Relativism is indeed the hallmark of pre-Chomskyan linguistics. One important generalization was that languages are different. The end-results of Bloomfieldian research were meticulous, detailed descriptions of individual languages. Bloomfield s methodology was rigorous: the approach must be inductive, the object must be observable (language is primarily speech), and the generalizations must be empirically verifiable. When he claimed that linguistics was a scientific discipline, he referred to natural sciences, not in terms of content but in terms of methodology. 1 Bloomfield, as best exposed by his Language (1933), was different. Their expertise in anthropology, or their deep concern with local cultures, no doubt gave strong influence on their linguistic research. It is easy to understand relativism in the Boasian and Sapirean traditions, since Boas and Sapir were both linguist anthropologists. It was the main characteristic of Boas s works on American-Indian languages, Sapir s writings on language and culture, and even Bloomfield s scientific linguistics. INTRODUCTION: THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING BACK During the first half of the 20 th century, linguistic relativity not an explicit term but a common assumption in language research prevailed well in American linguistics. LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY REVISITED AND RENEWED The true difference between languages is not in what may or may not be expressed but in what must or must not be conveyed by the speakers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |