1 / 70

¡Tlatz-tla-kual-tzin! thunder-unspecified-good-ie

Functional linguistics explores the relationship between language function and form, highlighting the importance of understanding why languages evolve as they do. Contrasting formalist and functionalist frameworks, this approach emphasizes how communication needs and historical context shape linguistic structures. Functionalists prioritize functional and diachronic explanations, viewing language as a versatile tool that adapts to meet communicative demands. By studying how languages function in real-world contexts, linguists gain insights into the intricate dynamics of linguistic systems.

raulw
Télécharger la présentation

¡Tlatz-tla-kual-tzin! thunder-unspecified-good-ie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ¡Tlatz-tla-kual-tzin!thunder-unspecified-good-ie

  2. Function becomes meaning: The prefix tla-in Nawatl David Tuggy CILTA - URPSIL

  3. Introduction: Functional linguistics • There’s an important theoretical and cultural difference between two general linguistic frameworks of considerable influence. They may be called • The Formalist framework • The Functionalist framework • What is the difference?

  4. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Scott Delancey (a functionalist) says that • Formalists are not much interested in the question “Why?” • For functionalists, that is the most interesting question. • (Some formalists would probably disagree.)

  5. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Formalists and functionalists do seem to differ on where they look for explanations. • Formalists look for explanations from within the linguistic system, and not from outside it. • Some (e.g. Chomskyans) believe that the linguistic system is quite separate from everything else that goes on in our heads: it is a mysterious “black box” • It can only be understood by looking at linguistic data in search of the best self-contained explanation (one based only on what is within the system).

  6. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Given this way of looking at language, it is sufficient and desirable to achieve an explanation based on the hypothetical nature (otherwise unknown) of the human linguistic faculty. • One looks for evidence within languages which will let us understand more about the nature of the black box of the linguistic faculty. • Whatever isn’t explained by the nature of this black box is of lesser interest to these theorists.

  7. Introduction: Functional linguistics • For another branch of formalist linguistics, there is no such thing as explanation other than description: • “If the facts have been fully stated, it is perverse or childish to demand an ‘explanation’ into the bargain.” —Joos 1957, representing Bloomfield’s point of view.

  8. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Functionalists seek explanations in other areas. • Delancey emphasizes two favorite explanatory engines of the functionalists: • Function (motivation based on the use of language to communicate, on cognition, etc.) • Diachrony

  9. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Paraphrasing: Why do we talk the way we do? • Because it’s useful • Because we’ve done it that way before • The two explanatory engines of functionalism: • Function • Diachrony

  10. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Obviously and importantly, it is useful to talk the way we are used to talking • So, Diachrony is also Functionally motivated • We started talking that way because it was useful, and it generally keeps on being useful.

  11. Introduction: Functional linguistics • In other words, Functional motivation and Diachrony are not opposed or contradictory; rather they fit very well with each other.

  12. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Functional motivation and Diachrony often go in cycles: • Functionally motivated changes are made. • These changes are consolidated and become established habits of speech. • These then form the background for new changes.

  13. Introduction: Functional linguistics • It’s useful to think of a language as a box of tools which we can use to communicate with. • For a given communicative purpose you can always build a new tool, but • It is likely to be expensive, difficult, and not all that helpful

  14. Introduction: Functional linguistics • You get better results (generally it is more Functional) taking an existing tool (one already developed Diachronically), even though it was made for a slightly different purpose, and use it for what you want to do.

  15. Introduction: Functional linguistics • You want to open a paint can: • You could invent a paint-can-opener from scratch, • But you’re better off just grabbing a screwdriver and opening your paint can.

  16. Introduction: Functional linguistics • The screwdriver was not made for opening paint cans. • But it works, • And very quickly you can get used to using it that way.

  17. Introduction: Functional linguistics • You want to unscrew a Torx screw • So you go after it with your Philips screwdriver

  18. Introduction: Functional linguistics • The great thing about linguistic tools is that they automatically adapt themselves to their tasks. • When you use your Philips screwdriver on Torx screws …

  19. Introduction: Functional linguistics • It turns into a Torx screwdriver … • …without losing its ability to work on Philips screws.

  20. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Many linguistic forms come pre-adapted for several related functions.

  21. Introduction: Functional linguistics • And sometimes for rather different functions.

  22. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Some supermorphemes are Swiss Army knives. • They have been used for so many things that they are impressively polysemic.

