentalisin tophysicalis~n.He believed that the
linguist should define descriptive terms rigidly in physical tenns that could be
derived from a set of collection of everyday items dealing with physical happenings.

While he had earlier been a mentalist too, by 1933 Bloomfield became an apostle of
u~z~i-~rrentalismtin 1inguistics.B~placing a very heavy emphasis on objective
observation he had become an empiricist and had adopted a view of linguistic
science that allowed only statements based on generalizations drawn fiom observable
facts by a set of mechanical procedures. As he put it: "The only useful generalizations
about language are inductive generalizations. Features which we think ought to be
universal may be absent from the very next language that becomes accessible"
(1933:20).

His empiricist orientation had also affected his approach to the study of meaning. He
had rebelled against the linguistic theories of meaning or the signified (to use
Kristeva's tern1j . While he admitted that a central function of language was to convey
. nleaning, he remarked that meaning was either a completely unobservable mentalistic
construct or else, consisted in so many and detailed events surrounding the speech
act, that an adequate observation of it was nearly as hopeless as that of a mental
reality. He affirmed that linguistic science would never be able to tackle it without
taking into account the "state of the speaker's body" and the "predisposition of the .
nervous sound system, which results from all of his experience, linguistic and other,
up to this very moment-not to speak of hereditary and pre-natal factors"(1933-141).
Since this goal was unattainable, recourse to meaning was to be avoided wherever
possible. Hence, meaning had to be kept aside in the task of establishing an adequate
linguistic method.
Inspired by the ideas of anti-mentalisn~of Bloomfield, American linguistics was tlius
committed for a long time to the principle that language must be analyzed without
regard to meaning. Efforts were made to evolve a lnethodology based on an
exhaustive description of the behaviour of liiiguistic units without reference to
meaning. This is where American linguistics resorted to co-occurrence, the possible
distribution of sound sebments (phoneliies) and combinations of them (morpllemes)
in a language. Thus, a new method of analysis was evolved which was based on
noting and describing all positions which units of a given language system coi~ld
occupy-i.e, on deterlnining the distribution of linguistic u1;its.

On the basis of distribution of the units of linguistic structure, three types of

distributional relations have been identified:

(a) Complementary distribution - where one unit occurs, the other does not
occur i.e. two or more units liever occur in tlie same environment. For
exaii~ple,in English the p1ioneme.lpl has two variants [Z?], the unaspirated,
and [p"] the aspirated. [p"] occurs initially, whereas b]occurs elsewhere. For
instance [yl'in], bh=t] and [pi' et]. In these words lpl comes initially and is
aspirated. In words like stop, spji, tip, /p/ does not colne iilitially and is
therefore unaspirated.
, [p"] initially

\ [p] elsewhere
Here @''I and [y] are allophones of tlie phonemas /p/.

This condition helps in recognizing and groupiizg not only the alloplioncs of
a single phoneme but also allomorphs of the saine moiyl~eme..lust as a
phoneme can have several allophones, morphemes can also have a number
of alloinoiyhs. This can be illustrated by taltillg the following ext~~nples.

Let us take the plural marker moi-plieme - s. It hasthree forms . -.F. -Z and --iz
depending upoil tlie environment of its occurrence. The morpheme --s is
realized as [s] if it is preceded by a voiceless sound, as in c'cq~s,rdars, hooks;
as [z] if it is preceded by a voiced sound as in cubz, lidz, do&; as [ iz] if it is
preceded by sibilant sounds as in prizes, voices.

(b) Contrastive distribution - where a change in one sound produces a changc

in meaning. This is established with the help of nlinirrtnlpairs. For example.
p a t [y" s t ] contrasts with bat [bzt]. Ilence lpl and lbl are plionemcs. Even
sub- ~ninimnlyairscall be used to establish contrasts. For example, pact
[pl'~kct]contTasts with hat [bat]. I-Ience lpl a i d llhl are phonemes.

(c) Free variation - where units occur in the same environiilent alongwith no
change in meanings. In this case they are variants of the same linguistic ~ i n ~ t .
For example the word either is pronounced [~dar]or [aidar]. The change In
the first sound does not lead to change in meaning.

These distributional criterla have been developed into an exact axiomatic system
and have been responsible for giving American structuralisnl the name
distributioiialism.

Distribution of linguistic units was tested by the method of strbstitsttiorz : replac~ng

one unit under investigalioil by another latown unit in the same environment. and ~f
the substitution can be performed without an essential change in the linguisl~c
context, then both units belong to the same class. For example, in the sentence ./ohn
likes bananu,~,John call be substituted by Bill, The boy, M-y sister, etc. They
therefore, belong to the same catsgory as Jollrl . i.c. N1) (NCLIII
Phrase). Renlcmber
 I
that lt cannot be substituted by write (Verb), smart (Adjective), in(Preposition). Looking a t Data-l
S11lce anti-mentalism characterized the theories of structural linguists in America,
American structuralism devoted itself exclusively to a description of the concrete I
I
structures of actual sentences with as precise phonetic transcription as possible. There I

was very littie questioning about matters of theory, and the entire emphasis was on
I
methodology of descriptions, on questions such as how forms could be segmented, on
how one could lmow where to segment, i.e. on discovsiyprocedncre,

Discovery procedure would mechanically produce a grammatical description based

011 a 'corpus'. This 'corpus' is the linguist's objective material in which sthe finds
out the distribution o f the structural elements in order to arrive at the linguistic
system, the grammar underlying the corpus. Certain operations on a corpus of data
were carried out without any reference to the external signification of linguistic
fol-111s.Lingu~stictheory thus becaine a strict analytical programme, which, applied
to any corpus, will yield an appropriate grammar. The role of a linguistic theory of
thls type can be outlined in the following way:

Linguistic
Corpus + Theory Grammar

Thus, for the American linguists, linguistic analysis was considered a logical calculus
leading to the discovery of the basic units of language and their formal arrangement.

