Form-Centered Paradigms

Form-centered paradigms focus on linguistic form, so they are labeled formalist. There are two form-
centered paradigms of linguistics, and they have different assumptions, objectives, and methodologies.
Structural linguistics is an approach to language enquiry that characterizes the formal relationships
between linguistic expressions independently of the meanings they hold. Generative linguistics is an
approach to language enquiry that characterizes all, and only, the well-formed expressions of a language.
In both these paradigms, language is studied in isolation from both meaning and use. Hence, their
principles of combination make no reference to external factors. The central task of a formalist linguist is
to describe the formal relationships between linguistic expressions regardless of the meanings they
have. This follows from the theoretical position which divides language into distinct components, and so
demands that its explanation should be entirely internal.

2 Theoretical Paradigms
19 2.3.1 Structural Linguistics
Ferdinand de Saussure established structural linguistics in the early decades of the twentieth century. It
is a theoretical paradigm that views language as an interwoven network in which the elements are
defined by their relationship to one another. A key objective of structural linguistics is to prove that every
language has unique properties. In other words, the objective is to observe and describe how a language
is spoken by a group of people in a speech community, without the bias of preconceived ideas about
how it ought to be. This is done by investigating the patterns, the structure, of individual languages at
some point in time. The rationale of structural linguistics is that there is no predictable relationship
between the form of a linguistic expression and its meaning—the relationship is arbitrary. Practitioners
of this school consider language a self-contained system of relations, where the meaning of a word is
defined by the way it relates to others. Saussure drew a contrast between langue (language) and parole
(speech). Langue is a system of signs, whereas parole is the use of the signs in speech. A sign has two
component parts: a signifier (its form/ substance) and a signified (its meaning/ concept). The first focus
of interest is the parole Likewise, Saussure drew a contrast between a two-level system of relations:
syntagmatic and paradigmatic. A syntagmatic relationship refers to items that can occur on a linear level
in an expression. It is a relation that holds between elements that are combined with each other such as
the letters in a word or the words in a sentence. A paradigmatic relationship refers to items that can be
substituted into the same position in an expression. It is a relation that holds between elements of the
same category, that is elements that can be substituted for each other such as the substitution of pen for
pencil in a sentence. These relationships constitute the structure of language, and it is this structure, not
its meaning, that should be the main area of linguistic concern.

The second school was the Prague Linguistic Circle, founded in 1926 by Vilém Mathesius. Two of its most
influential members were Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetskoy. The school first made its impact in
phonology through the 2.3 Form-Centered Paradigms 20 introduction of such terms as distinctive
features and binary opposition. The first refers to a feature distinguishing one phoneme from another,
for example voiced /b/ is different from voiceless /p/. The second refers to a feature of a phoneme with
two values: either positive or negative, for example [± voice], where /d/ is [+voice], while /t/ is [−voice].
In contrast to other branches of structuralism with their emphasis on form, the Prague School began a
functionalist approach to structural linguistics. It regarded language primarily as a functional means of
communication, where linguistic utterances stand for speakers’ intentions. This is seen in the use of the
term functional sentence perspective, which deals with the distribution of given information (known as
theme) and new information (known as rheme) in sentences.

The fourth school was the London School of Linguistics, originated by John Firth. It centered on an
approach to language advocated by Henry Sweet (1845–1912), Daniel Jones (1881–1967), and John Firth
(1890–1960) and was preoccupied with the synchronic description of language. The London School
made two contributions to linguistics: prosodic analysis in phonology, where the distinctive function is
considered to be the primary function of a phoneme and the selection of one phoneme instead of
another alters the meaning conveyed; and the situational theory of meaning in semantics, which
accorded a crucial role to context in the communication of meaning. The meaning of a linguistic item
depends on its use in a standard context by a speaker. Functional alternations in speech can be
distinguished on the basis of contexts.

In America, structuralism was characterized by empiricism, recognizing speech as the only source for
language. American structuralism based its descriptions on objectively observable data, paying special
attention to current speech. In addition, it was characterized by fieldwork. Franz Boas undertook the
work of recording rapidly dying languages of native American tribes. He argued that each language had
to be described in its own terms and alongside the culture of which it was a part, something he called
linguistic relativity. This idea was taken up by his student Edward Sapir, who argued that languages differ
dramatically from one another in terms of how they describe the world. This idea was developed by his
student Benjamin Whorf into the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis, which holds that a language determines the
way the speakers perceive the world, not the other way around. The particular language an individual
speaks determines his or her thoughts and actions. Leonard Bloomfield constructed a process for
language description. He used two empirical methods: immediate constituency analysis, whereby a
sentence is analyzed in terms of the arrangement of its constituent parts to show their relationship to
one another, usually shown in a tree diagram; and discovery procedures, a mechanical procedure for
deriving the grammar of a language from a corpus without human intervention. In the process, two
analytical steps are applied: segmentation of the material on the basis of substitution; and classification
of elements on the basis of distribution. Bloomfield’s work was marked by behaviorism. Behaviorists
believe that responses to environmental stimuli shape human actions. Humans, driven by stimuli, utter
speech as a means to prompt a response from the listener. Meaning is simply the relationship between a
stimulus and a verbal response. As an act of observable behavior, language is acquired through
conditioning and reinforcement. Conditioning occurs through interaction with the environment.

Generative Linguistics In the middle decades of the twentieth century, Noam Chomsky initiated a school
known as generative linguistics. This is a theoretical paradigm which views language as a system shaped
by a set of basic principles intrinsic to the human brain. It adopts a mentalist view, focusing on the idea
that the human ability for natural language is innate. Innateness means that knowledge of language
exists in humans at birth and not through early experience with the language. Speakers of a language are
provided ahead of time with rules lying latent in their minds. The rules allow a speaker to produce an
endless variety of sentences that are considered grammatically correct. The objective of generative
linguistics is to prove that all languages share universal properties. This is done by constructing rules
which account for existing and the new patterns in a language. In other words, the objective is to
describe the regular patterns of language, relegating the irregular ones to the lexicon or removing them
from the focus of interest. The regular patterns serve as rules that are capable of generating well-formed
expressions. The rules define the structural units of a language and explain how the human mind
processes language. Chomsky proposed a distinction between competence and performance. The
former refers to a native speaker’s knowledge of the language, whereas the latter refers to the use of
that knowledge in speech. Chomsky believes that the main focus of interest or object of study is
competence. He assumes that competence enables the speaker of a given language to generate
acceptable expressions and reject unacceptable ones. Competence includes a set of rules which enables
the speaker to construct expressions that have never been uttered before. Priority is given to the form of
the rules rather than their meanings. The rationale is that there is no relationship between the linguistic
form of an expression and the meaning it denotes. Adherents of generative linguistics characterize
linguistic expressions as being derived from underlying structures by means of transformations. It is
these transformations that should be the particular sphere of linguistic interest.

Comparison A look at the two schools of thought shows that they converge and diverge in many ways. 2
Theoretical Paradigms 25 Structural and generative linguistics converge in three ways: 1. They
concentrate on structural issues in the description of language and neglect the semantic ones. For both,
grammar is a self-contained system, independent of meaning. Consequently, they are preoccupied with
the language components of syntax and phonology rather than semantics or pragmatics. 2. They focus
on rules in the description of the internal structure of language. Structural linguistics describes only the
existing patterns found in language, whereas generative linguistics describes both established patterns
and new ones. Generative linguistics points up the capability of generating an infinite set of sentences
from a finite lexicon and a finite set of rules. 3. Their conception of language involves a two-level
notional opposition. Structural linguistics draws a distinction between langue and parole. Structuralists’
object of inquiry is the parole—the outside of language. Generative linguistics draws a distinction
between competence and performance. Generativists’ first object of inquiry is competence—the inside
of language. Structural and generative linguistics diverge in three ways: 1. Structural linguistics believes
in empiricism: a philosophy that regards the mind as empty, receiving information from the outside. In
this case, the actual sentences are the basis for devising the rules. Generative linguistics, by contrast,
believes in rationalism: a philosophy that regards the mind as genetically endowed with innate qualities,
which are not supplied by the senses. In this case, the rules in the mind are responsible for producing
the acceptable sentences. 2. Structural linguistics believes in the thesis of relativism: every language has
properties of its own. So, languages can differ from one another without limit. Generative linguistics, by
contrast, believes in the thesis of universalism: languages have similar properties. It is interested in what
languages have in common. Language is merely a reflection of human thought, and so all languages are
significantly similar in their conceptual categories. 3. In structural linguistics, language acquisition
involves imitation and repetition. It is determined by a stimulus–response, feedback–reinforcement
process, a theory based on an empirical or behavioral approach. In generative linguistics, by contrast,
language acquisition involves rule-governed creativity. It is determined by inborn human mental
capacity. The child is born with a language-acquisition device. This theory is based on a mentalist or
rationalist approach.

Functional Linguistics In the later decades of the twentieth century, Michael Halliday, Simon Dik, and
others founded the school known as functional linguistics, a theoretical paradigm which views language
as a social semiotic, where meaning is influenced by context. It studies the functions performed by
language: descriptive, expressive, and social and attempts to explain how linguistic expressions are
shaped, based on the goals of language users. The objective is to analyze linguistic forms as a reflection
of communicative demands. This is done by probing the relationship between language and its functions
in social settings. The rationale is that the link between the form and meaning of a linguistic expression is
isomorphic, a kind of mapping between the form and function of linguistic expressions. Linguistic
structure is to a significant degree a response to discourse pressure. The communicative situation
motivates, constrains, explains or otherwise determines grammatical structure. Followers of functionalist
linguistics attach importance to the uses to which language is put and the communicative context in
which it occurs. Language is not a question of following rules but a repertoire of strategies for building
discourses. It is these strategies that should be the proper field of linguistic investigation. Functional
linguistics is generally viewed as an alternative to formalist approaches to the study of language. As the
study of the relationship between language and its functions in social settings it considers language as a
social semiotic system. Functional linguistics emphasizes the multi-functionality of language, especially
its communicative dimensions. It maintains that the structure of natural languages is determined by such
independent semiotic functions. 2 Theoretical Paradigms 27 Functional linguistics asserts that the
structure of language systems is largely, though not wholly, determined by functions. It treats grammar
as a meaning-making resource and insists on the interrelation of form and meaning. It considers the
linguistic system as being shaped by external factors, not self-contained, as formcentered schools hold.
Functionalists base their work on the view that language is first and foremost an instrument for
communication between human beings. This explains why languages are as they are.