Difference Between Ferdinand De Saussure And Bloomfield

In the field of Modern Languages and Linguistics, words are of great importance. A language’s phonology (study of how sounds are organized and used), morphology (study of the form and structure of words), syntax (study of the rules that govern sentence structure), semantics (study of meaning of words, sentences, and expressions), pragmatics (study of aspects of meaning and language use and context), and phonetics (study of human speech sounds) all play an important part in everyday life. These have a major impact in understanding the intent of what is spoken or heard. Due to the importance of communication, literary elements such as metaphors (which are defined as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase

our concepts, ideas, and feelings” (Hall 1997a, p. 1). He contends that “language is one of the

The challenges that both authors faced had some similarities, their solutions were often the same as well,

Famous American anthropologist and social theorist Clyde Kluckholm , claims in one of his publication that “Every language is also a special way of looking at the world and interpreting experience concealed in the structure of language are a whole set of unconscious assumptions about the world and the life in it”(Writing logically, Thinking critically 7th edition P 35). Based on this theory, we can learn more

However, it can be argued with (Bruner 1964) that social interaction doesn’t explain all the complexities of language acquisition. Almost every day the language we hear is often incorrect, poorly defined, incomplete and full of hesitations, mispronunciations and other errors, and yet despite this we still learn to talk following the correct grammatical rules. Again this indicates the idea of Chomsky’s (1968) LAD model that children are born ‘hard-wired’ with the innate knowledge of linguistic rules and so these rules help the baby make estimations and presumptions about the language it is hearing. From these estimations and presumption the child can work out grammatical sets of rules and when more language is exposed to them, the more their language develops. Even within Chomsky’s (1968) LAD theory, undoubtedly he believed the role and promotion of the ‘nature’ aspect is the core foundation on which language can develop. But his theory also requires the role of nurture

The First similarity is how they both talk about the same topic bugs.Here is at text evidence that explains this.

Language can be described in three main ways. Clark (1996, cited in Gee & Hayes, 2011, p.6) called it a 'cognitive phenomenon, and talks of it as being the way we think or something that is in our heads. The second view of language is that it can

Some researchers have been arguing that people in some societies were incapable of complex, abstract "scientific" thought because of the apparent lack of "logical" grammar categories in their languages. Boas (1858–1942) maintained that the language spoken by a particular group of people only tended to reflect their traditional cultural practices. He declared that Language may facilitate certain types of thought and could provide a valuable means of understanding the unconscious patterns culture and thought but it would not prevent people to think in a way that differs from the presented categories more conveniently in their

The Language Wars have been waged in the realm of English Literature, Language and Linguistics for years. Both sides of the argument are staunch believers in their position, but are more than willing to concede points to the other sides’ favour. In Bryan A. Garner’s essay, “Making Peace in the Language Wars”, he describes himself as a ‘descriptive prescriber’ (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 270), and offers a truce that fulfils both sides of the argument as the crux of his essay. While the separate sides of the argument are relatively easy to define, it seems that no one sticks to them religiously, and the argument is between individuals fighting over individual points. The two sides are that of the descriptivist and that

The evolution of human language is a highly debated topic with many perspectives and theories dating back to the 19th century and as a result is it a subject full of ambiguity. This is due to the fact that there is an abundance of theories with evidence to give them grounds to argue, not only this, but because more than one aspect of the evolution of language is in question. The first question lies in the purpose of its development, what evolutionary advantages would it present early humanity. The second is how it came to fruition, was it through natural selection or was it taught. The third query lies within the early stages of human language, what form did it take and why. Was language always vocal or did it start by being gestural similar to sign language. There is an abundance of forms of communication in the animal kingdom, namely babies crying for their mothers’ attention or calls to warn of danger. However, this can not be deemed as a language because in the context of evolutionary linguistics, language is defined “as any system which allows for the free and unfettered expression of thoughts into signals, and the complementary interpretation of such signals into thoughts” (Fitch, 2010 pg.

In the other hand, behaviorists view language as complex and leaned skill, much like playing piano and dancing. B.F. Skinner argued that language represents nothing more than chains of responses acquired through reinforcement. Putting differently, children learn though process of reinforcement. For example, baby babbles “mama” the mother happily reward the baby with a hug and kisses and eventually will push the baby to say “mama” more and more; due to these reward children are motivated to repeat the behavior, thereby shaping their language and ensuring their development. Children’s language is being built up, this describe a way in which children environmental experiences influence and improve their language skills. Also that’s why parents

Numerous theories try to explain the process of language acquisition. These theories fall into one of two camps. The environmentalist (or connectionist) theory of language acquisition asserts that language is acquired through environmental factors (Halvaei et al. 811). Theorists in this camp believe that a child learns language by gaining information from the outside world and then forming associations between words and objects. The nativist (or rationalist) approach, on the other hand, asserts that it is innate factors that determine language acquisition. Noam Chomsky, often described as “the father of modern linguistics”, falls into this camp as he believes that speech is the result of hidden rules of language that are hidden somewhere in the brain (Rahmani and Abdolmanafi 2111). Steven Pinker, a colleague of Chomsky, is a renowned psychologist, cognitive scientist and linguist who discusses his own theories on language acquisition in his book Words and Rules.

Linguistics has impacted cognitive psychology as the quest to understand language acquisition and the structure of language itself is undertaken. Linguistics is a complex and multifaceted; it includes language structural patterns and language development (Barsalou, 2005). The process of language development is complicated and dense, as the study of language is examined; the role of cognition is inherently examined and analyzed. Sternberg (2006) also explores language as an innate process and presents the idea that humans are born ready for language as a biological and cognitive process.

M.Breal is credited with coining the word semantics in his "Essai de Semantique" (1897) 'as a name for Philosophical enquires'. In 1894, the English word "semantics" occurred in a paper presented to the American Philosophical Association: " Reflected Meaning: a point in Semantics". In 1996 A.J.Greimas produced "Structural Semantics" which viewed semantics as an exploration of signification anchored in the world, perceived through senses. Halliday nevertheless feels that "A Language is a system for making meanings, a semantic system, with other systems for encoding the meanings it produces. The term 'semantics' doesn't merely refer to the gist of words; it is the intact practice of meaning of a language, uttered by Grammar as well as by Vocabulary. Semantics as a branch of Linguistics is mainly concerned with how the "meaning" is conveyed by the Linguistic system consisting of different units and structure like Sentences, Phrases, Words, and Morphemes etc. Philosopher study Semantics to understand 'good' 'evil' 'right' 'wrong' etc. In term the approach of the Philosophers is also made use of by Linguistics. Anthropologists study semantics to understand the cultural and behavioral patterns reflected in Language. The Psychologists look at semantics from the point of view stimulus and response, signs and signified

He seeks to find underlying similarities across these “distinct” languages, to construct a general theory of a singular language. However, it seems as though he cannot be scientifically vindicated without the groundwork being laid down by many of the authors that he is critical of. Thus, it is particularly interesting that Chomsky seems to be so at odds with the idea of descriptivism. When Chomsky says, “Grammar should not be merely a record of the data of usage, but, rather, should offer an explanation for such data,” (587) he is acknowledging the usefulness, presumably to his own theories, of descriptive linguistics. He in fact recognizes the debt he owes when he says, “To me, it seems that [structural linguistics'] major achievement is to have provided a factual and a methodological basis that makes it possible to return to the problems that occupied the traditional universal grammarians...” (590) But he goes on to say, “On the other hand, it seems to me that the substantive contributions to the theory of language structure are few, and that, to a large extent, the concepts of modern linguistics constitute a retrogression as compared with universal grammar.” (590) Where the descriptivists see an end, Chomsky sees only the means, and is somewhat dismissive of them.