Anatomy Of Language
In order to
understand the anatomy of language, it is imperative to know the nature of language,
how is it constituted? what different kinds of rules in language have to be
recognized? and how a language such as English may be broken down into various
levels of organization, and how these levels combine together. There are as
many ways in which such an account could be given as there are different
theories of how language works. The following sketch is a composite one, which
aims to be non-controversial. One thing on which there seems to be little
disagreement nowadays is that the traditional method of breaking language down
into two components, form and meaning, is inadequate. Instead, a roughly tripartite
model is usually preferred:
|
Realization
|
Form
|
Semantics
|
|
Phonology
|
|
(Denotative or
Cognitive) Meaning
|
|
Graphology
|
This diagram may
perhaps be best understood by imagining oneself in the position of someone
trying to learn the language for the first time, and asking oneself, 'What
different kinds of knowledge do I have to acquire, before I can say I know
English, and am able to use it properly?'
The Three Main
Levels: Realization, Form, Semantics
Since knowledge of a
language is traditionally condensed into two kinds of book, the dictionary and
the grammar book, it may be observed that to know a language competently, a
speaker is required to have memorized a vocabulary in that language, and to
have learnt a set of rules showing how the items of the vocabulary are to be
used in constructing sentences. These two parts, the lexicon and the grammar,
together comprise the formal aspect of the language.
But dictionaries and
grammar books do not entirely restrict themselves to specifying the lexicon and
grammar in this sense. They also give other kinds of information a learner
needs to know: how to pronounce and write the forms of the language, that is,
how to give them physical realization; and also what they mean. Thus three main
types of rule have to be known: rules of form, of realization (phonological or
graphological), and of semantics.
The same three-level
model applies both to the productive and receptive processes of language: to
listening and reading as much as to speaking and writing. The only difference
between these processes is that the types of rule are applied in the reverse order.
There is no point in going into details as to why language has
come to be analyzed on three major levels rather than two. But it may be useful
to give examples of locutions which are identical on one level and different on
another, neighboring level. These will illustrate the functions of each level,
and will also go some way towards suggesting why it is necessary to have three
levels at all. There are four possibilities to consider which are listed with
corresponding numbers below:
1. Homophony. Same pronunciation, different form (e.g. light
adj. and light noun).
2. Differentiation. Same form, different pronunciation (e.g. the
noun envelope pronounced either as ' envelope' or as if' onvelope'; in poetry,
over and o'er, etc.).
3. Synonymy. Same meaning, different form (e.g. none the less,
nevertheless, all the same).
4. Multiple Meaning (Polysemy). Same form, different meaning
(e.g. light=(i) 'undark', and (2) 'unheavy').
These four many-one relations apply not only to words, but to
sentences and longer utterances. The remark 'His designs upset her', for
example, has four possible meanings: [«] 'His drawings disturbed her'; [i] 'His
intentions disturbed her'; [c] 'His drawings disturb her'; [d\ 'His intentions
disturb her'. One ambiguity arises from the homophony of the two forms upset
(present tense) and upset (past tense), whereas the other arises from the
polysemy of designs. Hence lurking in ' His designs upset her' there are two
homophonous sentences, and each of these has two distinct meanings.
Phonology and Graphology
As English sentences can be transmitted by writing as well as by
speech, a competent performer needs to know both how to pronounce and how to
write the language. The term 'graphology' is somewhat wider than the more usual
term 'orthography', as it refers to the whole writing system: punctuation and
paragraphing as well as spelling. To a great extent, English graphology
imitates phonology - that is, the written version of the language is a visual
coding of its spoken version. But as everyone knows, English spelling does this
in a very irregular manner, and sometimes makes distinctions which are not
heard in speech (e.g. between ceiling and sealing). Moreover, punctuation does
not mirror features of spoken English in any obvious manner; it has not so far
been shown, for instance, that there is anything in speech corresponding to the
paragraph. Because graphology has to some extent its own rules and structure
independent of pronunciation, it is perhaps best treated as a separate level of
realization side by side with phonology. The two levels are thus in an
'either-or' relationship, in contrast to the 'both-and' relationship between
grammar and lexicon. But this does not mean that a written text has no
implications of spoken performance. Indeed, we know well enough that in poetry,
phonological effects, including those of versification, can be appreciated in
silent reading, as well as in reading aloud.
Meaning and Significance
It is clarified that the word meaning is to be used here in the
narrow sense of ' cognitive ', ' logical ', or ' denotative ' meaning:
that is, the kind of meaning which is the concern of the
dictionary-maker. This contrasts with a very broad use of the term often
encountered in literary studies, where the 'meaning' of a poem, a line, a word,
etc., may include everything that is communicated by it. This is preferably called
the significance or (more explicitly) total significance of a piece of
language. This distinction is made to avoid confusions which have sometimes
accompanied the use of such words as 'meaning' in reference to literature.
The (cognitive) meaning of an utterance or text is a part of its
total significance, but how important that part is depends very much on the
communicative situation. Scientific and technical varieties of English approach
as close as they can to a type of communication in which nothing is significant
except cognitive meaning. In personal conversation, however, allowance has to
be made for other, non-cognitive elements, especially of emotive and
attitudinal import. In poetry, so many special avenues of communication between
writer and reader are used, that cognitive meaning may seem to be only a small
part of the entire communication. Yet it would be quite absurd to insist that
cognitive meaning counts for nothing in poetry. Whilst we can reasonably assert
that the word cloud in Wordsworth's 'I wander'd lonely as a cloud' conveys
something additional to what it would convey in a weather forecast, there is no
need to go to the extreme of claiming that the meteorologist's and poet's uses
of the terms have nothing in common. If all words were deprived of cognitive
content in poetry, they would be reduced, in communicative power, to the level
of exclamations like alas, ouch, and tally-ho.
It has been a widely accepted doctrine for some time in literary
criticism that a poem or piece of poetry cannot be paraphrased. The debates
which have revolved around this doctrine show how confusion can result from an
undiscriminating use of terms like ' meaning' in literary discussion. But if we
bear in mind the above distinction between meaning and significance, the whole
issue is clarified. Of course, on the plane of cognitive meaning a poem can be
paraphrased: representing the 'sense' of a passage (i.e. its cognitive content)
in different words is in fact a recognized classroom exercise. But if by
'paraphrase' we understand 'giving the whole significance of a passage in
different words', then the doctrine which attacks the 'periphrastic heresy' is
no doubt correct.
Comments
Post a Comment