Abstract
AbstractThe study of language has been historically proposed as a model for human sciences. For the structuralists, it is because languages, like society, and cultural habits, are man-made rule-based systems. For the Darwinists, it is because cultures and societies are like living species, and can be studied with biological methodology. Sociology, biology and linguistics are considered analogous in different ways. To support work in theoretical and applied linguistics, this paper discusses the problem of the nature of language, investigating how the question “What is language?” has been approached from different angles. Textbook answers guide us in many different directions: language is a tool for communication—and for thinking. It is a collection of words and instructions how to use them. It is the characteristic which—arguably—separates humans from other animals. It is a social construction, a system of symbols, a system of systems, and so on. To classify perspectives, the intellectual history of schools of linguistic thought is examined, connecting linguistic theory with related disciplines. A taxonomy is proposed based on two axes: humanistic versus biological; and historical versus systemic. Main linguistics frameworks are identified and placed into a fourfold table based on these axes. They include the Bloomfieldian school (Type 1); Saussurean structuralism and its derivatives (Type 2); generative grammar and biolinguistics (Type 3); and cognitive‒evolutionary linguistics (Type 4).
Funder
University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference145 articles.
1. Adams RM (1955) Theory of culture change: the methodology of multilinear evolution. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
2. Arnauld A, Lancelot C ([1660] 2015) General and rational grammar: the port-royal grammar. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
3. Aronoff M (2017) Darwinism tested by the science of language. In: Bowern C, Horn L, Zanuttini R (eds) On Looking into Words (and Beyond): Structures, Relations, Analyses. SUNY Press, Albany
4. Atkinson QD, Gray RD (2005) Curious parallels and curious connections - phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Syst Biol 54(4):513–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150590950317
5. Aunger R (2010) The electric meme: a new theory of how we think. Free Press, Glencoe IL
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献