Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T10:48:11.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Language Variety: an example from religious language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2010

David Crystal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most significant trends within linguistics in the 1970s has been the move away from the formalised models of language introduced by Chomsky towards an account of language that incorporates functional premises. As Charles Fillmore put it, in a 1972 paper, the emphasis on formalisation needs to be balanced by a consideration of what exactly it is that linguists want to formalise. Putting this another way, a contrast can be drawn between the stress laid in the 1960s on the specification in formal terms of the common factors that underlie utterances (on the similarities – deep or surface – between the sentences of a language, and on the similarities – the formal and substantive universals – between different languages) and the stress laid in the 1970s on the specification in functional terms of the differences between language forms, as captured by such notions as dialect, style, level, etc.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 10 , March 1976 , pp. 195 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 1975

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bunge, M.The myth of simplicity (1963), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.Current trends in linguistic theory (1964), The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.Reflections on language (1976), London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. ‘Objective and subjective in stylistic analysis’, in Kachru & Stahlke (1972) 103–14.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. L.Transformational grammar as a theory of language acquisition (1973), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ebeling, G.Introduction to a theological theory of language (1974), London: Collins.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. ‘A grammarian looks to sociolinguistics’, 23rd Annual Round Table (1973), Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (Eds.). Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication (1972), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Haas, W.‘Meanings and rules’, Proc. Arist. Soc. (1973), 73, 135–55.Google Scholar
Helm, P.The varieties of belief (1974), London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Hymes, D.‘On communicative competence’ (1972), in Pride & Holmes (1972) 269–73.Google Scholar
Jeffner, A.The study of religious language (1974), London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. and Stahlke, H. (Eds.). Current trends in stylistics (1972), Edmonton: Linguistics Research Inc.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972) ‘The study of language in its social context’ (1972), in Pride and Holmes (1972) 180–202.Google Scholar
Ladrière, J.Language and belief (1974), trans. Barden, G., Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.Introduction to theoretical linguistics (1968), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R.Semantics: a new outline (1975), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (Eds.). Sociolinguistics (1972), Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Quirk, R.‘Descriptive statement and serial relationship’, Language (1965), 41, 205–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, T. A., Hayes, A. S. and Bateson, M. C. (Eds.). Approaches to semiotics (1964), The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P.Sociolinguistics: an introduction (1974), Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Van Buren, P.The edges of language (1974), London: SCM Press.Google Scholar