LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING

LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND LEVELS OFFUNCTIONING

(ON A TYPOLOGICAL STUDY OF'LANGUAGES WITHIN A LANGUAGE')1

JU. LEVICKIJ

It is well known that typological descriptions are usually made in orderto compare analytically various groups of languages, beginning fromthose genealogically remote from one another and finishing with thosebelonging to one and the same family. In our opinion, however, it isquite possible to conduct a typological study of languages (or SUB-LANGUAGES) constituting one and the same national language.

In the present paper such a study is attempted. But the author mustwarn that his fragmentary and sketchy views and conclusions can beregarded only as preliminary and are in no way meant to be accepted asthe final solution of the problem.

1. Language description can be performed in different ways. The mostfrequent are the varieties of so-called STEP-BY-STEP or LEVEL approaches.Recently, the most distinctly opposed are the two types of level ap-proaches, the TWO-LEVEL and the THREE-LEVEL. To the former belong thedescriptions in which two levels are distinguished in the language struc-ture, LANGUAGE and SPEECH (F. de Saussure, A. Gardiner, The PragueSchool, and many others); to the latter belong those in which three levels— SYSTEM, NORM, and SPEECH — are distinguished (E. Coseriu, Ju. S.Stepanov and to a certain degree F. Danes).

The second approach seems more interesting and promising for theobjectives of our study, and we shall allow ourselves to concentrate ourattention on its more detailed analysis. We shall try first of all to find outthe most characteristic features typical of each of the three levels men-tioned above and see which of these features can help us to distinguishthe levels from one another.

1 This article is based on material presented as a report to the Symposium in MoscowUniversity. See: Semioticeskie problemy jazykov nauki, terminologii i informatiki I(Moscow, MGU, 1971), 226-29. (The Collection will be further alluded to asSymposium.)

Brought to you by | University of Illinois Chicago (University of Illinois Chicago)Authenticated | 172.16.1.226

Download Date | 7/22/12 8:43 AM

100 JU. LEVICKU

2.1 ON THE LEVEL OF SPEECH the analyst deals with real speech acts thatcan be perceived by the organs of the senses and recorded on paper ortape. These speech acts take place within real and concrete situations ofcommunication. The notion of situation includes first and foremost thetwo participants in the process of communication — the SPEAKER andthe LISTENER. Besides, it includes all the nearby OBJECTS and, of course,the TIME and the PLACE of communication.

2.2 The linguistic units used for communication are concrete UTTERANCES(or UTTERANCE UNITS). These utterances express a whole set of relationsthat can be regarded as utterance characteristics. These relations, whichare necessarily expressed in every utterance, can be easily divided intotwo general groups.

(a) EXTRALINGUISTIC RELATIONS. Every concrete utterance is closelyconnected with, and related to, a quite definite real situation, with all theobjects and phenomena constituting this given situation. Each wordentering an utterance is in fact a name for an object or phenomenonentering the real situation. That is why all the relations of this kind canbe called OBJECTIVE.

Besides, every concrete utterance is characterized by the fact that itnecessarily, somehow or other, expresses the speaker's attitude towardsboth the situation described and the fact expressed in the utterance. Therelations of this kind can thus be called SUBJECTIVE.

(b) LINGUISTIC RELATIONS. Every concrete utterance cannot be madeotherwise than in full accordance with some strict specific rules. Followingthese rules, all the elements that enter the structure of an utterance aregrammatically shaped or formed to show the relations between theseelements. The relations between the elements of an utterance can becalled INTERNAL.

Besides, every concrete utterance is in fact only one of the elements orcomponents constituting a whole succession of utterances. All the com-ponents of this chain are interconnected with one another and constitutea CONNECTED TEXT. The relations of this kind can be called EXTERNAL.

When in analysing an utterance we take into account the whole set ofits external linguistic relations, we can easily and correctly find out itsFSP components — THE THEME and THE RHEME.

2.3 The variety of relations characterizing every utterance brings forththe corresponding variety of specific formal means for expressing theserelations. The main formal means are grammatical forms of words and



LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING 101

intonation. It must be mentioned that all grammatical forms are used intheir specific concrete meanings. Now, if we compare the followingutterances:

The book is on the table. Books are on the table.The boy comes in. The boy came in.

we shall easily find out that the opposition of number forms in the firstpair of utterances corresponds to the opposition of one-to-many objectsin the situations described by the two utterances, while the opposition oftense forms in the second pair of utterances corresponds to the oppositionof an action simultaneous with the moment of speech to an action pre-ceding the moment of speech in the situations described in these twoutterances. In other words, in every concrete utterance there takes placerealisation of EACH SPECIFIC GRAMMEME (singular, plural, present tense,past tense, etc.).

