Current Issues in the Comparative Historical Linguistic Debate

by koot van wyk   Kyungpook National University Sangju Campus 24 March 2009


METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In continual dialogue with the pertinent investigations on the subject, the present work attempts to find unity and harmony in the chaos of dissenting views on the connection and meaning of words in Ancient Near Eastern languages.

The nature, this work ,employs comparative linguistics(1) in order to compare words in different Ancient Near Eastern languages. The branch of linguistics under which this study can be classified, is comparative historical linguistics.(2)


THE HISTORY OF COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS


In 1786, Sir William Jones discovered that certain languages which he knew and compared and resemblances must have sprung from some common origin. 


It was in 1808 Friedrich Schlegel 1772-1829) formulated his method so that the program and aims of this method appears foremost.(4)


In 1811 Rasmus Hast became the first scholar to set out principles for the comparative method. He was the first scholar to set out the principles of an historical linguistic endeavor of the germanic languages.(5)


In 1816 Franz Bopp published his Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenen der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. The same approach that Bopp used for the Indogermanic languages, Jacob Grimm (1785-1863) did with his Deutscher Grammatik (1819).(6)


In 1833 August Friedrich Pott attempted to place Etymology(7) on a set pace in his Etymologischen Forchungen auff den Gebiete der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen (1833). 


(1). "A branch of linguistics which studies two or more languages in order to compare their structures and to show whether they are similar or different" (J. Richards, J: Platt, H. Weber, Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (Suffolk: Richard Clay Ltd., 1985): 51.

(2). Also called comparative philology, philology and historical linguistics, it is "a branch of linguistics which studies language change and language relationships."

(3). For and excellent overview of this method see W. Betz, "Vergleichende historische Grammatik," in H. Jansen, H. Stammerjohann and others, Handbuch der Linguistik (München: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung,  1975): 549-556.

(4). F. Schlegel, Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (as quoted in H Jansen, H. Stammerjohann and others [1975]: 549 " ... die vergleichende Grammatik, welche uns ganz neue Aufschlüsse iiber die Genealogie der Sprachen auf ahnliche Weise geben wird ... "

(5). H. Jansen, H. Stammerjohann (1975): 550.

(6). "Mit seiner Deutchen Grammatik gehort Jacob Grimm nach und mit Rask und Bopp zu den Begründern der deskriptiven vergleichenden historischen Grammatik bzw. Sprachwissenschaft, die gegeniiber der alten normativen Grammatik eine neue wissenschaftliche Betrachtung einleitete." (Jansen and Stammerjohann 1975: 551).

(7). "The study of the source and history of words, the changes in their forms and meanings, including borrowings from other languages. This branch of linguistics had close ties with lexicology and semantics, that is, the analysis of the vocabulary items of a language and their meanings in different contexts of situation," R. R. K. Hartmann, F. C. Stark, Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1972): 79.




Jones' successors, Bopp, Rask, Grimm and Pott, continued on the assumption of kinship and descendance, and considered the reconstruction of the mother-language their principal task.

When August Schleicher (1821-1868) finally devised his genealogical tree, he was not at all promulgating any new theory of Indo-European relationships, but he simply presented schematically the method of comparative philology as practiced by his predecessors, and himself.8

Influenced by the evolutionary theories of Darwin, Schleicher departed from the view that languages are natural organisms independent of their speakers. He concluded that each specimen is derived by progenation from some predecessors, and ultimately all from some prototype.9 However, Schleicher's genealogical tree could not furnish evidence on the relative location of the various dialects and on their subsequent geographic spread. It became known as the family tree.(10)


To remedy these shortcomings Johannes Scnmidt devised his wave scheme. It is called the wave theory.(11) Schmidt's protested against Schleicher's Stammbaum/family tree was because the comparative method as (until then) reached an impasse since it did not allow for varieties within the parent language or for common change in the related languages.(12) The problem was that inheritance alone fail to account for all linguistic agreements, so an alternative was devised.


Schmidt's wave theory provided appropriate theoretic and visual corrections by showing that linguistic areas may overlap, and that in these overlaps dialect features may spread as waves do on a quiet pool, so that linguistic agreements may not be inherited but acquired.(13)

It is thus relevant to our study to decide whether the family tree theory or the wave theory are sufficient. Both theories contains elements of advantages but as Pulgram pointed out: "Both the wave

(8). Ernst Pulgram, "Family tree, wave theory and dialectology," in A. R Keiler A Reader in Historical and Comparative linguistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1972): 235-236.

(9). "Here Schleicher was wrong, because language is no such organism."(Pulgram 1972: 236).

(10). "A model used in historical linguistics to explain the relationships between the ancestor of parent languages and the descendant or daughter languages within a family of languages." (R. R. K. Hartmann, F. C. Stark, 1972: 83).

(11). "A model borrowed from physics and used in historical linguistics to explain how speech forms develop from a particular dialect or language and then spread out over large areas of related languages like waves produced by throwing a stone into water." (Hartmann; Stark, 1972: 255).

(12). Ernst Pulgram, "Family tree, wave theory and dialectology" (Hartmann, Stark, 1972: 237).

(13). "It was the great merit of Schmidt's wave theory to provide a visual scheme, entirely different from the family tree, which could plainly and correctly account for the overlapping of isoglosses and explain inconsistent partial similarities" (Pulgram. 1972: 238). But criticism of the wave theory was also given: "But in their enthusiasm over this memorable restatement of Indo-European developments, scholars proceeded too ruthlessly in chopping down the family tree ... In their eagerness to correct and forestall various historical~ geographical, ethnological, and indeed linguistic pseudo-corrolaries emanating from the genealogical tree, Many linguists also denied its purely schematic and metaphoric value for indicating linguistic relationships." (Pulgram, 1972: 237).





and the tree diagram have their limitations.14 Both these theories are indispensable in any linguistic investigation. They are complementary to each other.15


THE PITFALLS AND PREREQUISITES OF COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS


James Barr (1968) highlighted one of the pitfalls of comparative philology: "A study of the differences and similarities between languages which are not related in origin f.i. Chinese and Hebrew, are not included in this term 'comparative philology'".(16)

Well taken is the prerequisite given by Barr that: "the prehistory has to be worked out from the evidence of the whole group of related languages."(17)

Another prerequisite is that "it should be the general comparative study of a language family."(18)

A pitfall is that Philologists sometimes tended to speak apodeictically even when their opinions rested not on direct evidence.(19)

Another pitfall is the use of etymology by excessive reliance on comparative thinking when the same language provides sufficient meaning.(20) It is a pitfall to present the results rather than to provide a satisfactory justification for each decision as it was reached.(21)

It is a pitfall if comparative linguistics stress only the diachronic study of the languages as opposed to the synchronic study of languages.(22a) James Barr must be seen in context and interpreted as such. His observations are valid but does not present the whole picture. Isoglosses and loanwords cannot be studied separately from comparative languages and their structures. A more balanced view than Barr would be an and-and situation rather than an either-or option. 



(14). Pulgram (1972): 239.

(15). " ... that they are representations of our two primary methods of investigation in accord with the principal types of linguistic differentiation, that they are complementary and no more exclude one another ... then it may be agreeable to use both types of visualization of linguistic processes as legitimate didactic devices, ... " (Pulgram 1972: 240).

(16). " ... 'comparison' is not a general discussion of similarities and differences, but the construction of an historical common scheme within which the material of related languages can be placed" (James Barr, "Aspects of Comparative Philological Method", in Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament [Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1968]: 77).

(17). Barr 1968: 78.

(18). Barr, idem.

(19). Barr, 1968: 80.

(20). "We all know the type of philologist who, when asked the meaning of a word, answers by telling us the meaning of its cognates in other languages. This over-etymological approach is the result of excessive reliance on comparative thinking." However Barr continues that it "is not to deny that it is of considerable interest to know the meaning of cognate words in cognate languages" (Barr, 1968: 90). Barr is a higher-critical scholar who does not think the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition represents the original of its writers and secondly who does not advocate that the chronological markers in the text are reliable and subsequently do not see a need for Moses use of Egyptian Loanwords as a reality in isoglosses and loanwords in the book of Job, the Pentateuch and Psalm 90. Only comparative studies between Egyptian linguistics and Hebrew linguistics can solve this problem. Ugaritic comparisons to the Hebrew text is not a curse but a tool provided that the theory is not that the consonantal text of the Masoretes is a case of plagiarizing from the Ugaritic so-called prototypes.


