理论性或论说类论文范文

理论性或论说类论文范文

Reflection on Chomsky’s Idealization of Language

Author: CHEN Mou-mou

Supervisor: XU Mou-mou, Associate Professor

(College of Foreign Languages, Shandong Agricultural University, tai’an 271018)

Abstract: This paper begins with a brief introduction to Chomsky’s methodology of

idealization in linguistic research. Although the idealization in physical research from which Chomsky’s idealization deprives can still keep natural laws’ validity, the author points out Chomsky’s idealization is not accessible. The key point lies in the exclusion of social factors in his research. Then the author demonstrates the reason why Chomsky’s exclusion of social factors is not accessible from two aspects: (1) Language is a concrete system of signs. (2) Language is a social institution. Only in the context of society are these features significant and integrate, can language bear its form and forward its development and keep up the interaction with the society. Therefore instead of “being idealized” out of linguistic research, social factors should be regarded as the base of the research. Otherwise the object of the research will be totally changed and the research itself will be misguided. As for what factors can be temporarily idealized without changing language’s fundamental features, this is a question worth our further study in the future.

Key words: idealization; system of signs; social structure; interaction between

language and society

对乔姆斯基语言模式理想化的再思考

摘要：本文从乔姆斯基在语言学研究过程中所采用的理想化模式入手，认为乔姆斯

基为了使研究变得简单，便将与语言关系紧密的社会因素摒除在研究范围之外，这是一种不可取的理想模式。接下来本文从两个主要方面阐述了理想化模式不可取的原因：一是语言作为一种符号系统，只有在社会的环境下才能具有完整的意义。二是语言作为一种社会结构，无论是它的产生还是发展过程，都在不断地和社会发生着相互用。故而没有了社会因素，语言作为符号系统就丧失了意义，作为社会结构就丧失了依存的基础。所以只要是研究语言学，我们就不能将社会因素“理想化”。至于什么因素可以暂时不予考虑，这仍有待进一步的研究。

关键词：理想化；符号系统；社会结构；语言与社会的相互作用

1. Introduction

The mid-20th century has brought with it many significant changes and progresses in the study of language. New areas of inquiry have opened to serious investigation, leading to many insights and deeper understanding of the nature of human language. In the sphere of cognition, Chomsky’s theories on linguistics may be the most striking ones. They led far-reaching changes in the study of linguistics, and had great impact in a number of other fields as well.

One fact that can be found in Chomsky’s early linguistic works is that all his theories are set up on the research of so-called “idealization”. One remarkable of his methodology of idealization in the period of 1960s is that all the social factors were excluded out of his study. The reason why he did so lies in his consideration that if social factors were taken into account, then in the study of language there would be too many things to be taken care of. So he borrowed the widely used methodology of idealization from physics, and hoped to simplify the linguistic study. In his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, he presented us an “ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions and interest, and errors (random of characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance” (Chomsky, 1965: 3, 4). His subject’s total separation from the society is the most remarkable feature of his idealization. The ideal person is one without interference from outside environment, without communication with others but one simply speaks to himself. In short, he’s an isolated individual from the society. Many linguists approve of his idealization. Widdowson also described in his Linguistics the way in which the discipline of physics models the physical world in term of wave and particles bears no relationship to the way we experience it. This does not invalidate the model.

Is it true that Chomsky’s idealized models can keep their validity as the physical models do? The author thinks this method of idealization is doubtful. Because language on the one hand is a concrete system of signs, on the other hand is a social institution. Only in the context of a society are these two features significant and integrate, can language bear its forms, forward its development and keep up the interaction with society.

We should never forget “the concrete object of linguistic science is the social product deposited in the brain of each individual, i.e. language” (Saussure, 1960: 23). Accordingly, if linguistic research is conducted regardless social factors, all the fundamental attributes of the subjects will be changed totally. If that were the case then we could be making a paradox that what linguists research were anything but language. Consequently, this kind of methodology of idealization is by no means accessible.

2. Demonstration

Since Chomsky’s idealization method is born out of its counterpart in physics, we could begin with the ideal models in physical research to open the demonstration. Newton’s Second Law and Perfect Gas Law are two famous formulae in physics. Strictly speaking, many idealized conditions are required in order to validate these two formulae, such as the regardless of resistance and volume of molecules. These idealized models, however, in the practical physical research have never and will never invalidate the formulae themselves. Because the factors as resistance and the volume of molecules, can not prevent natural laws’ taking affect. They are only interfering factors from outside. As to the laws themselves, without these factors, in order to make the result more accurate, all people needed to do is just add some corrections. Furthermore, what the laws focus will become more clear and precise without the interference of these outside factors.

The linguistic research is different from the physical in that the function of social factors cannot be identified as the resistance and the volume of molecules in physics, because all the linguistic laws must be investigated in the context of society. If social factors could be “idealized” in the linguistic research, language would become the sign without significance, the sounds without listeners, the tools of no use. If researchers had conducted with such a prerequisite, we could not name what the subjects were. At least they were not languages. The linguistic research would be astray subsequently.

We could see some fundamental social influences on the nature of language from the following two aspects:

2.1 Language as a concrete system of signs

Saussure presented the concept that language can be treated as a system of signs. He said, “I propose to retain the word sign [signe] to designate the whole and to replace concept and sound-im-age respectively by signified [signifié] and signifier [signifiant]” (1960: 67).

2.1.1 Language as a system.

The reason why we can regard language as a concrete system is that language is systematic bonding of objectivity ad subjectivity. Human beings are born with cognitive aptitude. Different objects are not some simple reflections of images within human mind, but some concepts that require human beings’ mental process. For example, a dog in human mind is not only the appearance of the animal, but also the letters “d,o,g”, the pronunciation/dong/. So it is language that combines the image of an objective dog with

the concept of a subjective dog. And this kind of combination is exclusive and fixed as long as it has been built up within human mind. The so-called origin of language is the process of combination of concept and image as the author has mentioned above. But the process is rather contingent (or as Saussure said it is immotivé). For instance the same plant in Chinese is called/∫u(树), but in English it is /tri:/(tree). It is the contingency that causes the difference.

Then what kind of mysterious power continues and strengthens this difference for thousands of years? How could this power many new language forms as “树叶” in Chinese and “family tree” in English? Conventionalization is the answer to all these questions.

2.1.1 Conventionalization of language

As we have known, any form of science should and must be set up on the base of logic and reason instead of contingency. Subjective self-coined activity can only fashion a combination of concept and image in one single person’s mind. A case in point is those babies naming of some objects as “dido”, “da-da” etc. Adults cannot understand them, because without the acknowledgement of others, the naming of one thing is no more than a vocal sign without meanings and significance. With more and more people’s acknowledgement to the name, or the combination of concept and image, the name becomes more and more steady and lasting. Everyone in the society encounters either part of this combination. And the other part is reflected in his mind spontaneously. This process, namely, is one of conventionalization. Only after this process those initially contingent, insignificant signs become significant and meaningful. In other words, they have got social consensus from conventionalization.

Humboldt once described this process as “language develops socially, and man understands himself only he has tested the intelligibility of his words by trial upon others. For objectivity is heightened if the self-coined word is echoed from a stranger’s mouth” ( 1988: 56). Saussure summed up like this “Contrary to all appearance, language never exists apart from the social nature, for it is a semilogical phenomenon. Its social nature is one of its inner character” ( 1960: 77).

To conclude, only in the context of society, the combinations of image-concept and the acknowledgement to the self-coined combination can be determined as a fixed unity and systematic signs.

2.2 Language as a social institution

Society is a unity of separate individuals. How could these individuals unite as one in action? It is the communicative function of language that human beings have utilized and tired up to establish contact with individuals within their society. Accordingly, language itself merged into the society as a social institution.

2.2.1 Communicative function of language

Searle once made an incisive comparison “The purpose of language to communication is in much the same sense that the heart is to pump blood” (1969: 75).

Without language and communication, there is no society at all, but a group of separate individuals. At the same time, there is another undeniable truth that without society, language and its communicative function can not be realized at all. Society and language interact each other constantly. Saussure once argued “The culture of a nation exerts an influence on its language and the language, on the other hand, is largely responsible for the nations” (1960: 20).

2.2.2 Language evolving with the society

In the process of language’s evolution, the influence of society can be included into two aspects as follows: Macrolinguistic and Microlinguistic influences.

A. Influences from society upon language

a. Macrolinguistic influences involve “a more or less simultaneous effect on large group of people, up to entire society” (Bright, 1997: 23). As we know, some great historic events are always accompanied with changes in the field of language. As a result of Norman Conquest, French entered the upper class of England, and people with aspiration to rise socially might make efforts to master French. Take Liberation of China as another example instead of Mr, Miss, and Ms used before Liberation, all the people in Mainland became “comrades”.

b. While Microlinguistic influences “initiated by a single individual, or by a small group, an subsequently initiated by others who attribute social value to them” (Bright, 1997: 24). One case in point is the political slogans that we Chinese people are very familiar with. “When rulers invent their own the distinction between political slogan and proverbs can easily be blurred: there is a political dimension to the proverbs of Solomon and a proverbial quality to the saying of Chairman Mao” (Jones, 1983: 101). We should say Mao Tze-dong as an individual brought great influence on the language at that time. Also “an advanced state of civilization favors the development of special terminology (judicial language, scientific terminology etc.)”(Saussure, 1960: 21), so that certain terms or jargons are widely used in society.

B. Influences from language upon society

Besides the influence caused by society upon language, language to some extent can react on society accordingly. Humboldt said “language is the formative organ of thoughts”(1988: 54). And language in his opinion is not like a toolbox, is not already given work (like the content of the toolbox), but a creative power—or in his famous words, it is not “ergon”, but “energeia” (Humboldt, 1988: 16). Language, therefore, is not merely designative. It is not a representation but an expression. It is the society that empowers language’s creativity and expression. French in Norman Conquest, for instance, was not only a communicative means, but also an active expression of one’s social status. The magic power of language draws an invisible but existing line between different social classes. In film My Fair Lady, this kind of reform upon caused by language is very obvious.

a. Interaction between language and society

From the above points, the development of society and language needs their constant interaction. If society and language can be compared to two spheres of a single ball, then without the support of either half of the ball, this spheroid, namely the human world can not exist at all. Consequently, during the study of society or language, it is not an accessible way to separate one from the other. The study of language must be conducted in terms of society and vice versa.

b. Social factors and linguistic research

What was mentioned above has demonstrated the fundamental position that society takes during the study of language. Social factors in linguistic research as a conclusion are not such factors as resistance or the volume of molecules in physics. The latter are some interfering factors from outside while social factors belong to the inner character. Without them, language is no more than some insignificant and meaningless signs, even less to exist on the earth.

Saussure used the chess to compare the different functions of internal and external linguistics (Saussure, 1960: 22). Here the author wants to borrow this comparison to illustrate this paper’s idea. Let us assume that playing chess is the process of linguistic research. People’s taking social factors away from linguistic research seems as if leaving chessmen, take away chessboard. Without chessboard, chessmen are useless and insignificant. Accordingly, without society all the linguistic rules and phenomena are “imagination”, by on means “idealization”.

3. Conclusion

Instead of social factors, Chomsky’s linguistic research emphasizes on psychological phenomenon, or cognition. To some extent, his methodology of idealization can be treated as reasonable. However if we really follow his idea that the conjectures of linguistic research should “conform reasonably well to what is known about how the brain works” (Chomsky, 1965:36), is the object of the linguistic research still language itself? And will linguistics keep its nature as “a science [that] studies the life of signs within society” (Saussure, 1960:16)? It is accessible to apply idealization in linguistic research, but social factors as inner character of linguistic research must be kept in researchers’ minds all the time. We can never exclude them from linguistics, just for the sake of convenience. What are those factors that can be temporarily idealized without changing language’s fundamental features? This question calls for our further attention and more comprehensive study in the future.

Bibliography

[1] Bright, William. Social Factors in Language Change: The Handbook of Sociolinguistics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997. 23, 24.

[2] Chomsky, Noam. Reflections on Language [M]. New York: Partheon Books. 1965.3, 4, 36.

[3] Humboldt, Wilhelm. On Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1988. 56, 54, 16.

[4] Jones, Gareth Stedman. Languages of Class [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 1983. 101. [5] Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics [M]. London: Peter Owen

Limited.1960. 23, 67, 77, 20, 21, 22, 16. [6] Searle, John R. Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1969. 75. [7] 常耀信.美国文学研究评论选[M]. 天津：南开大学出版社. 1992. [8] 黄铁池.当代美国小说研究[M]. 上海：学林出版社.2000. [9] 陆谷孙.英汉大词典[M]. 上海：上海译文出版社.1991.

Acknowledgments

After finishing my B.A thesis, I really felt that I had come a long way. Many teachers and classmates gave me supports and helps in the process of writing this paper. I’d like first to take this chance to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor associate professor***, who generously gave me his kindly help and instructions during the whole process of my paper writing, for his patience and guidance for this thesis. I’d like to take this paper not only as the ending of my undergraduate life, but the beginning of my postgraduate study. Thanks also go to ***, who lent me lots of valuable materials. Most important of all, I want to give my thanks to my mother university and all teachers in the College of Foreign Languages.