2.5.4 Bloomfieldian Methodology

'I'hougli the concept of levels was inherent in the traditional linguistics, it was given a 1
new theoktical status and importance under the structural approach. By introducing
such a distinction of structure levels, the distributionalists were able to arrive at a
higher degree of precision in the grammatical descriptions of language. For example,
English adjective category can be more precisely defined as : a word which can stand !
between the definite article the and a noun and which never takes-s in the plural.

Since the goal of the American linguistics was to 'discover' a grammar by

performing a set of operations on a corpus of data, this was to be achieved by
following certain order of the levels of grammatical description which is as follows:

1) Phonemics
~i) Morphemics
iii)
iv)
Syntax
Discourse
:
i
The corpus consists of speech so the first operation is phonemic. Blooinfieldians
worked out the principle of analysis in the field of phonemics which was based on the
il
1I
of criterion of distribution and exemplified by substitution test. I
i

Since language consists of a string of phonemes which are grouped into minimal

I
recui-rent sequences or morphs, hence there is a morphemic operation. The
procedure for classifying morpks into morphemes was similar to that for classi@ing
phones into phonemes. You will understand these concepts better in later units,

Bloomfieldians most important contribution to the theory of syntax has been the
analysis of iinrnsdiate constituents (ICs). In order to discover the structure of
linguislic units, one divides the utterance into two parts, which are in turn divided
into two parts, etc. until one arrives at the minimal elements that can no longer be
divided using the same criteria. In this way one arrives at the immediate constituents
but one does not label them. Thus the phrase old men and women can be divided as :
 U'l~fltis Lnnglt~ge? Old inen and women
1C analysis 1 (meaning: old Inen and old women)

1C analysis I1 (meaning: women and old men)

Elwomen

Thls analysis merely provides a purely foimal descr~ptionwithout taking the classical
grammatical categories (Noun, Verb, etc.) or even the philosophical categories that
establish the classical analysis of the sentence (subject, predicate, etc.). The fon.na1
analysis proposed by American structuralism nut only helped to reveal the principles
by which the structure of a message may be linguistically organized but also offered
the possibility of studying languages that do not need logical categories to construcl a
signifying system. For example, the Chinese language does not need to clarify tense
in the verb form or determination by an article, etc.

Since American linguists have had. to describe numerous unknown languages,

adoption of neutral description for linguistic analysis became necessary. Use of
neutral methods relieved them fiom forming presuppositions on the basis of Indo-
European languages and subsequently freed them from Eurocentricism.

Structuralism, of which American structuralism is the extreme fonnalizing tendency,

thus, introduced the episten~ologicalbreak not in explanation but by offerini-in
accordance with logical positivism-a flat description of language.

Bloomfieldians' insistence on description had, infact, largely emanated from their

faithful adherence to empirical conception according to which science has only to
describe phenomena. The researchers task would then simply be classificatiofz or
taxonomy-a grammar is simply a classification of the segments (phonemes,
morphemes, words, word groups) that appear ~nthe utterances of the corpus. The
analytical approach to structure has rendered language static - an object witl~our
history or the speaking subject,

2.6 LET US SUM UP

In this unit, we have traced the developed of sbucturalism in Europe and America.
We have differentiated between the two versions of structuralism. We have also
touched upon important concepts such as paradigmatic and syntag~naric~~larions,
langue and parole and diachronic and synchrionic studies.

In the next unit, we will acquaint you w ~ t hthe Generative point of view in looking at
data.

22
m
 Looking a t Data-1

Structuralism: An approach to the study of language which

considers a language to be primarily a
system of relations - i.e., the place of every
element in language (speech sound, word,
etc.) is defined by the way it relates to other
elements in the language.

Generative Grammar: A particular grammar of a particular

language which, in a purely mechanical way,
is capable of enumerating all and only the
grammatical sentences of that language.

Paradigmatic relation: Any relation between two or more linguistic

items or forms which are competing
possibilities, in that exactly one of them may
be selected to fill some particulars position
in a structure.

Syntagmatic relation: A relation between two or more linguistic

elements which are simyltaneously present
in a single structure.

Langue: In Saussure's classification, language

regarded as a system shared by acommunity
of speakers.

Parole: The particular utterances produced by

particular speakers on particular occasions.

Diachronic: Pertaining to language change over time.

Example, from old English to Middle
English to Modem English.

Synchronic: Pertaining to a language at a particular point

of a time. Example, studying English now
would be a synchronic study of Modem
English.

Typology: The classification of language according to

their structural features.

Signifier: The form of a linguistic sign

Signified: The meaning of a linguistic sign

Discovery procedure: An explicit mechanical procedure for

constructing a grammar from a corpus of
data in some language.

Distribution: The list of positions in which particular

linguistic items can occur.

Mentalism: The belief that such unobservable

phenomena such as mind, thoughts,
intentions and mental processes generally
are objectively real, and hence they can
 reasonably be involved in scientific
Whnt is Lrrng!lage? investigation and be made the object of
study.

Behaviourisrn: An approach In psychology wh~chholds that

psychologists should study only observable
and measurable yhenornena, and should not
appeal to i~nobservablethings like 'mind' and
'intention'.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: The hypothesis t h a ~the structure of our

language significantly affects the way we
perceive the world.

Complementary distribution: The relation between two linguistic forms

which can never occur in the same
environment.

Phoneme: Any basic sound unit found in a particular ,

language, such as 11-1.111, /el in English.

2.8 QUESTIONS

1. Trace the development of structural ism in linguistics.

2. Discuss the difference between the following:

i. Diachronic and synchronic linguistics

ii. Syntagnatic and paradigmatic relationships
...
in. Langue and parole

3. What are the main points of difference between American and European
structuralism'?

4. Discuss the salient features of American structuralisn~.Who were its main

proponents?
 UNIT 3 LOOKING AT DATA-2
Structure
Objectives
Formal Linguistics - An Introduction
Generative Grammar
3.2.1 Principal Goals
Generativists and Structuralists
3.3.1 Generativists and Bloomfieldians
Tranformational Generative Grammar
Let Us Sum Up
Key Words
Questions
Suggested Readings

3.0 OBJECTIVES

, In this unit, we will discuss

o the Generative framework of grammar

o its differences with the Structuralists
We will also briefly talk about Transformational Generative Grammar.

