hellog〜英語史ブログ / 2024-11-01

■ #5667. 言語類型論と言語普遍性はトンネルの掘り方が異なる [typology][universal][linguistics]

　昨日の記事「#5666. 歴史言語学，言語普遍性，言語類型論」 ([2024-10-31-1]) の最後に，言語学の各分野は「言語という山のトンネルを異なる方向から掘り進めているという違いがあるにすぎない」と述べた．言語類型論 (typology) と言語普遍性 (universal) の研究は，しかし，方法論的には大きく異なっている．前者はなるべく多くの言語を調査して異同点を収集するのに対して，後者は極端な場合には1言語のみを深く研究すれば事足りると主張するからだ．浅く広くか，深く狭くか．Crystal (85) が "BREADTH OR DEPTH?" と題する1節で論じている．

The distinction between typological and universalist approaches to language study is doubtless ultimately an arbitrary one; and both have considerable insights to offer. But the two approaches, as currently practised, differ greatly in their procedures. Typologists typically study a wide range of languages as part of their enquiry, and tend to make generalizations that deal with the more observable aspects of structure, such as word order, word classes, and types of sound. In contrast with the empirical breadth of such studies, universalists rely on in-depth studies of single languages, especially in the field of grammar --- English, in particular, is a common language of exemplification --- and tend to make generalizations about the more abstract, underlying properties of language.
   This focus on single languages might at first seem strange. If we are searching for universals, then surely we need to study many languages? Chomsky argues, however, that there is no paradox. Because English is a human language, it must therefore incorporate all universal properties of language, as well as those individual features that make it specifically 'English'. One way of finding out about these properties, therefore, is the detailed study of single languages. The more languages we introduce into our enquiry, the more difficult it can become to see the central features behind the welter of individual difference.
   On the other hand, it can be argued that the detailed study of single languages is inevitably going to produce a distorted picture. There are features of English, for example, that are not commonly met with in other languages, such as the use of only one inflectional ending in the present tense (third-person, as in she runs), or the absence of a second-person singular/plural distinction (cf. French tu/vous). Without a typological perspective, some say, it is not possible to anticipate the extent to which our sense of priorities will be upset. If languages were relatively homogeneous entities, like samples of iron ore, this would not be a problem. But, typologists argue, languages are unpredictably irregular and idiosyncratic. Under these circumstances, a focus on breadth, rather than depth, is desirable.

　分野によって，トンネルを掘る方向だけでなく，掘り方そのものが大きく異なることを確認し，実感した．皆さんはどちらのタイプでしょうか？

　・ Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.

[ 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]