#2295. 言語変化研究は言語の状態の力学である[linguistics][language_change][diachrony][methodology][variation]



 ・ 「#1025. 共時態と通時態の関係」 ([2012-02-16-1])
 ・ 「#1260. 共時態と通時態の接点を巡る論争」 ([2012-10-08-1])
 ・ 「#2125. エルゴン,エネルゲイア,内部言語形式」 ([2015-02-20-1])
 ・ 「#2134. 言語変化は矛盾ではない」 ([2015-03-01-1])
 ・ 「#2167. "orderly heterogeneity" と diffusion」 ([2015-04-03-1])
 ・ 「#2197. ソシュールの共時態と通時態の認識論」 ([2015-05-03-1])

 「状態の力学」としての言語変化のとらえ方は,少なからぬ論者がしばしば提唱してきたが,決して一般化しているとは言えない.「状態の力学」の謂いを直接に表現している Keller (125) から引用しよう.

. . . does a theory of change belong to the field of synchronic or diachronic linguistics? If we look again at the definition by Bally and Sechehaye, we observe that the answer can be either 'both . . . and' or 'neither . . . nor'. Now, if a question admits two contradictory propositions as answers, we can be sure that something is amiss with the concepts involved. In this case the conclusion is inevitable that the concepts 'synchrony' and 'diachrony' are not suitable for dealing with problems of language change. They are basically concepts which belong to a theory of the history of language, not to a theory of change. The concepts 'state (of being)' and 'history' are very different from those of 'stasis' and 'dynamics'. 'The past is the repository of that which has irrevocably happened and been created'; whatever belongs to history is static, but the place of dynamics is the present. A theory of change is not a theory of history, but a theory of the dynamics of a 'state'. An explanation of this type seems able to fulfil the claim for an 'integrated synchrony' made by Coseriu in 1980 in his article 'Vom Primat der Geschichte'. Its task would be to define the manner in which 'the functioning of language coincides with language change'.

 ・ Keller, Rudi. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. Trans. Brigitte Nerlich. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

[ | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow