Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T01:10:22.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistics: The Study of the Language Capacity and Its Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Elizabeth Closs Traugott
Elizabeth Closs Traugott*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-2150, USA Email: traugott@stanford.edu
Get access

Abstract

Language is considered a defining property of humanity in ancient myths and in contemporary humanities disciplines such as philosophy and in linguistics. But there are competing views about what constitutes the capacity for language. One approach, known as the formal generative approach, regards the language capacity as autonomous from other cognitive abilities, and equates it with the syntactic ability to form an infinite number of sentences from finite means. Another, known as the functional approach, regards the language capacity as a non-autonomous symbolic system. From this perspective factors such as speech acts, narrative discourses, and frequency effects are as important as syntax for understanding the language capacity. Implications of work from these two perspectives for a broad range of disciplines, especially literary studies, are suggested.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 58 , Issue 1-2: The Humanities Today , May 2011, pp. 20 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aarts, B, McMahon, A, eds (2006) The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M, Rees-Miller, J, eds (2001) The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Austin, J L (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Baron, N S (2008) Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D, Johansson, S, Leech, G, Conrad, S, Finegan, E (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Birner, B J, Ward, G (1998) Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J, Hopper, P (2001) “Introduction to Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure,” in Bybee, J, Hopper, P (eds) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, pp. 1–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N (1957) Syntactic Structures. La Haye: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N (1980) Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, H H (1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, T J (2002) “Protocadheriaxy: A Candidate Gene for Cerebral Asymmetry in Language,” in Wray, A (ed.) The Transition to Language, pp. 93–112. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
Fabb, N (2001) “Linguistics and Literature,” in Aronoff, M, Rees-Miller, J (eds) The Handbook of Linguistics, pp. 446–465. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S M, Taavitsainen, I, eds (2007) Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, M (2005) “Metaphoric (Im)Prison(ment) and the Constitution of a Carceral Imaginary,” Anglia 123(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D C, ed. (1970) Linguistics and Literary Style. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Freeman, D C, ed. (1981) Essays in Modern Stylistics. London/New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A E (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J H (1966) “Some Universals of Language with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements,” in Greenberg, J H (ed.) Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, pp. 73–113. The Hague: Mouton 2.Google Scholar
Hauser, M D, Chomsky, N, Fitch, W T (2002) “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science 292(5598): 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B, Claudi, U, Hünnemeyer, F (1991) Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Holquist, M (2008) “Presidential Address 2007: The Scandal of Literacy,” Proceedings of the Modern Language Association 123(3): 568–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R (1966) “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics,” in Sebeok, T A (ed.) Style in Language, pp. 35–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jones, W (1786) “Third Anniversary Discourse: On the Hindus,” Asiatick Researches 1: 415–431.Google Scholar
Kayne, R S (2005) “Some Notes on Comparative Syntax, with Special Reference to English and French,” in Cinque, G, Kayne, R S (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, pp. 3–69. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P (1973) “The Role of Linguistics in a Theory of Poetry,” Daedalus 102(3): 231–247.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P (1975) “Stress, Syntax, and Meter,” Language 51(3): 576–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S (1999) Function, Selection, and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S, Smith, K, Cornish, H (2008) “Language, Learning and Cultural Evolution: How Linguistic Transmission Leads to Cumulative Adaptation,” in Cooper, R., Kempson, R. (eds) Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, pp. 81–119. London: University of London.Google Scholar
Kövekses, Z (2006) Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Labov, W (1972) “The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax,” in Labov's Language in the Inner City, pp. 354–396. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G, Johnson, M (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R W (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G, Hundt, M, Mair, C, Smith, N (2009) Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAndrew, A (n.d.) “FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language,” Molecular Biology, www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm.Google Scholar
McEnery, T, Gabrielatos, C (2006) “English Corpus Linguistics,” in Aarts, B, McMahon, A (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics, pp. 33–71. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, R, Swann, J, Deumert, A, Leap, W L, eds (2000) Introducing Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Penke, M, Rosenbach, A, eds (2007) What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics: The Case of Innateness. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S (1994) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: William Morrow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S, Jackendoff, R (2005) “The Faculty of Language: What's Special About It?” Cognition 95(2): 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M J (1993) “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language,” in Ortony, A (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, pp. 284–384. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 2.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F (1971) Course in General Linguistics, trans. Harris, Roy. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D, Tannen, D, Hamilton, H E, eds (2001) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schleicher, A (1861–62) Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar
Searle, J R (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Tannen, D (1987) “Repetition and Variation as Spontaneous Formulaicity in Conversation,” Language 63(3): 574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E C (2006) “The Semantic Development of Scalar Focus Modifiers,” in van Kemenade, A, Los, B (eds) The Handbook of the History of English, pp. 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M (1987) Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R D Jr (2001) “Functional Linguistics,” in Aronoff, M, Rees-Miller, J (eds) The Handbook of Linguistics, pp. 319–336. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U, Labov, W, Herzog, M (1968) “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change,” in Lehmann, W P, Malkiel, Y (eds) Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, pp. 97–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A (2006) English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A (2002) “Dual Processing in Proto-Language: Performance without Competence,” in Id. (ed.) The Transition to Language, pp. 113–137. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar