Semantics of contemporary linguistics: from solitary to a heterofonic narrative

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

УДК 81'37

Semantics of contemporary linguistics: from solitary to a heterofonic narrative

V. Sutanovac

Головна мета пропонованої статті - дати огляд лінгвістичної галузі та її новітніх складових шляхом акцентування на а) міждисциплінарності / монодисциплінарності; б) атомізмі / холізмі; в) універсалізмі / англоцентризмі. Щоб не надавати традиційний та примітивний хронологічний огляд концепцій, які вважаються стержневими у сучасному мовознавстві, необхідно перенести головний фокус на величезний потенціал такого феномена як гетерофонія. Також вважаємо важливим підвищити усвідомлення значущості поглядів щодо продуктивності методології, які вони передбачають задля дослідження релевантних явищ. За цією логікою, подалі передбачається пояснення таких підходів до дослідження мови (співвідносних явищ у тому числі), котрі розглядаються дуже близькими до гетерофонного наративу, що вкорінений у такі поняття, як диалогізм, з'єднання, вживання, гетерофонія та гетерохронічність. Частина дослідження присвячена місцю гетерофонного стилю у більш широкому контексті. Тобто слід систематично і методологічно надати короткий опис її позадисциплінарних можливостей. Автором розглядається стан досліджень, що доповнюється утвердженням про більш перспективні напрямки розвитку її складових з метою досягнення плідного спільного підґрунтя. Воно дозволить не лише дійти до самої сутності досліджуваного мовного явища, але й донести такі цінні погляди ближче до загальної спільноти у зрозумілий та епістемологічно осяжний спосіб.

Ключові слова: гетерофонія, гетерофонний наратив, гетерохронічність, лінгвістика.

Основная цель предлагаемой статьи - дать обзор лингвистической науки и ее новейших подразделов путем акцентирования внимания на, казалось бы, непримиримых дихотомиях: а) междисциплинарности / монодисциплинарности; б) атомизме / холизме; в) универсализме / англоцентризме. Чтобы не предоставлять традиционный и примитивный обзор многочисленных концепций, которые считаются осевыми в современном языкознании, необходимо перенести главный фокус на огромный потенциал такого феномена как гетерофония. Также необходимо повысить осознание значимости взглядов касательно продуктивности методологий, которые они предусматривают для изучения релевантных явлений. Следуя этой траектории, целесообразно объяснение таких подходов к исследованию языка (соотносимых явлений в том числе), которые рассматриваются как очень близкие к гетерофонному нарративу. Последний укоренен в такие понятия как диалогизм, объединение, употребление, гетерофония и гетерохроничность. Часть исследования посвящена изучению места гетерофонного нарратива в более широком контексте. Необходимо систематически и методологически дать краткое описание исследований в лингвистике, которое бы дополнялось утверждением о более перспективном направлении развития ее составляющих с целью достижения продуктивной общей основы. Такая основа позволит не только дойти до самой сущности языкового явления, но и даст возможность лингвистам донести ценные идеи понятным и эпистемологически достижимым путем.

Ключевые слова: гетерофония, гетерофонный наратив, гетерохроничность, лингвистика.

The underlying purpose of this address shall be to provide an analytical overview of the field of linguistics in general and its contemporary subdisciplines in particular, by placing special emphasis on such, seemingly irreconcilable, dichotomies: [a] interdisciplinarity/monodisciplinarity [b] atomistic/wholistic and [c] universal/аnglocentric. However, instead of providing a traditional and crude chronological overview of the numerous voices regarded as pivotal in the field of contemporary linguistics, the focus shall be placed on their core assumptions thought to hold the greatest potential in terms of heterofonia. As well as on the questions that can prove helpful in raising the awareness of these voices concerning the productivity of the methodologies they employ in investigation of the relevant phenomena. Following this trajectory, the narration will be further extended by an account of those approaches to the study of language (the relevant phenomena included) that are held as being the closest to achieving the status of a heterofonic narrative which is rooted in such notions as dialogism, coupling, utility, heterofonia and heterochronicity. The penultimate portion of the address will be focused on placing the heterofonic narrative into a broader context. That is to say, a brief account of its outerdisciplinary applicative potentials shall be provided in a systematic manner. The address shall be concluded with a word on the current state of academic affairs in contemporary linguistics, complemented by the proposition of potentially more rewarding directions its subdisciplines might take in order to reach the productive common grounds. Such common grounds would allow them not only to get to the core of the phenomena, but allow them to bring these invaluable insights closer to the general public in a comprehensible and epistemologically illuminating way.

Key words: heterofonia, heterofonic narrative, heterochronicity, linguistic.

As a species, we are driven by a number of forces. Some of them are rooted in our environment, while others in us ourselves. One such predominantly inner-rooted driving force is the narrative.

Many would characterize a narrative as our way of coping with the environment we are a part of. I maintain it is our way of coupling with this very environment and, equally importantly, our way of coupling with each other. For, when parts of the environment are coupled to the brain in the right way, they become parts of the mind [1], and when one person is coupled to another in the right way, it also becomes part of another person's mind.

Now, in order for a narrative to be exactly this - a conjoiner, it needs to possess certain qualities. First and foremost, in terms of articulation it needs to be morphic, i.e. when the complexity a narrative wishes to address is translated into simplicity the intended message must still be there. Second, it also needs to be dynamic, i.e. voice many different voices (from the present, as well as the past), but do so in such a way that allows them to coexist simultaneously within it, as different but interconnected levels of abstraction. Because no single voice, on its own, speaks the absolute truth. Finally, it must be dialogic, i.e. be able to take all these voices into account and, by letting them speak, determine the meeting points before reconciling them into one coherent entity - a heterofonicl narrative.

The Narrative of Linguistics linguistic atomism holism

The general message of the quote above resonates rather well with one of the underlying ideas of heterofonia (heterofonic narrative included). Namely, that in constructing an epistemologically illuminating narrative the voices of the past are every bit as important as the voices of the present. And if the narrative seeks to attain not only objectivity, but also longevity, this is of course paramount.

Analyzing the narrative of linguistics, its recent chapters in particular, from the point of view of heterofonia we notice that it is, slowly but surely,, starting to take up the form of a heterofonic narrative in the true sense of the phrase. One quote I find sums up this topical and dimensional shift particularly well: No matter which of the sciences devoted to speech and language we consider ... we find that the focus of interest has shifted from the syntax and formal semantics of the utterance to its pragmatics. We are concerned with the speaker as he relates to his listener - this is the new perspective from which the traditional issues of these disciplines are being reviewed nowadays. [2]. From Heterofonia [different-voice-ness-cum-reconciliation] - author's (Bakhtin-motivated) term referring to the presence of different voices coexisting simultaneously and non-conflictingly, but collaboratively in an entity with an addition that, especially in the recent years, this focus has been extended yet further to include two additional kernels crucial for the reification and establishment of the heterofonic narrative of linguistics. The concern with the speaker as he relates, [a] to the external environment (and vice versa the environment's effect on the speaker) and, [b] to the internal environment i.e. the processes that take place inside the brain and motivate external behavior - linguistic especially.

This crucial shift becomes particularly apparent when we take into account that a significant number of influential voices that are becoming more and more a vital part of its present day heterofonic fabric, in fact belong to and span across both the intra- and the inter-disciplinary fields - from pragmatics, functional and cognitive linguistics to cognitive psychology, philosophy of mind, neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

Even though it might take quite some time until all the voices learn to communicate dialogically with one another (for the advancement of (contemporary) linguistics), some theories and frameworks have already shown that this is not only possible, but moreover necessary. Furthermore, this is also a crucial precondition if a narrative is to achieve epistemological validity while, at the same time, being informatively beneficial for the general public.

In the light of what has been said so far, the primary purpose of the remainder of this address shall be that of a meta-setting. A setting where all the voices that have in the course of time become a significant part of the Linguistic fabric, will be aligned so as to allow them to speak their mind. But in a atotalitarian manner of speaking. That is to say, in a manner of speaking that, would not give supremacy to one voice over the other, but that would facilitate dialogism and conceptual reconciliation for the purpose of bringing us closer to a heterofonic narrative.