Some of these ideas may appear difficult but they will be clear to you as you read the
course. Don't get discouraged if some concepts appear difficult and complex. They
will be clarified as we proceed along.

3.1 FORMAL LINGLTISTICS - AN INTRODUCTION

In the early 1950fs,signs of restiveness began to disturb the calm of structuralism,

and by the end of the decahe new ideas emerged in a big way. Chomsky, a student of
Zellig Harris was concerned with discovering a general theory of grammatical
structure. He believed that an adequate grammar should provide a basis for
explaining how sentences are used and understood. He reproaches the
Bloonlfieldeans for "their satisfaction with description [and] their refusal to explain"
( 198 1:38). According to him, as other 'developing sciences, linguistics should also
endeavour to establish a more ambitious goal than mere description and
classification. Linguists should aim at developing methods not just for the description
of language but also for understanding the nature of language. And this was
possible only if one takes recourse to intuition of native speakers. Intuition had,
however, remained a source of discomfiture for Bloomfield. American structuralists
have maintained a Bloomfieldian mistrust of meaning. They held the opinion that for
describing and classifying the forms of expression in a language it was unnecessary -
nay misleading to have a knowledge of the meanings. All they considered necessary
was to know which utterances are possible, which are ambiguous and which ones are
syntactically related to each other. This, they believed, could reduce the dependence
on the intuitions of native speakers (which most of them recognized, was
unavoidable). *,

Recognition of possible utterances provides a basis for making a formal analysis of

language. Making a distinction between several aspects of this "possibility" is
necessary because an utterance may be appropriate in some circumstances and not in
others depending upon the situation. An utterance may be wellformed but not
acceptable, for acceptability involves wellformedness together with
appropriateness to context-linguistic or situational, e.g. an utterance Colorlrss
green ideas sleep furiously is completely nonsensical but grammatically correct.
Judgements on the wellformedness of expression cannot simply be based on
observable occurrences of utterances in the speech of native speakers, As Chonisky
points out, the mere occurrence of an utterance, even wellfolmed, does not make it
more representative, because there are countless other possible utterances which may
not have occurred during the observation. This makes the recourse to native speakers
indispensable. This could not be obtained through discovery procedure. Also, if one
were to look into the syntactic relatedness between two sentences, an immediate
constituent analysis would fail to tell us anything about an underlying kin relationship
between the active and passive voice : Mary sees George-George is seen by Mczry.
The flaws in the structuralist edifice brought a shift in n~ethodologyand orientation 111
linguistic theory and initiated an all-encompassing theory of language in which the
whole assumes primacy over the parts. Intuitions and judgement of native
speaker of language became pivotal for revealing the underlying relationship
between sentences and parts of sentences. The speaker of a language, not the text or a
corpus, was considered a source of all linguistic studies. This creative aspect of
language i.e. ability to produce or create 'novel' sentences which slhe might not have
heard before became a central concern of language study. Behaviourists' postulate
that la langue is a "system of habi'ts" was replaced by the idealist position of "~nnate
ideas" and the belief that human beings are born with the innate capacity to learn
languages. The theories of universal grammar were outlined to account for the
creativity and the recursive property in language.
The theory of language which came to be associated with the shift in 'orientation' has
been referred to as generative grammar.

3.2 GENERATIVE GRAMMAR -

It is the theory of language proposed by Chomsky in his Syntactic Structul-es (1 957).

It provides a set of finite rules that defines the unlimited number of sentences of the
language and associates each with an appropriate grammatical description.

3.2.1 Principal goals

There are two principal goals which underline this theory. These are :

(a) The universal features (i.e. features which are intrinsic to language as a whole)
which constitute grammars of individual language should be characterized III
formal terms.
(b) Formal statements should be provided for characterizing the graminars of
individual languages. This goal is equated with characterizing the tacit
knowledge or competence which native speakers have about syntactic,
phonological, morphological and semantic patterning in their language.
Generative grammar sees the theory of Competence as forming a central
component of language which interacts with principles from cognition.
neurology, physiology and other domains to give language its overall character,

Generative grammar has its roots firmly grounded in the structuralist tradition.
Generativists share with structuralists the idea that "the grammar of a la~iguageis a
 statement of'the systematic structural interrelationships holding between linguistic Looking at Data-2
(Newmeyer 1992 : 46). Even Chomsky's notion's of 'competence' and
are in many ways modem reinterpretations of Saussure's classic

t
dis 'nction between 'langue' and 'parole'. However, there are differences between
gen rativists and structuralists-the most significant being Chomsky's reinterpretation
of the goals of linguistic theory. He proposed a novel conception of what a linguistic
theory actually addresses. While the structuralists' goal of linguistics was to
construct inventories of the linguistic elements in particular languages, alongwith
statements of their distributions, Chomsky believed that the goal of linguistics has to
be redefined in order to provide a rigorous and formal characterization of a "possible
human language" i.e. specification of a universal grammar (UG). This UG is innate
to human mind. He has gone to the extent of characterizing linguistics as a branch of
cognitive psychology.

3.3.1 Generativists and Bloomfieldians

Generativists had certain differences with Bloomfieldians. Chomsky reacted against
the (post-) Bloomfieldian's "separation of level" principle (phonemic, morphemic,
etc.), that is, an analytical, structural description that breaks the utterance down into
watertight layers. This principle gives functional independence to each level i.e. one
need not refer to morphology if one is conducting a phonemic study. Chomsky,
however, believes that the opposite is true. Further, Chomsky believes that the post-
Bloon~fieldianlinguistics does not "take the speaker and his role in the constitution of
the utterance into account; instead it proposes an empirical description, which claims
to be 'neutral' and 'objective', of the spoken chain in itself' (Kristeva 1989: 253).

Nevertheless, generative grammar owes a considerable historical debt to post-

Bloornfieldians. Chomsky has been a student of Zellig Harris, one of the leading
post-Rloomfieldian, and this certainly had an impact on him. He remained faithful to
r.l~t:post-Bloomfieldian demands of rigor, neutral and formal descriptions, as well as
to their mistrust of the meaning (which has led to an emergence of a doctrine that has
come to be h o w n as the 'autonomy of syntax'). He took up certain concepts given
by his teacher, Harris, his inspired precursor-and gave them a new interpretation (for
example, the notion of transformation, which in the sense of Harris is an inter-
sentential phenomenon, while in Chomskian sense it is an intrasentential
phenomenon). He also interpreted many features of the American structuralism in a
new fashion , as for example his notion of deep structure could be traced back to
Sapir's inner-form. Despite the resemblances to his predecessors, there was an
element of novelty in Chomskian theory.

As opposed to post-Bloomiieldian's analytical approach to structure, Chomsky

proposed a synthetic description. He believed that instead of breaking down the
sentence into immediate constituents, "one should follow the synthetic process that
leads these constituents to a syntagmatic structure, or transfonns this structure into
another one" (Kristeva 1989 : 253-54).

In this operation, the implicit linguistic intuition of a speaker becomes, according to

Chomsky, the only criterion for the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of a
sentence. To quote Chomsky: "The fundamental aim in .the linguistic analysis of a
language L is to separate the grammatical sequences which are the sentences of L
froin the ungrammatical sequences which are not the sentences of L and to study the
structure of the granlmatical sequences"(Chomsky 1957:13). Chomsky noticed that
the notion of grammaticality could not be identified with that of "meaningful" or
"significant" in any semantic sense, as we can see in the following two sentences:

I. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

2. Furiously sleep ideas green colorless
is For an English speaker, while both (1) and (2) are nonsensical, the first is
grammatical and the second is not. Chomsky did not suggest "meaningful" to be the
criterion for identification because he believed that "semantic theories have not been
made sufficiently exact to justify proposing a notion of meaning that could give us a
practical way of deciding on the grammatical status of pairs of sentences [given
above]" (Dinneen 1967:362). From such considerations Chomslcy notes that "we are
forced to conclude that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning"
(1957:15 and 19).

Chomsky also devoted himself to looking into the highly abstract theory capable of
finding universal formalism valid for all languages "with no specific reference to
particular languages" (1957 : 11). He looked at grammar more as a theory of la

believed tbat the "grammar of a given language must be considered in accordance

with the specific theory oflinguistic structure in which terms like 'phoneme' and
'syntagm' are defined independently of any particular language" (Kristeva 1989:
i
langue leading to a "condition of generality" and less as an eimpirical description. I e

255).

How dld Chomsky establish the rules of his theory ? He went about doing it by
examining two models of grammatical description namely, finite state grammars
and phrase structures grammars. The former bore a close resemblance to the type
of device promoted by communication theorists. It was rejected because it could not
explain the speaker's ability to produce and understand new utterances. The kind of
descriptions which phrase structure grammars provided were identical to of the post -
Bloomfieldians' procedures (resembling IC analysis)-the way sentences are broken
into parts. The tree diagram is used, but turned upside down, since the progression IS
from the sentence to the parts, as in case of the following sentences : the malt hi! !he
ball shown in Figure-1 .

Fig. 1
Step-I Sentence (S)

nzan hit Art N

t Ithe I
ball
Here the step (I) basically gives a summary diagram. There are two other steps also
which can be applied on the same sentence.

(i) Sentence >NP+VP

(ii) NP >(Art)+ N
(iii)W 'v + (NP)
(iv) Art (article) >the
(v) N (noun) . >man, ball
(vi) V (verb) >hit

Sentence
NP+w (9
Art+N+VP (ii)
 I
Art+N+V+NP (iii) Looking at Data-2
The +N+V+NP (14
The+man+V+NP (v)
The+man+hit+NF' (vi)
The+man+hit+Art+N (vii)
The+man+hit+the+N (viii)
The+man+hit+the+ball (ix)

Here the steps (11) and(111) respectively, provide a grammatical analysis and
information regarding derivation.

Chomsky himself rejected this type of grammatical description, as he realized that it

was inadequate for describing the structure of English sentences. By means of several
examples he showed the limitations of phrase structure grammars.
The first example of the weakness inherent in phrase structure grammars can be seen
in the ordinary formation of new sentence by conjunctions. If one had two sentences
Z+X+W and Z+Y+W, and if X and Y are the "constituents" of these sentences, one
could in principle form a new sentence, such as :

e.g. 1 (i) (a) The scene-of the movie-was in Chicago

(b) The scene-of the play-was in Chicago
(ii)(c) The scene-of the movie and of the play-was
in Chicago.

If, however, X and Y are not the constituents, then the formula cannot be applied, for
it would produce, for example :

2 (i) (a) The -liner sailed down the-river

(b) The-tugboat chugged up the-river
(ii)(c) The-liner sailed down the and the tugboat chugged up the -river.
It is clear from the above examples (i) and (ii) that in order to apply syntagmatic rules
to a language like English, one needs to know not only the final shape of sentences
but also the structure of their constituents at the time of application i.e. the "history of
derivationV(p37).
Similar weaknesses in phrase structure grammar may be seen when attempting to
deal with fonns of the verbs other than the simple fonns produced by rewriting rules
l~keVerb----> hit or take, since we may be required to have in other contexts, forms
like takes, has+taken, willi-take, and so on. Limitations may also be seen in the
t treatment of the active-passive relation, statements and questions, emphatic
utterances (Idid tell them) and unemphatic ones ( I told them) and so on.
?'he inadequacies of the phrase structure grammars for a language like English
demand incoporating new rules into it. But doing that completely changes the
conception of the linguistic structure. Henbe the concept of a "grammatical
transformation" was proposed by Chomsky, which he formulated as : "a grammatical
trasformation T operates on a given string (or. . . on a set of strings) with a given
constituent structure and converts it into a new sting with a new derived constituent
structure" (1957:44). This introduction of the concept of a transformation has led to
referring to the entire formal approach as Transformational Generative Grammar.
i

I 3.4 TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR-

1957 MODEL
A transformatiin is a way of specifying, by rule, the relationships between sentence
I types. Transfomiatians perform two types of functions: 29

I
 What is Lnnguage?
(a) They change underlying grammatical relations, as in the case of passives
which are derived from actives, for example. John saw Jill-->Jill 1vu.s .see,,
by John. Since the relationship applies to the syntactic elements, not just to
these particular words, it may be algebraically expressed as :

This may be verbalized as : The two noun phrases exchange places, with by placed
before the one that now comes last. The tense (Aux) remains thc same (past sa1.r:
matches past saw), but a form of be is inserted and the verb takes its past participle
(en) form : was seen by applying the A@ hopping rules, under which the affix
moves to a place immediately after the V.