  23. Introduction: Functional linguistics • The phonological form is the handle of the tool. • Every functional capability that it acquires is a new (polysemic) meaning.

  24. Introduction: Functional linguistics • This stands the “performance – competence” distinction on its head. • Chomsky and others talk as if perfor-mance is best ignored except as it fitfully reflects the pristine platonic Competence, residing in the black box.

  25. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Here we are claiming that usage affects, to the point of determining, linguistic competence. • Usage affects, in fact it determines, the shape of the lexical and grammatical tools in the linguistic toolbox.

  26. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Of course the shape of the tools very strongly affects how we use them. • But we can and do stretch meanings by new usages

  27. Tla- • The prefix tla- in Nawatl (Nahuatl) is a Swiss Army super-morpheme. • Its basic function is to let you avoid mentioning the object of a transitive verb.

  28. Transitive verbs • A transitive verb is like a light socket. • It is obviously incomplete. Something is missing.

  29. Objectless transitive verbs • Leaving a transitive verb without its object is like leavingthe light socketwithout itslightbulb

  30. Objectless transitive verbs • A verb like eat is an empty object socket. • When you hear it you want to know what got eaten. • But what if you as speaker would rather not say what got eaten?

  31. Objectless transitive verbs • Different languages have evolved different ways of responding to this functional need. • In English you cansimply not mentionthe object.

  32. Objectless transitive verbs • Instead of saying: “Adam ate the apple,” • You can just say“Adam ate” • and leave it atthat.

  33. Objectless transitive verbs • If you do this often enough, the verb eat will change. • It will stop being so important to specify the object. • In Nawatl this tactic is not permitted. You have to name an object.

  34. Objectless transitive verbs • Another tactic is to look for a different verb which doesn’t require an object. • You can say: “Adam dined (at 10 o’clock)” • People will no longer expect to hear what he ate.

  35. Objectless transitive verbs • Other languages have an “antipassive” construction. • Just as a passive lets you use a verb without mentioning its subject, an anti-passive lets you use it without mention-ing its object.

  36. Objectless transitive verbs • Not all languages have an antipassive. • English doesn’t, nor does Nawatl. (Nawatl doesn’t have a passive either.)

  37. Objectless transitive verbs • Yet another tactic is to use a “cognate object”. • The cognate object doesn’t tell you any more than you already knew. • You can say: “Adam ate food.”

  38. Objectless transitive verbs • You can also use an object whose meaning consists in not saying what it is. • You can say: “Adam ate something.” • This would be an “unspecified object.”

  39. Tla- • This last strategy is the normal one by which Nawatl responds to this situation. • Instead of a separate word “something”, Nawatl uses the prefix tla-. • Tla- means (more or less) “something” • s.t. = “something”.

  40. Tla- • Nawatl has a series of prefixes which mark verbal objects. Tla- is a member of that series.

  41. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you choose not to specify the object? • There could be a number of functional reasons. • Those reasons become part of the meaning(s) of tla-.

  42. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: • You don’t know what was eaten. • Maybe the object was too small • Or you couldn’t see it from where you were • Etc. • It doesn’t matter to you what was eaten, and you don’t think it will matter to your hearer either.

  43. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: • You and your hearer already know what it was. • Your hearer could guess what it was. • You want to hold back that information till a different part of the discourse, where it will have a bigger impact. • You don’t want your hearer to know what it was.

  44. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: • The object is too scary to mention. • The object is too gross to mention. • The object is too holy to mention. • It could be any of these reasons, or any combination of them.

  45. Why would you use tla-? • All these reasons affect why Nawatl-speakers use tla- • And so tla- has adapted to such usages.

  46. Prototypical tla- • Sometimes you can’t specify any one reason as opposed to the others. • With this form a hearer doesn’t know why the speaker chose not to specify the object. It could be for any of the reasons we have mentioned.

  47. Prototypical tla- • Activating any of these meanings will also activate the schema that includes them all.

  48. Tla-‘unspecified object’ • These are the most common uses of tla- • We unfortunately don’t have time to discuss them all. • But notice the following paradox. • Sometimes tla- indicates an object which is obvious in context, a highly topical object. • Sometimes it marks an insignificant object, low in topicality.

  49. Tla-‘normal object’ • Often tla- marks an object that doesn’t need specifying because it is the normal object. 1 • What is eaten could not be, for instance, a rock.

  50. Tla-‘normal object’ • Other examples:

More Related