Modus Operandi

Before immersing ourselves further into the fabric of the linguistic narrative, important to point out is that I will be taking a slightly different approach to narration. Namely, instead of providing a traditional and crude chronological account of the numerous voices regarded as pivotal in the field of contemporary linguistics, I shall focus on their core assumptions thought to hold genuine potential in terms of heterofonia. Following this trajectory, our narration will be further extended by an account of those approaches to the study of language (and pertinent phenomena) that are, in my opinion, closest to achieving the status of a heterofonic narrative. And concluded by placing a heterofonic narrative into a broader context, i.e. at providing a brief account of its outerdisciplinary applicative potentials.

Voices And The Meaning

As pointed out in the introductory section of this chapter, the shift from the study of formal (i.e. prescribed) to the functional (i.e. in-use-cum- cognitive) properties of language marked the advent of contemporary linguistics. Furthermore, if we survey the sciences devoted to language2 and the related phenomena, we will see that at the moment the above statement was articulated the majority of them had already made the functional a primary substance of their study, albeit employing different methods of investigation, Despite this divergence on methodological grounds, however, there was an evident convergence in terms of questions and notions these sciences sought to address.

Having contemporary linguistic investigation in mind, one notion, in particular, became a focal point - the notion of meaning. Its reification inevitably raised a number of critical questions such as: Should meaning be approached from a minimalist (componential/atomistic) or maximalist (holistic) perspective? What is the relationship between language and meaning? And between meaning and linguistic units/structures in particular? Is meaning intralinguistic, intracranial or extralinguistic, or is it a result of the interplay between the three? How is word meaning represented in language? Does the word(-meaning) representation mirror how we perceive the word mentally (strictly conceptual) or how we perceive the world mentally (strictly an abstraction)? Or is it an interface between the two?

To this very day these questions remain at the core of the impetus that drives forth much of the voices in contemporary linguistics. In particular those that centre around the interface of lexicon, meaning and use, and which are to be our primary concern here. However, before we listen to what these voices have to say, we need to place them within a broader temporal context because in order to be able to understand and future a specific notion, we first need to trace its roots back to the “apriori” and complement it by the analysis of its “apresenti”. For, it is only through such an encompassing consideration and scrutiny that we will be able to arrive at a genuinely complete picture [3]. Given the limitations of the clock and the paper, this we shall do in the form of a visual representation [4] (see pict. 1).

Picture 1.

Apriori: Generative Voice

Many scholars today would argue that generativism already spoke its mind, and did so rather unsuccessfully. Although there is some truth to this, the practice, however, does generativism much more justice. Particularly if we take into account some of the leading pragma-semantic approaches of today that rest implicitly on its core assumptions.

In spite of being heavily disputed from the point of view of the majority of present day linguistic disciplines and findings, the generative approach, just like those that preceded it, made, nevertheless, significant contributions to the linguistic narrative in the form of a number of valid assumptions. The best evidence for this is the fact that they continue to live on as a part of the fabric of those approaches that are at the forefront of contemporary linguistics today such as the [1] Natural Semantic Metalanguage (Wierzbicka/ cognitive pragmatics/semantics), [2] Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff/ post-generative cognitive linguistics), [3] Two-Level Semantics (Bierwisch/ ), [4] Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky/ computational linguistics/ lexical semantics), [5] Idealised Cognitive Model[s] (Lakoff/ cognitive semantics).

When it comes to the contributions to heterofonia, the generative voice has the following to say:

[a] Chomskian sub-voice

- universal natural language properties i.e. the introduction of the notions of “conceptual primitives” and “conceptual grammar”

- “finite-for-infinite” principle i.e. the notion that with the finite set of building blocks, the infinite variety of possible concepts can be constructed.

[b] Fodor-Katzian sub-voice

- Extended structuralist method of analysis [i.e. re-adaptation and elaboration of componential analysis)

- Formalist system of description [i.e. grounding description of meaning in context]

- Mentalist conception of meaning [i.e. renewal of interest in psychological reality of meaning]

- Conceptual/practical elaboration of the principles of “productivity” and “systematicity”

Apresenti: Cogno-Functionalist Voice

Minimalist-cum-Maximalist

Brought together under this heading are those contemporary linguistic perspectives that are (implicitly) grounded in structuralist assumptions, but look to further expand on them in a post-generativist and cogno-functionalist manner. The most prominent approaches belonging to this current are [1], [2],

[3] , [4] (“minimalist”) and [5] (“maximalist”). At a first glance, the models these approaches propose might appear too restricted, both in terms of their key components and the resulting representations, as well as in terms of the number of factors they take into account. However, what a closer examination reveals is in fact a system of intricate reciprocal relations. On an external level, this is reflected by the interface between the environment (socio-cultural context), the building units (primes/primitives), and the structures (representations) and entities ([word]meaning) they generate. On an internal level, these relations concern the key building components, the resulting representational structures and their interface to cognition. Turning to literature at large, theoretical especially, the aforementioned approaches tend to be underestimated in terms of dimensions they encompass. Namely, it is pointed out that in terms of substance, they further build on such structuralist notions as [a] decompositional or [b] relational descriptions of semantic structure alone, by paying specific attention to the issues raised by generativist semantics, i.e. [c] the possibility of formalization and [d] the exact borderline between linguistic meaning and cognition at large [4]. Put this way, the approaches in question do appear extremely minimalist in their overall scope., especially with regards to the aspects they take into account. However, such (dimensional) reductionism is, in essence, fairly off the mark since it neither captures their true nature, nor their real potency. While the first three characteristics can be said to hold true up to a point, in the case of the fourth this is the least true. Still, even the former three alone certainly should not be regarded as the sole determiners. For, the substance of the aforementioned approaches (corresponding models included) is, in fact, rooted in components that exhibit a far greater level of complexity, i.e. it is rooted in productivity and systematicity. The latter essentially deriving from one of the key notions of contemporary pragmatics - dialogism [5; 2]. The important implication of this is that, unlike generativism which sought to promote [d] by grounding meaning in grammar, i.e. in an isolated language structure, the contemporary approaches seek to promote functionalism by grounding meaning and their key concepts in pragmatics instead. Needles to say that by embedding them in the context of the environment at large, not only is the validity of these key concepts and the resulting models significantly increased, but essentially the validity of the approach itself as well.

If we had to put the modus operandi of the above mentioned models into words, then we could say that [1], [2], [3] and [4] are essentially minimalist with maximalist tendencies, i.e. they embrace more of a bottom-up approach, while [5] is essentially maximalist with minimalist tendencies, i.e. it takes more of a bottom-down approach to critical investigation of the relevant phenomena.

In terms of the contributions to heterofonia, this particular voice has the following to say:

[a] interdisciplinary dialogism;

[b] advancement of the notion of productivity by grounding the key constituents (primes/primitives/frames) in pragmatics;

[c] systematic and empirical search for a set of universal primitives;

[d] grounding conceptual grammar and meaning in utility,

[e] embedding language in the context of cognition and environment at large;

[f] embedding meaning in the context of environment at large;

[g] [word-meaning] representations as an interface between environment, language and cognition.

Before moving on to the final chapter of this narrative, a couple of final remarks are in order. Here, however, I would like to digress from the usual criticism in terms of statements and, in the form of questions instead, point out to the aspects these approaches should address more critically in order to further advance both their methodology and the resulting models.

Questions

[1] How can the building units (primes/primitives/frames) of componential analyses of meaning be empirically identified?

[2] Do representations formulated in terms of these building blocks mirror our mental perception of that which is being modeled, i.e. articulated by them? How can this be empirically tested?

[3] To what extent can the universality of primes/primitives be supported by strong empirical evidence?

[4] How easy is it to discriminate, in a principled manner, between semantic information and pragmatic or extralinguistic factors?

[5] Is it possible make a clear-cut distinction between linguistic meaning and cognition at large, i.e. between word meaning and world meaning?

[6] Minimalist or maximalist approach? Or a symbiosis of the two?

Heterofonic Narrative In Context: NSM Approach

The purpose of this final chapter of our narrative is twofold. Namely, the first fold will be dedicated to analysing the NSM approach from the heterofonic point of view i.e. to providing arguments to why this particular approach is considered the best candidate for a heterofonic narrative. The second fold will provide a succinct functional analysis of the resulting model along three axes - [1] general features of the model. [2] representational format and [3] further development, and shall be concluded by an account of the outerdisciplinary applicative potentials of the NSM model/approach as an empirical manifestation of a heterofonic narrative.

Heterofonic Analysis

[1] Morphism Complex message, i.e. word meaning(s), explicated in simple and intelligible intuitive terms - primes-cum-scripts;

[2] Dynamicism Not singularity, but plurality of voices-

[a] ethnographic voice

[b] pragmatic voice

[c] lingo-anthropological voice

[d] morphological voice

[e] phonological/phonetical voice

[f] syntactic voice

[g] semantic voice

[h] cognitive voice

[3] Dialogism Scripts as exponents of NSM narrative's dialogic and heterofonic nature

NSM Model Analysis-cum-Outerdisciplinary Potentials

[1] General Features of the model

- NSM language - intuitive simple natural language consisting of “limited” procedural vocabulary with unlimited productive potential

- “Systematic reductive paraphrase” methodology as a means to circumventing definitional/descriptive circularity

- Intuitive conceptual grammar grounded in utility (i.e. pragmatics) and comprised of:

[a] semantic primes, semantic molecules and semantic templates

[b] word-class specific combinatorial rules, i.e. NSM syntax

- NSM scripts - a powerful empirical technique for grounding world knowledge, culture and cognition in language

- Cross-linguistic/-cultural translatability

[2] Representational format

- “NSM Scripts” - multi-abstraction-level representations that interface the world, language and cognition

[3] Further Development

- Expansion of the NSM language corpus

- Expansion of NSM vocabulary

- Expansion of (language-specific) NSM templates

- Application to disciplines outside linguistics

Outerdisciplinary Potential

Grounding explications of complex phenomena such as (word)meaning is, by itself, quite an effort. The one with which not only linguistics, but also a multitude of other scientific disciplines have been struggling for some time now. And although great many of these disciplines is not willing to admit it, the fact remains that the majority of representational mediums are deeply flawed in one way or another. This representational issue has become quite acute, especially in those disciplines whose primary concern is modeling of language (e.g. natural language processing etc.) and cognition (e.g. (computational)modeling of the mind, modeling of emotions etc.). The entire matter is further complicated by the absence of an approach that would, at the same time, incorporate [a] interconnected multiple levels of abstraction, [b] simple building blocks - powerful in terms of generative productivity and [c] resulting simple intuitive representations, - powerful in terms of systematicity and explanatory strength.

In this sense, if translated adequately, the heterofonic NSM narrative can prove indispensable in solving a multitude of A.I.'s onto-epistemological questions.

Truth is not born, nor is it to be found inside the mind of an individual approach. It is born between approaches collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction.

References

1. Clark A. Supersizing the Mind / Andy Clark // Embodiment, Action and Cognitive Extension. - N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 2008. - P. 111 - 117.

2. Akhutina T. V. The Theory of Verbal Communication in the Works of M. M. Bakhtin and L. S. Vygotsky. / T. V. Akhutina // Journal of Russian and East European Psychology - [1984] 2003. - 41 (3): P. 96 - 114.

3. Sutanovac V. The Acculturation of Languag[e] for Specific Purposes / Vladan Sutanovac // In Vistas of English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. [In Press].

4. Geeraerts D. Theories of Lexical Semantics / Dirk Geeraerts. N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 2010. - 384 p.

5. Bakhtin M. The Aesthetics of Verbal Creativity / Mikhail Bakhtin. - M. : Iskusstvo - 1979. - 312 p.

6. Bakhtin M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics / Mikhail Bakhtin. - Minnesota : University of Minnesota Press, 1984 - 362 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru