13.07.2015 Views

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Dictionary</strong> <strong>of</strong> language <strong>and</strong> linguistics 332Referencesdistributionalismdistributionalism (also taxonomic analysis,taxonomic structuralism)Branch <strong>of</strong> American structuralism in the 1940s <strong>and</strong> 1950s characterized by the works<strong>of</strong> Harris, Bloch, Trager, Joos, <strong>and</strong> others, which superseded the Bloomfield era. Harris’Methods in Structural <strong>Linguistics</strong> (1951) is viewed as the st<strong>and</strong>ard work <strong>of</strong> this phase.The goal <strong>of</strong> distributionalism is an experimentally verifiable, objective description <strong>of</strong> therelations inherent in the systems <strong>of</strong> individual languages, exclusive <strong>of</strong> all subjective <strong>and</strong>semantic factors (semantics). These relations are the result <strong>of</strong> the distribution <strong>of</strong> theindividual elements among the various hierarchical linguistic levels (phonology,morphology, syntax), i.e. the derivation <strong>and</strong> classification <strong>of</strong> linguistic elements resultsfrom their occurrence in the sentence. The structure <strong>of</strong> each individual language can bedescribed by means <strong>of</strong> experimental methods, the so-called discovery procedures, inwhich essentially two analytical steps are applied: (a) segmentation <strong>of</strong> the materialthrough substitution. i.e. through paradigmatic interchangeability <strong>of</strong> elements having thesame function ( paradigm); <strong>and</strong> (b) classification <strong>of</strong> elements as phonemes,morphemes, among others, on the basis <strong>of</strong> their distribution <strong>and</strong> environment in thesentence. These analytical methods derive largely from research into Native Americanlanguages, which explains the asemantic character <strong>of</strong> the procedure: since the linguisticanalysis had to be carried out without knowledge <strong>of</strong> the given language (especially itsmeaning), the purely physical description <strong>of</strong> distribution was elevated to the highestprinciple, <strong>and</strong> meaning was likewise regarded as a function <strong>of</strong> distribution. Fundamentalcriticism, revision, <strong>and</strong> extension, especially with regard to transformational aspects, arefound in Postal (1964a).ReferencesBloch, B. 1942. Outline <strong>of</strong> linguistic analysis. Baltimore, MD.——1948. A set <strong>of</strong> postulates for phonetic analysis. Lg 24. 2–46.Chomsky, N. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague.Fries, C.C. 1961. The Bloomfield ‘school.’ In C. Mohrmann et al. (eds), Trends in European <strong>and</strong>American linguistics 1930–1960. Utrecht. 196–224.Harris, Z.S. 1946. From morpheme to utterance. Lg 22. 161–83.——1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago, IL.——1954. Distributional structure. Word 10. 146–62.Nida, E. 1946. Morphology: the descriptive analysis <strong>of</strong> words. Ann Arbor, MI. (Repr. 1949.)Postal, P.M. 1964a. Constituent structure: a study <strong>of</strong> contemporary models <strong>of</strong> syntactic description.Bloomington, IN.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!