DIACHRONIC, SYNCHRONIC, PANCHRONIC VIEWPOINTS

F. de Saussure (1916) made a distinction between two viewpoints(22) in the study of language, i.e. diachronic and synchronic viewpoints. They will be mentioned briefly.


DIACHRONIC VIEWPOINT(23)

The diachronic viewpoint intends to compare the same language of an earlier period with that of a later period and describes the variants identified as result of this comparison.


SYNCHRONIC VIEWP0INT(24)

The synchronic viewpoint intends to compare the same or other related languages at the same (or more or less the same) period and describe variants identified as a result of this comparison.

When J. Barr wrote his essay on "Aspects of Comparative Philological Method" in 1968, he explained these two approaches as following successively.(25) The truth is that the synchronic approach in the first


(22a). The combination of both approaches is in fact recommended by most scholars (see Daniel Patte, "To be legitimate an exegesis must be once diachronic and synchronic" (Patte, What is Structural Exegesis? GBS. NT [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976], 19).

(22). H. Jansen, H. Stammerjohann, Handbuch der Linguistik op. cit. p. 84 calls it "Betrachtungsweise". We will translate it as "viewpoint", although there is more in it.

(23) "An approach to linguistic studies which concentrates on the changes that language undergo over longer periods of history" (R. R. K. Hartmann, Dictionary of Language and Linguistics 1972: 64). A very abbreviated definition of the diachronic approach is given by W. T. Claassen in Die Rol van lSI (Tsade)in die Noordwes-Semitiese Tale. (1969) (Stellenbpsch M.A. in Semitic Languages at Stellenbosch University): 40, "Hiervolgens is die diachroniese die ontwikkeling van die Semitiese wortel, hetsy uit 'n oorspronklike tweekonsonantale of drie-konsonantale wortel." However, he supplied more information when he discussed the terms diachronic and synchronic on pp. 13-15. G. J. de Klerk defines it as follows: "Dit behels 'n studie van taalveranderinge. Wanneer ons die veranderinge beskryf wat ingetree het in Afrikaans sedert Vondel se tyd tot nou toe, dan werk ons diachronies" (De Klerk, "Die beginsel van Taalverandering" Study-guide for Afrikaans Nederlands 202 B (Pretoria: University of South Africa, Muckleneuk, 1984): 4. P. J. Smith. gives the definition as: "die diachroniese metode is histories van aard en behels 'n studie van een of ander aspek van die ontwikkeling van 'n gegewe taal " (Smith, 'n Logotaktiese Ondersoek na die Betekenis van 'Emet in Bybelse Hebreeus [Dissertation, Doctor of Literature, University of Stellenbosch, 1977): 26).

24. "Die synchrone (synchronische, synchronistische) Sprachwissenschaft betrachtet Phenomene wie zu einem gegebenen Zeitpunkt fixiert; dabei kann sje nach Forschungsziel und methode ein Zeitraum bis zu mehreren Jahrhunderten noch als synchron angesehen werden. Die Synchronie ist also nicht a:historisch .. " (H. J. Vermeer, Einführung in die linguistische Terminologie [München: Nymphenburger. Verlagshandlung, 1971]: 28-29). It is defined as "An approach to language studies in which the forms of one or more languages are investigated at one particular stage of their development" R. R. K. Hartmann and F. C. Stark, 1972: 229. W. T. Claassen gives the definition: "die suiwere struktuur van die wortel" (Claassen 1969: 40). G. J. de Klerk defines it as follows: "Dit is die studie van 'n taal op enige gegewe oomblik m.a. w. 'n gewone beskrywende grammatika van 'n taal is 'n sinchroniese beskrywing" (De Klerk, 1984: 3-4). P. J. Smith, defines it as: "Die sinchronistiese metode, daarenteen is prinsipieel hiervan te onderskei, in die sin dat dit betrekking het op die beskrywing van een of ander bepaalde stadium in die ontwikkelingsgeskiedenis van 'n gegewe taal" (Smith 1977: 26).

25. "In contrast with the historical and developmental emphasis of the older philology (on the one side), modern linguistics (on the other side) has laid greater stress on the synchronic study of a language ... " [my inserts] (J. Barr, 1968: 94. See also W. T. Claassen, The Hiph'il Verbal Theme in Biblical Hebrew [Dissertation, Doctor in Literature, Stellenbosch University, 1971]: 62-63 for a defence of Barr's position).


half of the 20th century was as reaction against the diachronic approach of the 19th century, but (as it is pointed out) in 1972, the value of both synchronic and diachronic linguistics were recognized.(26) This brings us to the relevant question as to which of the two approaches must be employed in a linguistic investigation?

The answer is taken from a coined approach called Panchronic viewpoint.27


PANCHRONIC VIEWPOINT

This approach is a combination of both viewpoints and it requires particular attention to the variants over the whole of the language spectrum.


A SURVEY IN THE CURRENT LINGUJSTIC DEBATE: TOWARDS A THEORY

No-one can endeavor to analyze languages, without falling into the philosophical stream of some school of linguistics. Such a person found him/herself very soon using the terminology of the applied school, sometimes even with harsh dogmatism and criticism. This work will be no exception and the importance of a survey is to explain why certain approaches will be viewed dimly and sometimes even not be accepted at all.


A. DEVELOPMENTS IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS28

                  Panini's model and the classical model(29)

The Hindu-grammarian Panini wrote a Sanskrit grammar centuries30 ago. The Arab invasions of the sixth century caused many Greek, Hebrew and Syriac works to be translated into Arabic. However,


(26). R. R. K. Hartmann and F. C. Stark (1972): 64-65.

(27). "Die kombinasie van sinchroniese en diachroniese feite in taalstudie word genoem die panchroniese beskrywingsmetode. Laasgenoemde metode stel ons ook in staat om taalvariasie by ons studie in te sluit en op die wyse kan ons n duideliker beeld vorm van taalverandering oor die hele taalspektrum" (G. J. de Klerk 1984: 4). Both Stephen Ullmann (1957) and John F. A. Sawyer (1972) spoke in favor of this approach. For Sawyer " ... the plea for 'panchronic semantics' does not imply a blurring of the distinction between historical (diachronic) and synchronic semantics. It is (rather) intended to indicate the need for semantic description from both points of view" (op. cit. P. J. Smith 1977: 26).

(28). The writer makes use here of his own manuscript: Koot van Wyk, Linguistiek: Basiese Knelpunte in die Hedendaagse Debat Unpublished and written in 1986. The works of J. Kilbury, The Development of Morphophonemic Theory in Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic science. Series III - Studies in the History of Linguistics, Vol 10. On the development in descriptive grammars consult M. Joos, Readings in Linguistics I: The Development of Descriptive Linguistics in America 1925-56 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967).

(29). "The classical model refers to the traditional grammatical approach and terminology which was originally developed for the description of Greek and Latin". C. H. J. Van der Merwe, "A Short Survey of Major Contributions to the Grammatical Description of Old Hebrew since 1800 AD." JNSL, XIII ( ): 162 footnote 5.

(30). The date is not certain (see R. H. Robins, "The Eve of Modern Times" in A Short History of Linguistics, second edition [New York: Longman, 1979]: 137). R Rocher said about this Eastern grammarian: "With regard to linguistic categories, Panini ignores the dichotomy which from Aristotle to modern times is at the center of Western linguistic analysis, that of subject and predicate" (see R. Rocher, "The Past up to the Introduction of Neogrammarian Thought: Whitney and Europe," in H.M. Hoenigswald (ed), The European Backgrounds of American Linguistics [Dordrecht-Holland, Foris Publications, 1979]: 19-22).

the Hindu grammar of Panini was not the model for the translation of these works. The Arabic translations were done from Syriac, Greek and Latin models.(31) The model was still "classical". Concurrent with the classical grammars was also the logico-grammatical approach.(32)

It is accepted that the Western psycho-logic was embedded into the science of grammars and tested, passed on and safeguarded by Christians and others during the Middle Ages.

