Levels of analysisSound-spelling correspondences in English: the lack of congruence between its phonological & graphological systems. One graphological element ‘i’ has 2 different phonological values (time, if, still, ride) & 3 graphological elements, ‘i’, ‘ui’ & ‘y’ which have the same phonological value (if guilty). The structure of words: thing, building, walking – morphology – this sequence of letters (-ing) is actually a unit of meaning but it is a dependent unit of meaning. It cannot occur on its own, only when attached to some word & when attached it brings about various changes. E.g. the verb ‘to build’ – the noun ‘building’. ‘Thing’ does not have the same status. All these observations are simple statements about the morphology of English words. Words as lexical items. E.g. ‘bike’ is an informal variant of a word “bicycle”. We can contrast the occurance of a common, ready-made sequence like ‘time stands still’ & the same sequence ‘time seems to hang as if judged guilty’ which plays on an association of the words ‘hang’, ‘judge’ & ‘guilty’. Syntax. We pay attention to the structurally equivalent sentences: In Oxford, people still ride bikes. [In Oxford, people still] wear gowns. [In Oxford, people still] have servants. We can use these examples to discuss the difference between overt sequence & the covert structures. In Oxford people ride bikes, wear gowns / People ride bikes, wear gowns in oxford. The structure is manifested as ASVO/SVOA – adverbial modifier, subject, verb, object. At different levels we analyze different data & the focus attention on different features of language. We use the data as different kinds of evidence. The larger the units we deal with the less we idealize the data & the closer we get to the actuality of people’s experience of language. On the whole the more comprehensively we try to describe language the more controversial the description becomes. To go beyond the linguistic text to the social context to which it relates is to seek to infer the communicative activity or discourse. At this level, analysis approximates to interpretation & we ask not just what the text means in respect to its formal properties, but what the writer might mean by the text & what the text might mean to a reader. We move into the domain of pragmatics (what we mean by language). J. L. Austin: theory of speech acts or speech events. The central tenet: the uttering of a sentence or is a part of an action within the framework of social institutions & conventions. Saying is part of doing; words are parts of deeds. At first Austin distinguished between: · Statements · Ethical propositions,which are intended to show emotions, prescribe the conduct or to influence in a certain way · Performatives, in which the saying of the words constitutes the performing of an action.
|
