发布时间 : 星期三 文章the differences between traditional grammar and modern linguistics更新完毕开始阅读
1) What are the differences between traditional grammar and modern linguistics? Illustrate with your own understanding.
As we all know, linguistic is concerned with observing facts about language, setting up hypotheses, testing their validity and accepting or rejecting them accordingly. To avoid biases of the kinds mentioned above, modern linguists differ from traditional grammarians in adopting empirical rather than speculative or intuitive approaches in their study. Here are some differences I can find according the text books and my understanding.
The first difference: modern linguistics is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is linguists try to make statements which are testable, and take language as it is rather than say how it should be. The second difference: modern linguistics regards spoken rather than written language as primary. Traditional grammar tends to emphasize the importance of written language and the writings.
The third difference: modern linguistics does not force languages into a Latin-based framework. In the past, Latin was considered the language that provided a universal grammar for all languages. Here is a form I found from the internet and it can show the differences between traditional grammar and modern linguistics simply.
Traditional grammar Modern linguistics Prescriptive Over-emphasize written words Force languages into Descriptive Spoken language is primary a Do not judge one language by standards of another Latin-based framework
At last, we should know when criticizing traditional grammar for being unscientific, modern linguistics do not deny altogether the contributions of traditional grammar to the development of modern linguistics. A balance view on traditional grammar is needed in order to track down the continuity of Western linguistic theories from the earliest times to the present day.
2) Illustrate the difference between langue and parole with examples you can find.
F. De Saussure refers “langue” to the abstract linguistic system shared by all the members of a speech community and refers “parole” to the actual or actualized language, or the realization of langue.
Langue is abstract while parole is concrete.In fact, langue is not spoken by any individual; parole is always a really happening event. Langue is systematic; on the contrary, parole is a pile of complicated speech. Langue exists in our brain, not the words we say. Parole is the words we human beings use to communicate with each other. In a word, langue is the totality of a language or the abstract language system shared by all the members of a speech of a speech community,
while parole is the realization of langue in actual use, that is, the concrete act of speaking at a particular time and in a specific situation. Example1: when we Chinese says “do you have dinner?” to an American. The sentence uttered by the Chinese is parole, and how the American understands the sentence is langue.
Example2: when Jack said I love you to Rose in the street, the sentences itself is the parole. And how Rose understands this sentence is all about the langue.
To sum up, langue is our potential ability to speak while parole is the actual use of language in concrete situation. Langue is social, but parole is individual.