Tl2 school ofprague


Published on

In this paper, we explain the main phonological an grammatical contributions in linguistics from the School of Prague

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tl2 school ofprague

  1. 1. FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS:THE PRAGUE SCHOOL Neyda Noheli Alvarez Avila Luis Angel De León Rangel Ricardo Misael García Luis Pablo Tamez Sarmiento
  2. 2. VILÉM MATHESIUS Vilém Mathesius (1882-1945) was a Czech Anglicist who studied and taught at the Caroline University of Prague. In 1911, Matheusius published his first call for a new, non-historical approach to language study.
  3. 3. Prague School American DescriptivistsIt saw language in terms offunction.They analized language with a A grammar is a set of elementsview of showing the functionsplayed by the differentcomponents.They looked in languages and They restricted to description.explanation to why languageswere the way they were.Use of terms „theme‟ and Use the terms „topic‟ and„rheme‟. „comment‟Were interested in standarizing Drew a distinction betweenlinguistic usage. linguistic description and linguistic prescription.
  4. 4. NIKOLAI TRUBETZKOY Prince Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetzkoy (1890-1938) was one of the members of the “Prague School” not based in Czechoslovakia. He was a student of Indo- European linguistics at his father‟s university.
  5. 5.  Trubetzkoyan phonology gives a central role to the phoneme; Trubetzkoy, and the Prague School in general, where intersted primarily in the paradigmatic relation between phonemes. In the Principles, establishes a rather sophisticated system of phonological typology, a system which enables us to say what kind of phonology a language has, rather than simply treating its phonological structure in the take-it-or-leave-it American fashion as a set of isolated facts.
  6. 6. TRUBETZKOY Types of phonemic contrast Privative Gradual Equipollent oppositions oppositions oppositionsTwo phonemes are The members Each member hasidentical except differ in processing a distinguishingthat one contains a different degrees of mark lacking in thephonetic „mark‟ some gradient others.which the other property.lacks.
  7. 7.  Trubetzkoy distinguished various functions that can be served by a phonological opposition: Delimitative function: it helps the hearer locate word-boundaries in the speech signal, which is something he needs to do if he is to make sense of what he hears. Culminative function: it tells the hearer how many words he must segment the signal into, although it does not tell him where to make the cuts.
  8. 8.  In analyzing the functions of speech Trubetzkoy followed his Viennese philosopher colleague Karl Bühler, who distinguished between:  Representation function.  Expressive function.  Conative function.
  9. 9. ANDRÉ MARTINET Martinet himself never lived in prague: he was appointed to the École Practique des Hautes Études in Paris in 1938. He was heavily influenced by Prague thinking from an early stage in his career, and nowadays it seems fair to describe him as the chief contemporary proponent of mainstream Prague ideas. The book “Économie des Changements Phonétiques” in 1955, Marinet set out his theories of diachronic phonology most fully.
  10. 10.  One of the key concepts in Martinet´s account of sound-change is that of the funtional yield of a phonological opposition. wreath – wreathe foal - vole /writ/ - /wrerat/ /foul/ - /fvoul/
  11. 11. MANDARIN CHINESE The history in Mandarin Chinese has been one of repeated massive losses of phonological distinctions: final strops dropped, the voice contrast in initial consonants was lost, final m merged with n, the vowel system was greatly simplified. The modern Mandarin has so few phonologically distinct syllables that on average each syllable is ambiguos as between three or four etymologically distinct morphemes in current use.
  12. 12.  Roman Osipovich Jakobson (1896) was a Russian scholar. From the 1920s onward he studied and taught in Prague , and move to a chair in the university of Brno. Jakobson‟s intellectual interests are broad and reflect those of the Prague School as a whole; he has written a great deal, for instance, on the structuralist approach to literature. The most important aspect of Jakobson‟s work is his phonological theory.
  13. 13.  As Trubestzkoy, he is interested in the analysis of phonemes into their components features rather than in the distribution of phonemes. but his view represent a special development which takes to their logical extreme ideas that are found only briefly and tentatively adumbrated in the work of Jakobson‟s approach to phonology is the notion that there is a relatively simple, orderly, universal, „psychological system‟ of sounds underlying the chaotic wealth of different kind of sound observed by the phonetician.
  14. 14.  In the text is described some articulatory parameters as the „close‟, „open‟ parameters of a vowel and „front‟ „back‟ too. The word „feature‟ is used ambiguously by various writers to mean either „parameter‟ or „parameter-value‟ (And Bloomfield even used it in third term „minimum unit of distinctive sound-feature‟.
  15. 15.  The articulatory phonetics‟ lesson is that human vocal anatomy provides a very large range of different phonetic parameters. English distinguished three degrees of aperture in pure vowels, as in Pit/pet/pat; in French are 4 and is said that Tswana have six. The Descriptivist‟s tended to see all phonetic parameters and all sounds as intrinsically equal in their potential for use in language. This approach to phonology might be described metaphorically as „democratic‟. At Jacobson‟s view, only a small group of phonetic parameters seem to play a linguistically distinctive role.
  16. 16.  Jacobson published a book were he described the twelve „distinctive features‟ called Preliminaries to Speech Analysis (1952). In order to substantiate his belief that the phonological universal he discusses are determined by „deep „psychological principles rather than by relatively uninteresting facts about oral anatomy or the like Jakobson devotes considerable space to discussion of synaesthetic effect. To probe his paper he based in the German psychologist K. Langenbeck, who suggested that he „saw‟ the vowel as red because the first toy Wagen he was given was red one: if this were the reason, the universality of these sound/color correspondences would be inexplicable.