ON LANGUAGE FEATURES

AND
LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS
 Key issues

1. Language, from a linguistic and a macrolinguistic

perspective

2. Language functions: an overview

1. Perceptions of language and linguistics

de Saussure Chomsky

SEMIOTICS BIOLOGY

LINGUISTICS PSYCHOLOGY

LINGUISTICS
 Language: the linguistic perspective

cf. de Saussure (1916)

1.Language is entirely based on opposition,

i.e. on mutually-exclusive relations between its constituent

parts, e.g. signified vs. signifier, paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic,
synchronic vs. diachronic, spoken vs. written, langue vs.
parole, etc.
 Language: the linguistic perspective

Cf. de Saussure (1916)

2. Language is a system where everything hangs together,

i.e. language units are highly cohesive, interdependent, and

presuppose each other/one another.
 Language: the linguistic perspective

Cf. de Saussure (1916)

3. Language has an individual aspect and a social aspect. One is

not conceivable without the other, which means that language
belongs both to the individual and to society.

Langue cannot fully reside in any lone individual, but rather in a (social)
group who use it in actual practices of parole.
 Language: the linguistic perspective

Cf. de Saussure (1916)

Langue vs. Parole

translates as the contrast between the abstract rules underpinning a

language and their reification in actual (spoken/written) utterances.
 Language: the biolinguistic/evolutionary perspective

In contrast to Saussures projection of language seen as an external and

collective phenomenon, Chomsky sees language as a feature specific of
the human mind and therefore essential to human nature.
 Language: the biolinguistic/evolutionary perspective

Cf. Chomsky(1957)

In contrast to Saussures projection of language seen as an external and

collective phenomenon, Chomsky sees language as a feature specific of
the human mind and therefore essential to human nature.

COMPETENCE (I-Language) vs. PERFORMANCE (E-Language)

i.e. the body of language knowledge (i.e. the actualization of this

internalized by a human individual knowledge in the process of
communication).
 Language: the biolinguistic perspective

Cf. Lyons (1981)

A language-system is a social phenomenon, or institution, which of itself is

purely abstract, in that it has no physical existence, but which is actualized on
particular occasions in the language-behaviour of individual members of the
language-community (1981:10)
 Language: the biolinguistic perspective

Cf. Chomsky(1957)

Unlike Saussures dichotomy, Chomskys opposition between competence and

performance is individual-centered: it focuses on the individual dimension of
language and on the processes whereby instances of language are generated
by virtue of the internalized language (I-language) seen as a genetic, structural
property of the human mind/brain.
 Language: the biolinguistic perspective

Cf. Chomsky(1957)

Chomsky looks upon I-language as a template hardwired into the neuronal

structure of the individual brain; as such, it is independent of external
influences. It is for this reason, the author agues, that I-language should be the
exclusive object of linguistic investigation.

It becomes obvious, then, that Chomsky challenges the validity of the

externalized language (or E-language, in the collective sense of the
Saussurean perception of langue), as a coherent object of linguistic
investigation.
 Language: the biolinguistic perspective

Cf. Chomsky(1957)

Humans are endowed with a biologically-determined language

acquisition device (LAD) and that their biological predisposition to
acquire and use language evinces the existence of a pre-organized
language template (a Universal Grammar) embedded in the neuronal
structure of the brain.
 Language: the biolinguistic perspective

Cf. Chomsky(1957)

Within the debate on spoken language acquisition, Chomsky, among

others, adopted a selectivist position: since language is pre-existent in
the human brain, it is subjected exclusively to internal causation and
cannot be influenced by external causes.
But if language is an innate, universal biological capacity which
cannot be altered by external factors why are the languages we
speak so different from one another?
Is language a biological capacity or a cultural construct?

Nature or nurture?
[T]he ability to use a natural language belongs more to the study of
human biology than human culture; it is a topic like echolocation in
bats or stereopsis in monkeys, not like writing or the wheel.

(Pinker&Bloom 708:1990).
The biological foundation of language is manifest in the anatomical
adjustments in humans:

oparticular shape of the vocal tract

ofewer teeth
olarger brain
olateralization (specialization of the brain)

Eric Lenneberg (1967) was the first to note the relative uniformity of the
language learning ability in children uniformity which indicates that
language acquisition is not contingent upon the learners level of
intelligence: language learning, then, is similar to learning to walk or run,
since everybody can do it.
Behaviourists Piaget and Skinner aimed to tilt the balance in favour of
nurture:

olanguage is an innate faculty of the mind but it is not free from external,
environmental stimuli which reinforce the individuals language
capabilities;

olanguage does not evolve in a vacuum, it has to be acquired formally

and/or informally; insights from child language acquisition research attest
to the fact that it is through exposure to E-language (the externalised,
social component of language) that I-language (the internalised language
pre-existing in the human brain) is actuated.

?
Therefore, it may be assumed that while being both universal as well as a
matter of genetic endowment, the individuals innate language faculty
develops in a cultural environment, subject to the influence thereof. This
could explain why the Universal Grammar inherent in language (which, in
its turn, is immanent in our brain) is instantiated differently in the Particular
Grammars of natural languages.
Languages are different because they developed under specific
circumstances determined by their respective cultural environments.

The fact that language evolves differently among different cultures has
been used in evidence for the thesis that language is a matter of cultural
invention, a response to the need of individuals to communicate both
conveniently and effectively with one another.
2. Language functions (an overview)

cf. Bhler: Sprachtheorie (1934)

expression, i.e. the function of language oriented towards the

language-user, enabling him/her to communicate information about
himself/herself

appeal, i.e. the function of language oriented towards the addressee

and intended to persuade, influence or determine a course of action on
his/her part

representation, manifest when collecting and relaying information

about the rest of the reality.
cf. Jakobson (1960)

+ three more functions of language

Poetic - aimed at eliciting aesthetic emotions from an audience

Phatic - ensures the opening or closing of the channel of

communication

Metalinguistic - the self-reflective potential of language, its ability to

clarify/explain/describe itself
cf. Leech (1974)
 The SFL perspective (cf. Halliday 1994)

Metafunctions:

Ideational
Interpersonal
Textual
Pragmatic functions of language

(cf. Austin 1962, Searle 1975; also DAndrade 2002, q.v.)

= the use of language in order to determine (or

prevent) a course of action, e.g. to order, command,
entreat, beg, suggest, etc.

= can be expressed directly, as in Sit down, Pass me

the salt, please, What time is it? or indirectly, e.g.
Directive Why dont you sit down?, Would you mind passing
me the salt?, Have you got the time?

= it involves a message negotiated between an

unstated, implicit subject/sender and a recipient; these
two (sender-receiver) may sometimes coincide in
instances like Why dont I take a break?).
Pragmatic functions of language

(cf. Austin 1962, Searle 1975; also DAndrade 2002, q.v.)

= is manifest in speech acts whereby the language

users intentionally or unintentionally express/vent/
communicate some feeling or state of mind, rather than
convey information; expressives can be either direct,
e.g. ouch!, yuck!, damn, wow, or indirect, as in Its
Expressive a glorious morning, isnt it? or you might have asked
me first, Im so sorry.

= like with the directive function, expressives also

presuppose a recipient, who may or may not be part of
the immediate context of situation.
Pragmatic functions of language

(cf. Austin 1962, Searle 1975; also DAndrade 2002, q.v.)

= language used in order to report on/convey

information about past/present/future events involving
someone or something, they make use of the
representative function of language.

= given the temporal and spatial displacement of the

events reported, the circumstances of the event need a
Representative more explicit representation in the sentence (cf.
directives, where both sender and recipient can remain
implicit, representatives are comparatively more
specific as to the who-did-what-to-whom).

= this explains why language instances performing this

function tend to be more complex in terms of their
lexico-grammatical structures.
Pragmatic functions of language

(cf. Austin 1962, Searle 1975; also DAndrade 2002, q.v.)

= the language used by speakers in order to make

explicit or implicit promises or express various degree
of commitment to a certain course of action.

Commissives can be stated in positive or negative

Commissive terms, and typically occur in response to/in conjunction
with some other pragmatic function, such as the
directive function. Common instances of commissive
acts are You shall have your money by tomorrow, Ill
bring the wine, Ill do my best, It will never happen
again, etc.
Pragmatic functions of language

(cf. Austin 1962, Searle 1975; also DAndrade 2002, q.v.)

= illustrations of a basic pragmatic function;

declarative speech acts are associated with some
special, (quasi-) ritualistic/symbolic conditions in which
a particular language instance is accompanied by
Declarative actual performance of an event. Such language
instances are I declare you man and wife, Youre
fired, I name this ship The Mayflower, I vote no,
Motion carried, We pronounce the defendant guilty,
etc.
Directive, expressive, representational, commissive, declarative
functions: genus or differentia on the communication continuum?

1. Directive and expressive uses of language are found in

both human and nonhuman communication; they are,
respectively, the first to emerge in the child language
acquisition process.

2. The representative function appears to be typically

human, given its reliance on symbols.
Directive, expressive, representational, commissive, declarative
functions: genus or differentia on the communication continuum?

Cf. DAndrade 2002:225

Representation of nonimmediate or displaced events presents a

greater demand for true symbols, for it is difficult to use pointing - a
clear indexical sign - to indicate what is not there. Development of
representatives, especially representatives about nonimmediate events
or displaced reference, would have greatly increased the need for the
development of grammar and true symbols []. (2002: 225)
Directive, expressive, representational, commissive, declarative
functions: genus or differentia on the communication continuum?

Counterclaim:

Nonhuman communication is also apt to represent displaced events,

i.e. signaling information about the location of prey or feeding places,
the approach of predators, etc., although in such messages the
representative function is compounded with the directive function.
Directive, expressive, representational, commissive, declarative
functions: genus or differentia on the communication continuum?

3. Commissive and declarative speech acts appear to be human-

specific, given their abstract, symbolic essence. They rest upon the
representative function and conceivably must have succeeded it in
time, since both promise and declaration are based on something one
is first able to represent (DAndrade 2002).

It may be inferred, then, that these last two functions might constitute
the differentia between human and nonhuman language.
Directive, expressive, representational, commissive, declarative
functions: genus or differentia on the communication continuum?

This approach to the functions of language yields useful insights into

what is considered to be the specificity of human language and,
implicitly, of human language faculty: grammar and the ability to create
and operate with symbols.

It appears that the propensity for symbolic signs makes our species
stand out from all the other language using creatures.
Directive, expressive, representational, commissive, declarative
functions: genus or differentia on the communication continuum?

It can be argued that using symbolic signs presents us with the

immense benefit of offering shortcuts to communication by allowing us
to map what is not immediately present in either space or time.

But if symbols are so handy, why are we alone in using them?

 and one last question

To what end did our hominid ancestors first use language?

or, rather,

What was the primary function that natural language has

served?

Two current views: representational vs. communicative/social

Earliest function:

Claim no. 1:

Language evolved as a result of the individuals need to cope with the

wealth of information about his/her environment (Bickerton, in Knight et
al. 2000).

Perceiving, processing, and structuring data about the environment in

particular and the extralinguistic reality in general was essential to
survival and could only be achieved by means of language. Therefore,
upon its inception, language must have performed a representational
(or representative) function.
Earliest function:

Claim no. 1:

The assumption here is that the social function presupposes the a

priori existence of representations of the extralinguistic reality; in other
words, in order to be able to share information and knowledge, the
individual must first of all possess representative language.
Earliest function:

Claim no. 2:
Group membership made it inevitable for humans to interact with one
another. If the emergence of language was fuelled by the need to
represent the surrounding reality, no less true would be the fact that such
representations would have been shared with other group members.

Therefore, whether interactional (i.e. socializing) or transactional (i.e.

information-giving), language must primarily have served a
communicative purpose since

Language including its distinctive representational level is intrinsically social,

and can only have evolved under fundamentally social selection pressures
(Knight et al. 2000:9)
Further problem: Cooperation or conflict?

The view according to which language evolved in response to the

communicative needs of the rapidly expanding human collectivities,
has been developed with further hypotheses on what the nature of this
communication might have been:

cooperation and/or conflict?

Further problem: Cooperation or conflict?

In brief, the assumption is that cooperative linguistic behaviour might

have been triggered by the necessity for group members to coordinate
their efforts, to organise and distribute tasks among the group, and to
share their experiences with others.
Further problem: Cooperation or conflict?

The conflict hypothesis is grounded in the Darwinian theory relative to

the male-female sexual conflict: it postulates that language emerged in
the course of the struggle by females to secure the males commitment
(and, we may add, the survival of the species).

This theory (cf. Terrence Deacons The Symbolic Species, 1997) posits
that language would have developed as a result of the need to signify
an abstract relation, i.e. the contract binding the male (the food-
provider) to the female (the child-bearer).

It can be inferred from here that the need to formulate commissives

might have spurred the development of language.
Further problem: Cooperation or conflict?

Deacons insight was that nonhuman primates are under no pressure to

evolve symbolic communication because they never have to confront the
problem of social contracts. As long as communication concerns only
current, perceptible reality, a signaller can always display or draw
attention to some feature as an index or likeness of the intended referent.
But once evolving humans had begun to establish contracts, reliance on
indices and resemblances no longer sufficed. Where in the physical world
is a promise? What does such a thing look like? Where is the evidence
that it exists at all? Since it exists only for those who believe in it, there is
no alternative but to settle on a conventionally agreed symbol. In
Deacons scenario, such a symbol would originally have been an aspect
of the ritual involved in cementing the contract. Selection pressures
associated with such novel deployment of ritual symbolism led to the
progressive re-engineering and enlargement of the primate brain.
(in Knight et al. 2002:9-10)
Further problem: Cooperation or conflict?

It can be inferred from here that the need to formulate commissives

might have spurred the development of language.
 ??