|
COPYRIGHT 2002 Adam Mickiewicz University Press
ABSTRACT
In the article, we attempt to explore Schlauch's understanding of synchrony and diachrony as seen in the context of her views on language non-autonomy as well as to relate the findings to the ongoing discussion within functional linguistics on the synchronic vis-a-vis diachronic dimensions of "subjectivity in grammaticalization". As both tenets, the one of (i) a blurred distinction between synchrony and diachrony and that of (ii) a subjectively-motivated language change seem to belong to a set of the most eagerly attempted tasks within the program of functional linguistics, we aim to show why and how functionally-oriented research can benefit from Schlauch. On our account, Schlauch not only projects a kind of non-autonomous linguistics that resembles and anticipates what has come to be known now as cognitive linguistics, but she also grasps what has recently polarised functionalists in reference to one of the most hotly debated topics in historical and general linguistics, i.e. grammaticalization. The latter point we show by making a brief exposition of Langacker's view of subjectivity.
1. Introduction
There are two objectives behind the present contribution. One is to explore the notions of synchrony and diachrony as presented in Schlauch's publications, in the context of her views on language (non-)autonomy. In this respect, our quest is expected to result in "the reconciliation view" (after Winters 1992: 503) of the synchrony/diachrony relationship. The other purpose is to relate the findings to the ongoing discussion within functional linguistics (1) on the synchronic vis-a-vis diachronic dimensions of the so-called subjectivity in grammaticalization (cf Langacker 1998, 1999 vs. Traugott 1999a and Traugott and Dasher 2002). As both tenets, the one of (i) a blurred distinction between synchrony and diachrony (cf Langacker 1987: 14-20; Heine et al. 1991: ch. 9), and that of (ii) a subjectively-motivated language change, including a unidirectional development of lexemes into grammatical items (cf Traugott and Dasher 2002: 8 1-99), seem to belong to a set of the most eagerly attempted tasks within the progr am of functional linguistics, it is to the benefit of functionally-oriented research that Schlauch's views are subjected to our critical scrutiny here.
2. Schlauch on synchrony and diachrony
On the one hand, Schlauch's ideas on the temporal organization of language reflect the typically-structuralist conceptions of (i) the synchrony-diachrony dichotomy and (ii) the priority of synchronic system over diachronic change, respectively. Accordingly, the synchronic approach to language is defined as "the study of linguistic elements as they appear at a given period, without regard to their historical background", whereas the diachronic point of view embraces "a study which concerns itself with these elements as they have developed over the course of centuries" (Schlauch 1967: 56). This, naturally, must present "the fundamental method [in "the procedure for historical study"] as the comparison of one synchronic description with another, without preference for one above another" (Schlauch 1967: 59).
Yet, on the other hand, in her identifying synchronic states, Schlauch makes an extensive use of "external tendencies", "the social and cultural environment", or "the social and cultural trends" (cf Schlauch 1959), which, on principle, are all historical developments. This, in turn, stems from her conviction that "the [diachronic] shifts in usage sometimes throw very interesting light on the way people of an earlier age envisaged themselves in relation to the universe and one another" (Schlauch 1967: 57).
3. Schlauch on language (non-)autonomy
Moreover, for Schlanch, the synchrony/diachrony dilemma is not so much a question of time, as a question of language autonomy. In the context of investigating unrecorded languages, she sees the problem as follows:
On the one hand, the technique of dealing with unknown languages lacking any written records led some investigators to regard them as systems in isolation, self-contained and self-explanatory. On the other hand, the use of such...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