                          The Renaissance Linguistics(33)  

This is the period in linguistics which followed the Medieval linguistics. The intention of this widening horizons were to employ "classical standards" of the Greek and Latin Grammars also to the "vernacular" Indo-European languages from Spanish to Polish. Consequently the study of the diachronic relationship between Romance languages brought fresh ideas. The end of the Renaissance period marked two major controversies between the data-orientated, "pragmatic" Empiricists(34) on the one side and the theory orientated, "prescriptive" Rationalists(35) on the other side. The difference between these two schools can be clearly seen in their views on the nature of language acquisition.(36)

The epistomology of linguistics of the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries are shown(38) to be a tension between uniformationism(39) and essentialism of the Adamic doctrine.

Marin Merzenne and J. Locke made the arbitrariness of linguistic sign a cardinal principle. There are thus evident similarities between Locke in the eighteenth century, and de Saussure in the nineteenth century.(40)


(31) C. H. J.- van der Merwe, "A short Survey of Major Contributions to the Grammatical Description of Old Hebrew since 1800 AD." JNSL XIII ( ): 162, "The Arabic model was seemingly based on a Syriac grammar which made use of the classical grammatical model".

(32) S. Ullmann is quoted to have said: "the doctrine of logico-grammatical parallelism reigned supreme and unchallenged ... from the days of Aristotle ... and well into the nineteenth century ... " (op. cit. P. J. Smith 1977: 11).

(33) R. R. K. Hartmann, and F. Stark (1972): 196.

(34) It is the English work on stenography, cryptography and phonetics (see Hartmann and Stark, 1972: 196).

(35) It is Descartes and other Part Royal grammarians.

(36) See here R. W. Langacker, "Empiricism and Rationalism", in Language and its structure (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968): 235-237.

(37) "The study of the origin and organization of scientific Knowledge". (Hartmann and  Stark 1972: 78).

(38) H. Aarsleff, "Bréal vs. Schleicher: Linguistics and Philology during the latter half of the nineteenth century,"in H. M. Hoenigswald (ed), The European Backgrounds of American Linguistics (Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications, 1979): 97-98.

(39) This principle was used in the seventeenth century, but coined in 1840. It involves in the seventeenth century the rejection of hierarchical Aristotelian views of the universe. In the nineteenth century it marks the view that language is man-made, its aim communication, its being social, and that words are arbitrary signs (see H. Aarsfelt 1979: 97).

(40) H. Aarsleff (1979): 98.



                  The Post-Reformation approach (+1650-1800)

The post-Reformation period produced grammars that were strongly influenced by the classical model.(41) The work of Panini was unable to influence Western linguistic thinking during this period.

The pre-occupation of the logico-grammatical approach was extended by Wilhelm van Humboldt (1767-1835) in his studies on Ethnolinguistics.(42) The importance of Van Humboldt and his logico-grammatical approach will be discussed in stigmatized Neo-Humboldtian tendencies of the twentieth century under: Developments in Semitic linguistics.


        The Evolutionary hypothesis and its influence in linguistic approaches

The evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin also found their effect in linguistics.(43) Influenced by Darwin, August Schleicher devised his genealogical "family tree-theory". In 1870 Johannes Schmidt intended to remedy the shortcomings of the family tree theory and devised his "wave-scheme". These two models formed the undercurrent in comparative linguistics of this period, although the family tree theory became the most popular model.

In this work, the evolutionary concepts of the mid-nineteenth century will be considered as the origin for the dissatisfaction of the traditional "classical" grammar and the cause for a Western interest in Panini. This axiom needs to be verified though and we will see if that will happen through the course of the further discussions.

