- The Prague School practiced a special style of synchronic linguistics.
- The members of The Prague School thought of language as a whole as serving a purpose.
- Prague linguists, on the other hand, looked at languages as one might look at a motor, seeking to understand what jobs the various components were doing and how the nature of one component determined the nature of others.
- They tried to go beyond description to explanations, saying not just what languages were like but why they were the way they were.
- Mathesius: theme and rheme.
- Trubetzkoy distinguished various functions that can be served by a phonological opposition: Distinctive function, delimitative function, culminative function.
- Karl distinguished another three functions: Representation function, expressivefunction and conative function.
-Saussure contrasted two kinds of linguistics:
*Synchroniclinguistics: The study of a system in which the various elements derive their values from their mutual relationship.
*Historicallinguistics: The description of a sequence of isolated, unsystematic events.
- The Prague School argues for system in diachrony and it claims that linguistics change is determined by synchronic état de langue.
- The Descriptivits´ approach to phonology might be described metaphorically as `democratic´.
- Descriptivists tended to be reluctant to admit that any sound which can be found in some language might nevertheless be regarded as a relatively `difficult´ sound in any absolute sense.
- One of the characteristic of the Prague approach to language was readiness to acknowledge that a given language might include a range of alternative “systems”, “registers”, or “styles”, where American Descriptivist tended to insist on treating a language as single unitary system.
- And the Prague scholars were particularly interested in the way that a language provides a speaker with a range of speech-styles appropriate to different social settings.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario