Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
36
Chapter1.meecologyoflanguageanditslearning
oflanguageandlanguageuse”(WolfandLove1997:2).memythinquestion(cf.
meLanguageMyth,Harris1981)consistsintreatingitintheformofaKlanguage
machine”(cf.meLanguageMachine,Harris1987)localizedinbrainendowedwith
aspecialinstrumentforprocessinganinvariablegrammaticalfixedcodeasestab-
lishedbySaussurianandChomskyantraditionrefusingtoattendtoparolelper-
formanceinfavoroflanguelcompetencerespectively.Chomskyperceiveslanguage
asabiologicalinheritance,nottobelearnedbutmerelyactivated,whileSaussure
treatsitasacultural-historicalmonument(vanLier2004:86).Yet,vanLier(2004:
34–35)pointsoutthatthereisaremarkabledilerencebetweenthesubjectoftheir
study.Asheexplains(ibid.,34),K[i]nSaussure’sscheme,langueisacommonsocial
good,whereasparoleisaperson’sindividuallanguageuse.InChomsky,compe-
tenceisindividualandinvariant,andperformanceissocialandvarying.Saussure
thereforespeaksofsocialconsistencyandindividualvariation,Chomskyofsocial
variationandindividualconsistency”.Nonetheless,theyoptforstudyingafixed
coderatherthanvariation.mis,forHarris,leadstoKanimpoverishedandatworst
downrightdistortedview”ofthewholelinguisticsgame(WolfandLove1997:3).
Instead,Harris(1980)recommendsthatreallanguagestudyshouldpertaintothe
Kactuallinguisticexperience”togettheessenceofwhatlanguagesare.
ApartoftheKlanguagemachine”mythdominatingWesternthinkingisthecon-
ceptualizationoflanguageaccordingtothreenotions:surrogationism(theconvic-
tionthatwordsmuststandforsomething),contractualism(pertainingtotacitsocial
agreementofhowtodocertainthinginsociety),andinstrumentalism(perceptionof
wordsasKinstrumentsforaccomplishinghumancommunicativeobjectives”)(Wolf
andLove1997:2).Altogether,theaforementionednotionshavecontributedtothe
establishmentoftheimageoflanguagesasfixedcodes:Ksystemsofcorrespondences
betweenformsandmeaningswhosefunctionistofacilitateKtelementation’–the
transferofthoughtsfromonemindtoanother.metwodoctrinesareinterdepen-
dent”(ibid.).Harrisattributesthefixityoflanguagetothegroundlessassumption
madebydisruptivelinguisticsthatwritingrepresentsspeech(cf.RethinkingWriting,
Harris2000),whileinfactKoralcommunicationisavailableKasanincomparably
richsourceofanalogiesforthegraphicexpressionofallkindsofinformationł’”
(Harris1980:156,afterWolfandLove,ibid.).
Animportanttenetofintegrationismisanexplicittheoryofcommunication.6
However,Harrisseescommunicationdilerentlyfromtheorthodoxsemiology–
dubbedbyhimassegregationist–assumingKthatsystemsofcommunicationare
independentoftheirpotentialusersoroftheircontextsinwhichtheyoperate”
(Harris,Homepage).Bycontrast,inhisconceptualstrand,communicationisan
6SeeJoseph(1997:31)inrespecttothecriticismofHarris’slanguagemythsregardingcom-
municationandCarr’s(1997:68)starkclaimthatChomskydeniedthecommunicationfunction
oflanguage.
