By Justin Rook
Descriptive grammar developed in the late 20th century, which concentrates on speech, constituent structure, and descriptions of modern English. In the 19th century a language study developed known as historical-comparative; scholars were on a mission to figure out the chronological development and comparing similar languages throughout the world. European scholars began a descriptive methodology on collecting data; instead of making new rules for grammar.
During this time period the scholars figured out the English had many similarities to other languages. They had classified English as a Germanic based language, and decided to classify Latin and Greek as sister languages, all of these languages evolved from a form of Indo-European, much like Darwinism. The scholars also came to a conclusion that Latin and Sanskrit were dead, and were considered similar.
In 1822 Jacob Grimm designed Grimm’s Law which compares Germanic Languages with other Indo-European languages. By 1900 a theory of structuralism was developed, which states that language can be studied historically and as a science. There was also diachronic linguistics, which compares language at different time periods, and synchronic linguistics studies language as a self contained system. In retrospect Grimm’s Law would be a part of synchronic linguistics, because it is a studying two completely different languages unlike diachronic which only studies one language at different times.
Leonard Bloomfield believed that the brain was unstudiable and Edward Sappir believed that the brain was a key component in the study of language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I felt like the discussion we had in class was helpful in understanding descriptive grammar. With this chapter, I felt it was really interesting scientists became linguists in observing and collecting languages as if they were using the scientific method. As I read this chapter and what we discussed in class, I realized the effects of this time period of national pride and Darwinism had changed everything from the scientific method to linguistics. I thought the comparison with science and linguistics (and the use of science to further the development of the study of languages) was ironic when in schools today, the two fields are thought to have no correlation.
This part of the chapter seemed fairly straight forward to me when we went over it group by group in class. However; having all of the information right here in front of me in one concise section makes it seem a little bit more dense. The thing I found most interesting in this chapter was the section about the voiceless stops and the conversion of words between languages with the change of a sound. Nice work!
I was interesting to me that structuralism rests on the ideas that a language can be studied irrespective of it history and genetic relationship to other languages and that linguistics is property viewed as a physical science. Bloomfield and Sapir developed it within two different contexts. The descriptions we had in class made it easier to understand because they picked out the major points of each and explained them.
Let me be the first to say that thank God the Europeans decided to stop making new grammar rules. I think there are plenty.
I like the concept of English being a conglommerate of many other languages. As I said before in another post, it just shows that all of our paths have crossed at one point or another.
I also like the idea of language being studied as a science rather than a concept. Since language has concrete rules and methods it should be seen as a science. In seeing it this way, studying the brain deems an important factor in our language function.
I agree...language is not just a theory or a concept to which we should abide by rules, but it is a complex and concrete perception that we can actually spend time learning and trying to figure out. A descriptive grammar looks at the way a language is actually used by its speakers and then attempts to analyse it and formulate rules about the structure.
As for descriptive grammar, it does not deal with what is good or bad language use. Various forms and structures that might not be used by speakers of common or standard English are considered to be valid. It is a grammar based on the way a language actually is and not how some think it should be.
Post a Comment