W. D. Whitney wrote in 1875 his The Life and Growth of Language (New York: 1875) a description that was influenced by Evolution. He wrote extensively on the Hindu grammar.(44) The work of F. de Saussure around 1879 was very favourable to Whitney and his influence.(45) Here we have a mixture of Darwin and Panini thus. 

Whereas scholars in the mid-nineteenth century concentrated(46) on the diachronic method in comparative linguistics, De Saussure stressed the distinction between the diachronic and synchronic methods.(47)

It was during this period that uniformatorianism as epistemology in linguistics threatened to replace essentialism. (See footnote 39).

(41) Van der Merwe, op. cit. p. 11).

(42) J. Smith (1977): 11.

(43) See here H. Aarsleff (1979): 98 footnote 46 who pointed to scholars' recent interest in Darwin for the study of intellectual history and for methodology.

(44) For an extensive list on his publications on Hindu-linguistics between 1852-1894 see R. Rocher, "The Past up to the Introduction of Neogrammarian Thought: Whitney and Europe," in H. M. Hoenigswald (ed), The European Backgrounds of American Linguistics [Dordtrecth-Holland: Foris Publications, 1979]: 19-22. Although he distrusted Indian epistemology, religious as well as philosophical (Rocher 1979: 6 footnote 7 and also page 7 footnote 10) yet he was influenced by their Hindi observations (see Rocher 1979: 7 footnote 9).

(45) See R Jacobson, "The Twentieth Century in European and American Linguistics: Movements and Continuity", in R Rocher (1979): 165. De Saussure talks originally of the distinction "static and evolutionary linguistics" but then converted it in "synchronic and diachronic linguistics" (see P. J. Smith 1977: 21 footnote 31).

(46) R. R. K. Hartmann, F. C. Stark (1972): 64; J. Batt, op. cit. p. 94. W. T. Claassen, Die rol van /ṣ/ (Tsade) in die Noordwes-Semitiese tale.

(47) Claassen (1969) 39-40.


                          Behaviourism in Linguistics

Inceptive of a new trend J. B. Watson (1813) based his studies in language on the Behaviouristic(48) psychology. Behaviorists studies have influenced the work of Leonard Bloomfield and his successors. We do not want to ignore that their contributions were in the understanding of verbal skills and learning processes. Consequently general linguistics deviated drastically from the traditional classical model of grammars of Bloomfield. It is noteworthy that he was an admlrer of both Whitney and de Saussure.(49) BIoomfield was a strong admirer of the Hindu-grammarian, Panini.(50) Bloomfield expressed great joy when Sapir dealt with synchronic matters before he dealt with diachronic matters and that he gave to the former the same space as to the latter.(51)

From the same background Serrus (1933) reacted against the logico-grammatical approach.(52)

Significant differences are noted here, that the trends since and following Behaviorism had but little or no effects on the traditional classical epistemology, with only minor reassessments. On the other hand the trends in the modern debate reveals a mosaic of models, none of which satisfies everybody.


(48) "The study of human behaviour in observable stimulus-response situations". (Hartmann and Stark 1972: 26). A. D. de V. Cluver summarized this linguistic model as: "Volgens die behaviouristiese teorie word taalbeweging beskou as 'n kumulatiewe proses van opberging van spesifieke responsies op stimulli en versterking (in die vorm van belonings) van die regte responsies." Studyletter, 117 Linguistics I [Pretoria: University of South Mrica, 1980]: 13).

(49) See here especially the many examples in R. Jacobson, "The Twentieth Century in European and American Linguistics: Movements and continuity", in H. Hoenigswald (1979): 161-173 especially pp. 165-167. On page 165 Jakobsen stated: "Leonard Bloomfield was actually the first American scholar who from his early steps in linguistic theory endeavored to revive Whitney's legacy in the study of language."

(50) See L. Bloomfield's review of Lieblich in Language 5 (1929): 267-75 on page 268: "The descriptive grammar of Sanskrit, which Panini brought to its highest perfection, is one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence and (what concerns us more) an indispensable model for the description of languages." quoted in C. F. Hockett, A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology (Bloomington and London, Indiana U.P. 1970): 157-65.

(51) Ever since Bloomfield the Panini-studies increased with W. Allen (1955), B. Shefts (1961), V. Nisra (1964), J. Staal and G. Cardona (1965).

(52) See his Le Parallélisme logico-grammatical (Paris, 1933) and quotations extensively from it by J. Barr in The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford University Press, 1962): 43. Barr admits this approach to be from the time of Aristotle, but he himself refrain from this method. A key statement of Serrus is given in Barr and translated in Afrikaans by F. E. Deist, Die Betekenissfeer van die Leksikale Morfeem /-y-r-'-/ in die Profetiese Boeke van die Ou Testament (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 1971): 20. and positively accepted by P. J. Smith (1977): 14: "Tereg het C. Serrus dan ook opgemerk." Criticism of the approach of C. Serrus as well as inconsistencies in his terminology of his description has been pointed out by Manfred Sandmann, Subject and Predicate: A Contribution the Theory of Syntax (At the University Press, Edinburgh, 1954): 81 and 82 especially footnote 1. (1) For Serrus the predicate does not belong to either grammar or logic f.i. "II faut exclure Ie sujet de la logique," (op. cit. Sandmann 1954: 81): (2) For Serrus the predicate is a semantic category f.i. " ... ni à la logique, mais à la séméologie. "(Sandmann 1954: 81); (3) For Serrus the grammar is indifferent of any sense f.i. "la grammaire est indifférente au sens," (Sandmann 1954: 82); (4) Later in the book, Serrus contradicts himself and made the subject a grammatical term after all f.i. "Sujet et prédicat sont des termes grammaticaux dont il faut reporter l'origine aux conditions psychologiques de la connaissance." (Sandmann 1954: 82 footnote 1). Sandmann raises the objection against Serrus: "If either a semasiological (as Serrus) or grammatical P (Predicate, Sandmann) reflects the real iudgment, what is the form of such a judgment?"

  


                          Structuralism in Linguistics(53)

Structuralism is both a philosophy and a critical methodology. The three founding fathers of structuralism are Karl Marx (1818-1883), the German-Jewish social philosopher whose system is known as " dialectical materialism"; Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the Austrian-Jewish founder of psychoanalysis; and F. de Saussure, the Swiss linguist theoretician whose contributions in linguistics have been likened to a "Copernican revolution" in this field.(54)

These linguists published mainly between 1930 and 1950. Their work was based on the theory of Behviorism and it had a considerable influence on some language teaching methods.(55) In the same vein N. Van Wijk (1939) followed this method.(56)

To analize their contributions we can say that Structural linguistists studied the distribution of sounds within the words of a language; that is, whether

certain sounds appear only at the beginning of words or also in the middle or at the end.(57)

It is noteworthy that in synchronic emphasis, the description of the structure receives more attention.(58)

                            Functionalism in linguistics(59)


Considering the nature of functionalism it is sometimes maintained that the traditional classical linguistics are functional but that structuralism is non-functional. This claim was denied by H. Frei in 1929.(60) Functionalism was practiced at the Prague school of linguistics and V. Mathesius introduced it there in 1929.(61)


(53) "An approach to linguistics which stresses the importance of language as a system and investigates the place that linguistic units such as sounds, words, sentences have within this system" (See J. Richards, J. Platt, H. Weber  276).

(54) See Gerhard Hasel, Biblical Interpretation Today (College View Printers, Nebraska, 1985): 114-122.

(55) For instance the Audio-lingual method which emphasizes the teaching of speaking and listening before reading and writing.

(56) See N. van Wijk, Phanologie: Een Hoofstuk uit de Structurelle Taalwetenschap (The Hague, 1939). Other names are Spitzer (1918), Hjelmslev (1928), Rensch (1966), C. C. Fries, Z. S. Harris (1951), A. A Hill, B. Bloch, M. Joos, R. S. Wells, G. L. Trager, H. L. Smith. All these examples are mentioned in H. Jansen and H. Stammerjohann (1975): 468-470. See also E. Haugen, "Directions in Modern Linguistics" Language 27 (1951): 211-222.

(57) Richards, Platt, Weber (1985): 276.

(58) See R. A. Hall, "American Linguistics 1925-1950," Archivum Linguisticium 3 (1951): 101-125 especially p. 122. "In synchronic linguistics, the description of structure has occupied the center of attention in America in recent decades ..."

(59) "An approach to linguistics which is concerned with language as an instrument of social interaction rather than as a system that is viewed in isolation." (Richards, Platt, Weber 1985: 1l4).

(60) See H. Jansen, H. Stammerjohann 1975): 158.

(61) Ibid. p. 157. Other names are K. Biihler (1933-1934); Trubetzkoys (1929); R. Jakobson (1932, 1936); J. Kurylowicz (1949); H. Frei (1929); A Martinet (1949).




Functional linguistics considers the individual as a social being and investigates the way he or she acquires language and uses it in order to communicate with others in his or her social environment.(62) At this stage we only concentrate on functional linguistics in the period before 1957.


              The Mentalistic trend in general linguistics after 1950

The Behavioristic model of linguistics was criticized by the American Jew, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky returned to the older mentalistic theory which accepts that a child is born with innate structures in his genes, that contains a universal grammar, and which the child can recognize.(64) With his Syntactic Structures of 1957, Chomsky entered the field of linguistics and for the next twenty years, he brought worldwide change in the approaches to grammar.(65)

It should be noted that the Period of the Transformation grammar(66) since 1957 can be divided into two phases: (1) the classical Transformational phase and (2) the Neo-Transformational phase.

        THE CLASSICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL PERIOD (1957-1964)

The Classical period of the Transformation grammar is the period between 1957-1964. The generative theories of Chomsky was a reaction(67) against the structural taxonomic(68) views of the pre-Chomskian era. He was against the Bloomfieldian taxonomy.

We are not surprised that the work of de Saussure can also be seen associated with the work of Chomsky. As a matter of fact, what Chomsky intended to replace did not differ too widely from his own model.


(62) Ibid. p. 114.

(63) "Die mentalistiese teorie gaan van die standpunt uit dat die kind geneties toegerus is met sekere linguistiese predisposisies vir die herkenning van die onderliggende strukture in taal." A. D. de V. Cluver op. cit. p. 13.

(64) Ibid. p. 8.

(65) We should remind ourselves here of the words of M. Sandmann 1954: 29. "In stating the linguist's point of view we cannot simply rely on theoretical pronouncements of leading linguists, because it has happened time and again that the linguist who has reflected on the methodological implications of his work, that is, one who has converted himself into a philosopher, has tried to state his case in the light of some philosophical system which did not do full justice to his work",

(66) "A transformational grammar tries to show, with a system of rules, the knowledge which a native speaker of a language uses in forming grammatical sentences" (J. Richards, J. Platt, H. Weber 1985: 119-120).

(67) See E. B. van Wyk, "Bühler se aksiomatiek van die taalwetenskappe." Taalfasette Part 4 (J. L. van Schaik Bpk, Pretoria, 1971): 9.

(68) Taxonomic approaches in linguistics classify items into classes and sub-classes f.i. phanology, syntax and semantics (see J. Richards, J. Platt, H. Weber 1985: 289; 

see E. B. van Wyk 1971: 9).



              THE NEO-TRANSFORMATIONAL-PERIOD (1964+)

Consquently the new phase in the Transformational approach was the inception of the axiomatic-method(70) in 1964 by P. Postal. These new principles were later accepted by Chomsky. One result of this incorporation of new ideas, is that scholars felt that the transformational grammar is still in a developmental phase in 1966. A. Kontsoudas presented principles(72) for writing transformational grammars. We are not surprised therefore that the sixties was the period during which Chomsky mesmerized the thinking of many countries, even South-Africans.(73)

Before we will end this brief survey, it will be appropriate to mention the mosaic of multiplex approaches in the linguistics of the seventies and eighties. Some of these. approaches had their roots already in earlier models and they were only highlighting certain concepts of a specific model at a period in the ongoing discussion, when the excellence of human logic of the pioneer fail.

                  

                      The mosaic of multiplex emphasis


to be continued