These transformations are referred to as singularly (simple) transformations. They

include transfomlations like Passive, Auxilliary, Negative.

(b) As a second function, transfonnations create corrlplex sentences out of simple

ones, as in the case of embedding, e.g. the sentence John t~ziizl&that Bill will
leave was derived by an embedding transfom~ationthat combined Johrr
thiriks and Bill will leave.

These transfonnations are referred to as generalized (double-based)

transformations.

In formulating the principle of transformational grammar, Chomsky clarified

essential properties of transformations, for example, the order in which these
transformations are applied. Two types of rule ordering were identified - Extriruic-
ordering and Intrinsic ordering. The foniier explicitly specifies the order in which
the rules must be applied, while in the latter the ordering is a consequence of the
way in which the rules are stated. Chomsky further argued that at least some
transformations had to be strictly ordered with respect to each other in the grammar
i.e, transformation rules are lined up in a certain order. For example, reilexivization
must apply before 'you' deletion:

(a) Reflexivization
(b) 'you' deletion

Where there are identical NPs in the same sentence, the second NP is
changed into reflexive by applying rule (a):

NP, NP,
You - hang YOU You hang yourself
Then rule (b) is applied to arrive at
Hang yourself

If the order is changed, it will result in giving a sentence 'hang you' and then
there is no way of reflexivizing 'you'.

He also pointed out that some transformations are 'obligatory while others are
optional. The Auxiliary transformation and the Do transforlllation are obligatory
while passives, negatives, imperatives, Wh-and yes-no cluestions are optlonal.
Sentences that are produced by applylng obligatory transformations are called kernel
strings while the sentences obtained by applying optlonal transformations are called
derived.

-
With regard to the question of grammar and meaning, Chomsky felt that "grammar 1s
30 autonomous and independent of meaning" (1957: 17). However, his insistence on the
independence of grammar of meaning is not in tune with post-Bloomfieldian I

I
structuralism. He was clear that the question of the relation of grammar and meaning Looking at Data-2
is an empirical one and he gave many examples to illustrate his position.
lvevertheless, the role of syntax remains crucial in determining the meaning. This can
be seen in case of handling ambiguity and paraphrases, which are semantic notions.
The ambiguity of the sentences, according to him, can easily be resolved by
transformational description by merely reestablishing the transformational rules that
produced it. To quote Chomsky : ". . . if a certain sentence S is ambiguous, we can
test the adequacy of a given linguistic theory by asking whether or not the simplest
grammar constructible in terms of this theory for the language in question
automatically provides distinct ways of generating the sentence S" (1957 :123),

Thus, the Chomskian approach offered a dynamic vision of syntagmatic structure that
was missing in structural grammar. It also eliminated the atomization of la langue
that accoinpanied post -Bloomfieldian methods. Instead, it suggested a processual
conception of la langue in which "each sequence of rules stems fiom a coherent
whole centered on the consciousness of the subject - locuter whose freedom consists
of submitting to the norms of grammaticality" (Kristeva 1989:259).

You will read more on Chomskyan linguistics in Block 5 .

3.5 LET US SUM UP

In this unit, we gave you another point of view fiom that of the structuralist -
behaviourist. .We gave you the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the structuralists.
We discussed the main points of generative framework, and its differences from the
structuralists.

We have given you several examples and used some technical terminology. Do not
be intimidated by it. You will understand all that is discussed by the time you finish
the course.

3.6 KEY WORDS

Intuition: A judgement *hich you make about your

own language (whether something is
grammatical or not), what it means, whether
it is ambiguous or not, how it is related to
something else, and so on.

The state of being grammatical. A well-

formed sentence in a language is a sentence
which is consistent with all the grammatical
rules of that language. However well-
formedness includes acceptability and
appropriacy.

An approach to psychology which holds that

psychologists should study only observable
and measurable phenomena, and should not
appeal to unobservable things like 'minds'
and 'intentions'. Leonard Bloomfield and
the American structuralists were much
influenced by behaviourist ideas, but ever
since Noam Chomsky's devastating critique
 of B.F. Skinner's behaviourist account of
What is Litngsnge? language acquisition, linguists have
generally rejected behaviourism in favour of
mentalism.

Bloomfield, Leonard: A distinguished and influential American

linguist (1887-1949). Trained in historical
linguistics, Bloomfield dld important work
on Germanic and Austroneasian languages.
and his famous work on Algonqu~an
languages pioneered the application of the
comparative method to native-American
languages. His 1933 book Language '
revolutionized linguistic thinking and his
ideas were developed by his colleagues and
successors into American structul.alism,
which donlinated the Amer~canl~nguistic
scene until about 1960.

Generative grammar: 1. A particular grammar of a pai-ticular

language which, in a purely mechanical way,
is capable of enumerating all and only the
grammatical sentences of that language.
Generative gralnar in this sense was
introduced by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s.

2. Any theory of grammar which has as its

goal the construction of such gl-amliiars.

3. The enterprise of constructing s ~ ~ c l i

theories of grammar.

Universal language: Any property which is present in all

languages or in nearly & languages
l
example: all langu'ages distinguish nouns &
-
verbs.

Competence: An idealisation of a speaker's knowledge 01'

herhis language, excluding s'ucli tictors as
slips of tongue, memory limitations or
distractions.

Phonology: Pertaining to the sound system.

Morphology: Pertaining to word-formation '

Semantics: Pertaining to meaning

Performance: The actual linguistic behaviour of particular

individuals on particular occasions, .
including any hesitations, memory lapses, !.
'
slips of the tongue or processing difficulties
arising from long,or complty 'structures.

Universal Grammar (UG): The hypothetical structural properties which

are necessarily common to all human I

languages, both real and possible,

' 32 presumably because these properties are part
of the human language faculty. The tenn is
, ,
 particularly associated with the work of Loolung at Data-2
Noam Chomsky and his followers; not all
linguists are convinced that UG exists.

Transformation: In a formal grammar, a type of

grammatical rule which has the power to
change the structure of a sentence which is
being generated by the grammar, for
example by deleting something or by
moving it to a different position.

Transformational grammar (TG): A theory of grammar developed by Noam

Chomsky in the 1950s and extensively
modified by Chomsky and others in the
succeeding decades.

3.7 QUESTIONS

1. What is the difference between the Generativists and the Structuralists? In

what ways have the Generativists made advancements on the ~trucbralists?

2. "The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary". Are
there any exceptions to this rule? Think of some words in English and your
mother tongue in which the relationship between the signifier and the
signified is not arbitrary, but is based an some similarity between them,

3. 'Noun is the name of a person, place or thing' Do you think that this definition
is adequate? What about the words like investigation, division,
congratulation? Are they the name sf a person, place or thing? The
Struturalist approach to language provides a better alternative definition. Can
you define noun using its distributional pattern in language?

3.8 SUGGESTED READINGS

Benveniste, E. 1971 Problems in General Linguistics, by Mary E. Meek, University

of Miami Press.
.
Hloon~field,L. 1933 Language, New York: Henry Holt
Chomsky, N. 1957 Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton.
Dinneen, F. P. 1967 An Introduction to General Linguistics, New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston:.
'
Hymes, D. and J, Fought 1975 American Structuralism, The Hague: Mouton.
Ivic, M. 1965 Trends in Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton
Kristeva, J. 1989 Language- The Unknown: Aiz Initiation into Linguistics. Tr. by
Anne M. Meaker, London, Sydney and Tokyo: Harvaster Wheatsheaf.
1-epschy,G. 1992 : "Early Structuralism", in W, Bright (ed) International
Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newmeyer, F. J. 1986 Linguistic theory in America, New York: Academic Press, Inc.
, --_-_____________
1992 " Generative grammar" in Bright (ed)
Rastogi, K. 1997 Structural Linguistics: Its Origin and Development, Delhi: Penman
1
Publishers.
Saussure, F. de 1 959 Course in General Linguistics, McGraw Hill.
Thibaul t7P.J, 1998 "Structuralism" in P. Bouissac (ed) Encyclopedia of Semiotics,
Oxford: Oxford University Press,
I 33
 UNIT 4 LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
Structure

4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Linguistic Sign
4.3 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis y

4.4 Language- independent Thought

4.5 Let Us Sum Up '
4,6 Suggested Readings

4.0
.-
OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this unit is to examine the relat~onskipbetween language

and thaught. This is an extremely complex questian and our understanding about its
different dimensions is not particularly clear. The purpose of this unit is ta start a
discyssion in this important area. After you have read this Unit, and some suggested
readings given at the end, you should be able to examine some of the follawing
questions mare meaningfully: Are language and thought two comnpletely independent
entities? Do you think without language also? Is all thought ultimately language
dependent? Is it the case that we have language at some abstract level which is
completely independent of thought? what is really involved when we for example
use the word 'chair'? What does the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis say about the
relationship between language and thought? What docs modem linguistic theoiy say
about it? Do animals think? Da they have a language i~ some sense? Not much is
known about these questions. If we can create an interest in you about these issues,
We will indeed be happy.

We aften FamE a c r ~ s oontradiotory

s viewpoints about the relationship between
language and th~ught.The issue has been examined for centuries form different
perspectives including th~rseof philosophy, biology, linguistics, psychology and
logic. Some people believe that language is primary and makes thought p~ssible.It is
absalutely central to our thought processes, It nat only helps us to u~lderstandthe
thoughts of other people and express our own but also structures our thoughts In a
variety of very complex ways. We see what our language tells us to see and we
express our thoughts in ways that are allowed by our language, Language in this
sense is constitutive of thought and defines the limits of our tho~rght.This we rnay
regard as the cogpitive view of lanpage. Acoardlng to several other people. though
qomes first, Languagg is only a toql for expre~siop,a means of communication, In
this colpmunicati~evjew ~f Isnguse(e,languaye is seen merely as a conduit through '
which thoughts are articulated. Thoughts and ideas exist independent of language. I1
is alsa claimed that 4 variety of thought is possible without language. Se\leral
important human activities ineluding sculpture, dance, music, painting, etc, involve
some of our highest thoughts but may be completely independent of orrr language, It
is possible to argue that dance and music have their own language but it may be ,
significantly different from natural human language which is rooted in a pairing of a ,
lexicon with a set of syntactic rules. Again, many people will argue that dogs and call
have emotions, understanding and thought. They may also have some k~ndof'
34 language but as compared to human language it is extremely limited in a variety of '
wavs. In this unit, we will examine the relationship between language and thought
j
.
 from both the communicative and cognitive perspectives. It is possible that there is an Language and
element of truth in both these positions because nobody will deny an intimate Thought
between language and thought. It is possible that the human mind is
actuallystructured in terms of a large number of independent, though interactive,
modules.

4.2 THE LINGUISTIC SIGN

There is no doubt that many of our concepts and words are closely tied. When we use
the word chair, we also have in mind the corresponding image of a chair, let us say
the concept CHAIR. The concept of a chair must be an extremely complex feature
matrix that would include features like four legs, a seat, made of wood, steel etc.,
used for sitting, with a back etc. Whenever we see a new chair, we don't have to coin
a new word to talk about it. We use the word chair. Notice that this naming
relationship is arbitrary. A community is free to choose any word for any concept but
once chosen it cannot be easily separated from the concept for which it stands. Thus
for the object 'chair', Hindi speakers do not choose chair; they call it kursii. But then
every time a Hindi speaker sees a 'chair', be says kursii and not peR which is the
Hindi word far 'treeJ,T h i s pairing of the label w d the concept gives us what is
known as the lingtnistic sign, The ~oncepthhoughtof a chair, the sounds used to utter
that word and the actual abject 'chair' must constitute one single entity - a lioguistic
sign,

The concept of the linguistic sign was given by the farnous lipgujst Ferdinand de
Saussure (1857-1923),According ta him, the pairing of word-labels and meaning-
concepts produce a system of signs, Each s i p consist5 o f Wo part$: a signifier item a
label and a signifled i,e, the concept, It is important to n ~ t that
e the actual sim is not
one or the other or botl~;the sign is the assoatation that binds tbp label and the
concept together. In the pictures below, w$ give visual: illustrations of the s i g s for
'tree' and 'book ,
J

BOOK TREE

Notice that the sounds or letters invalved 1~speaking or writing the words tree and
book have nothing to do with the objects 'tree' and 'book'; any other set of sounds
would do just as well, Hindi speqkeis, for example, Use the sequence p-e-R for the
object 'tree' wvd the sequellce k-i-t-qa-b for the object 'book . However, once these
J
,

carrespondences are established, they acquire a fairly permanent place in out minds.
, WQoften wond~r bow we would function ifwe did not develop this important
' mechanism, Imagine how you would feel if you yere to coin a new word every time
8
I
You see a new chair. And then different people in the same community may coin very
s

, different words for the same objeot and it may become impossible to talk to each
5
other. If I want to talk to you, then we must share not only the same words but also
, the concepts these words denote. According to Saussure,
I

35
What is Language? Just as it is impossible 10 take apair of scissors and cut one side ofpaper wifhout a!
the same time cutting the other, so it is impossible in a language to separate sounri
from thought, or thoughtfrom sound.

The concept of the linguistic sign is often used to suggest that our thoughts are
entirely formed by our language. Hindi speakers have only one word barffor the
object for which English speakers have at least two i.e. ice and snow; and Eskimos
have more than twenty. So speakers of Hindi, English and E s l m o languages perhap
see the world very differently and thelr perceptions are conditioned by their
languages. Does everyone see the same number and k ~ n d of s colours? Do two
different communities living in the same environment classify and categorize the
flora and fauna around them m the same way? Is there only one 'Reality' there? Or i
it the case, that different languages produce different versions of external reality?
What happens to people who know and use many languages at the same time?

4.3 SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS

The relationship between language and our perception of reality and its representatio
in the human mind was explored by the famous anthropolog~callinguist Edward
Sapir (1994-1939) and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941 ). The Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis named after them has two aspects: linguistic relativity and
linguistic determinism. The principle of linguistic relativity says that different
people see the world in different ways; some people see only one kind of water,
others may see five different kinds of water and therefore feel the need for having
five different words for different kinds of water. One community may be happy with
'uncle' and 'aunt' while another may have ten different words in this domatn of
kinship words. There is thus no natural or absolute way of labelling the world around
us. According to the theory of linguistic determinism, language provides the
framework for our thoughts and it is impossible to think outside this frame, Saplr felt
that people were at the mercy of their language. He said:

A is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use
of language and that language is merelj) an incidental means of solving specific
problems of communication or rejection. Thefact of the matter is that the 'rtzal
world' is to a large &tent unconsciously built gp on the language habits of the
group ... .... . We see and hear and otherwise experience very l~rgelyas we LIO because
the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretations.
(Sapir 1929: 207)

According to Whorf,

We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages The categories qsnd
types that we isolatefrom the world ofphenomena we do notfznd there because they
stare every observer in the,fice;on the contrary, the world is presented in n
kaleidoscopicfllu: of impressions which has to be organized by our minds-,and this
tneafs.largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize il
into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, lar*gelybecause we @reparties to
an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughozlt our
speech community and is codified in the patterns of ozlr language. The ugrrencent is,
of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its ternzs lire absoltrtely oblig~rto17,;
we
cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classificntiarr of da,u
which the agreement decrees.
(in Carroll 1956: 21:

Notice that whereas Sapir rather carefully talks in terms of only 'predisposing'
36 speakers of a language to the outside reality and the corresponding thought patterns,
~ h n rllccr,
f ex~ressionssuch as 'absolutely obligatory' and the linguistic agreement
 decreeingythe structure of our talk, Whorf s claim was largely based on his
Language and
experience as a fire prevention engineer and the analysis of some American Indian Thought
languages, in particular, Hopi. As a fire engineer, he noticed that the behavic~rof fire
workers was conditioned by their use of the words 'empty' and 'full'. They regarded
drums 'full' only when they had liquid in them. They would happily smoke
beside 'empty' drums, which were actually 'full' of gas vapour, thus causing fire.
Wharf felt that the world is seen, understood and analyzed in terms of the linguistic
patterns of the speaker's language. His work on Hopi showed that the structure of
typical European languages such as English, French or German was completely
different from Hopi and this explained the different ways in which the two
communities saw the reality around them. He found that in most languages it was
common to understand abstract notions and experiences through using concrete
metaphors. For example, we talk about 'grasping an idea', 'moving a debate' or
6embracean idea' etc. Hopi does not follow the same pattern. Again, most European
languages analyze time in terms of present, past and future. This conceptualization of
time can be represented as:
~h~ past---------------------------------now----------------------- the future

In this system, the past is over and done with, the present is happening now and the
future is yet to come. But the Hopi people see the world as essentially a process;
objects and events are not discrete and countable; time is not segmented into fixed
categories and measured in units of minutes, hours and days. According to Whorf,
Hopi contains no words or expressions or grammatical categories that refer directly
to what we call time; there is perhaps no general notion of time as flowing from the
past through the present to the future. Rather, the Hopi speakers appeared to focus on
change and process itselc they appeared to Whorf to be more concerned with the
distinctions between the presently known, the mythical and what should possibly
happen in the future.

Many people have found the Sapir-Whorfian hypothesis very attractive; they feel that
language determines their thought patterns in important ways. In more recent times,
philosophers like Wittgenstein and Davidson have enriched the copitivist position in
a variety of ways. It is suggested that no other species matches human beings in the
complexity, rationality and sophistication of thought and no other species has
language like the one we have; this uniqueness is possible only if we believe that it is
only language that makes thought possible. The physical and mental activity of most
animals is restricted to seeking food and sex, rearing their young ones and protecting
themselves from predators. Even the most painstakingly trained dogs and cats
display a finite number of responses and behaviour of any significant complexity.
But human beings, in addition to all the above, do Physics nd Mathematics, make
ships and space shuttles of increasing complexity, explore genetic mappings, write
poems and create music et. Some may argue that this is possible because of some
abstract intelligence. But this according to the cognitive view is calling water H20.
It does not explain anything. It is language that makes thought possible.
In any case, there is no doubt that language is extremely important for our thoughts.
As Russell says, it is unnecessary to prolong the catalogue of the uses of language in
thought. As compared to images, we produce words easily to articulate our thoughts
and listen to them effortlessly to understand others. If we did not have words and
sentences, abstract images will almost be impossible to comprehend. Language
provides a stable system. Every time people say 'tree', they mean the same object,
although their pronunciations may be significantly different. We always need words
to recall or describe an image, a thought or an event in our memory.

1)
4.4 LANGUAGE-INDEPENDENT THOUGHT

But as we noted above there are many scholars who believe that language and
, thouaht are auite different things and that language is only one svstern for
lYhar communicating thoughts and ideas. According to Pinker (1994:57), the idea that
thought is the same thing as language is an example of what may be called a .
'conventional absurdity'. It is of course a truism to say that language helps us to
articulate our thoughts, ideas and images. But the amount.of mental activity that takes
place independent of language must be substantial and significant. Imaglt1e an
ordinary person who has just moved house; hisher household goods including hisiher
furniture, etc. are lying outside, all in a pile; s h e enters the liv~ngroom, then the bed
rooms, kitchen, toilet, etc. s h e examines the spaces available in different rooms and
figures out where sthe would keep hisker beds, washing machine, dryer, sofas, etc.
She suddenly notices the comer where s h e can keep the TV and the big table lamp.
Immense mental activity is going on but there is no language involved here.

Consider as another example the case of translation from one language to another. If*
thought independent of language were not possible, perhaps no translation will ever
be possible. For a translator, it should be possible to somehow code thoughts
expressed in the source language independent of both the source and the target
languages.

Again, there are a large number of people in the' world who acquire two or three
languages as their native languages. For example, in Delhi, it is possible to find
thousands of people who may be equally proficient in say Puhjabi, Hindi and Englisll.
What is the relationship of language and thought in their minds? It seems obvious
that there must be several domains in which helshe will have three different words,
for a single concept, presumably stored independent of different languages.
I

Again, if we were really prisoners of the words of our language, how shall we ever
create new words. But we do it all the time. Consider the recent words such as fiu-,
camcorder, ernail, wireless, web, hoover, etc. Although all great poetry is coded in
'language', there are many poems where we get a distinct feeling that a lot more than
/- linguistic activity is going on. Consider Yeats for example,

An aged man is but a paltry thing,

A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in ~ t mortal
s dress,
(From 'Sailing to Byzantium')

or T.S.Eliot in Little Gidding I1

Ash on an old man's sleeve

Is all the ash the burnt roses leave.
Dust in the air suspended
Marks the place where a story ended.

Coleridge's Kubla Khan as you know was created in a dream and leaves the dream-
like impact on anybody who reads the poem:

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed, $*.

And drunk the milk of paradise.

Or consider the old man's reply to Alice when she asked him who are you, aged man
and how is it you live?

He said 'I look for butterflies

That sleep among the wheat:
I make them into mutton-pies,
And sell them in the street,
 I sell them unto men,; he said,
Language and
'who sail on stormy seas;
Thought
and that's the way I get my bread -
a trifle, if you please.'

The mental landscape that produces such lines in every language must consist of a lot
Inore than just language.

Again, we often find people saying : I know exactly what I have in mind but I can't
find the words to say it; or, that's not what I meant at all though that's exactly what I
said. Such statements are possible only if we can maintain a disjunction between
language and thought. We may also note that it is not just poets, painters or dancers
who think in terms of images. Many scientists, mathematicians, geometers and
astronomers also do. Let us turn to Pinker (1 994:71) again:

Pl~ysicalscientists are even more adamant that their thinking is geometrical, not
verbul. Micheal Faradaj), the originator of our modern conception of electric and
magneticj?elds, had no training in mathematics but arrived at his insights by
visuulizing lines of force as narrow tubers curving through space. James Clerk
~uvwellji~r~nalized the concepts of electromagneticfields in a set of mathematical ,

equations and is considered the prime exarnple of an abstract iheoretician, but he set
down the equations only after mentally playing with elaborate imaginary models of
sheets andfluids. ... The most famous self-described visual thinker is Albert Einstein,
wlzo arrived at some of his insights by imagining himself riding a beam of light and
looking back at a clock.

4.5 LET US SUM UP

There are thus diametrically opposed views about the relationship between language
and thought. At the.one extreme end we have the view that thought is language; at ,
I
[he other extreme we have the view that thought is independent of language. There is
no doubt that language conditions our thinking in a very substantial way. We
internalize a considerable part of our conceptual world and knowledge through
language. We should also note that for most people language is the only frequently
used medium of articulating thoughts and ideas. On the other hand, we also need to
recognize that a lot of language independent thought is possible and that language-
independent thought is at the source of a considerable part of normal human activity
and of poetry, mathematics and science.

I 4.6 SUGGESTED READINGS

Thomas,L. and Wareing, S. eds. 1999. Language, Society and Power. London:
Routledge.

Vygotsky, L.S.1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, Mass. i Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Languages. New
York; Harper Perennial.

Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J.eds. 1998 Language and Thought. Cambridge: .

Cambridge University Press.

Russell, B.1992. The Analysis of Mind. London: Routledge.

JVhut is Lnnjpnge? 4.7 QUESTIONS
-
1. Find a friend whose mother tongue is entirely different from yours (e.g. i f
your mother tongue is Hindi, find a friend whose mother tongue is Tamil or
French etc.). Make a list of colour terms In your language. Elicit the
equivalents from your friend in her mother tongue. Examine the viability of
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

2. Take a short poem from your language and translate it into English.
Comment on the process of your translation.

3. Examine critically a situation in which you worked largely in tenns of images

for which your language does not have single words.