As to intonation, it is the most universal means of utterance forming.It is used to show the completeness of an utterance and to express its maincommunicative aim, INFORMATION, QUESTION, and ORDER/REQUEST togetherwith all the accompanying emotional meanings. Being of primary im-portance in utterance forming, intonation can often disagree with, andeven contradict, the grammatical form of an utterance. Let us take, forexample, the utterance:

You know her.

which is grammatically an affirmation (information). But when pro-nounced with corresponding intonation, it can express not only infor-mation, but question, surprise, doubt, etc.

2.4 The content (meaning) of utterance components — words and word-groups — is monosemantic, specific, quite concrete and defined for thelistener. There is no place for any polysemy, homonymy or synonymythat can prevent the partners from mutual understanding. Each word orword-group, as mentioned above, is 'tied' or related to a concrete anddefinite object of the situation, and the 'tie' or relation can be eitherdirect or indirect.

In the case of direct relation, each word (word-group) is a name of thisor that definite object of the situation described. This fact is expressed bymeans of corresponding grammatical forming of the word. The utterance,for example,



102 JU. LEVICKU

The boy comes up to the door.

describes such a situation in which the named person (boy) and thing(door) are quite concrete and definite for the listener. This fact is ex-pressed by means of the definite article used before the correspondingwords. The name of the action (comes up) is not connected with thesituation directly, but through the name of the person who performs theaction. The person and number forms of the corresponding verb connectthe name of the action with the name of the person as its characteristic.

There are cases when only one word (word-combination) is directlyconnected with the definite object of the situation while all the otherwords are connected with the named object through being connected withthe corresponding word. For example, the utterance

The boy was eating an apple.

describes a situation in which only the acting person is known to anddefinite for the listener. This is expressed by means of the definite articlebefore the corresponding noun. The name of the action being a char-acteristic of the person is related, as in the previous example, to theperson's name. Besides, the name of the action is also related to a nameof a thing which is an object of the action. This name is not directlyrelated to a definite object but is introduced into the utterance throughbeing related to the action and, hence, to the definite person. Whenrelated to the definite situation, the object becomes definite itself for thelistener, and this fact is expressed in the following naming by means ofthe change of articles:

The boy was eating an apple. The apple was large and red.

Concreteness and monosemy of words — utterance components -— areespecially vivid and evident in using so-called EGOCENTRIC words,2 whichhave definite meaning only in real concrete situations. When taken outof the concrete situation of communication the utterances

He is coming.Put it here.This is mine and that is yours.

are simply senseless.Now, taking into account everything mentioned above, we can point

2 B. Russell, alluded to by the Russian edition Celoveceskoe poznanie, ego sfera igranicy (Moscow, 1957), 119.




out that a language description on the level of speech is a description ofconcrete actual utterances which are formally and semantically linkedtogether to make up a connected text depicting a concrete real situation.

3.1 While on the level of speech we deal with concrete utterances, ON THELEVEL OF NORM we deal with elements of which the utterances are made.The basic units of the level of norm are WORDS and SENTENCES.3 Unlikeutterances which are pieces of COMMUNICATION about real situations, bothwords and sentences are NAMES, the former being names of things, thelatter names of typical and abstract situations.4 It means that both wordsand sentences are of more general and abstract character than the unitsof the level of speech.

3.2 In the preceding section it has been pointed out that sentences, unlikewords, are not names of things and phenomena, but of whole situations.Taking this into account, it is quite natural that both sentences, namingsituations and utterances communicating about situations, express thesame types of relations. But as opposed to utterances, sentences do notdeal with concrete situations. They are usually names of general andabstract situations because the process of grammatical analysis of asentence (so-called FORMAL analysis) is supposed to be applied to a SINGLESENTENCE extracted from context or a concrete situation. This fact resultsin some reduction in the number of relations which are expressed in asentence. Let us try to find out which of them remain expressed.

(a) EXTRALINGUISTIC. As every single sentence is a name of a typicalgeneral situation, it is quite natural that the most general types of relationsbetween real things and phenomena are expressed in it. But now they areno longer relations between some DEFINITE CONCRETE things and phe-nomena. They are relations between ANY things and phenomena ofcertain types. If the concrete utterance

The boy is eating an apple.

is 'tied' to a quite concrete real object in the given situation, the corre-sponding sentence5 can be applied to any situation including componentsthat can be named by the words boy, eat, apple and which are in identical

8 Ju. S. Stepanov, Osnovy jazykoznanija (Moscow, 1966).4 I. F. VarduF, "Ob aktuaTnom sintaksise", Jazyk i Myslenie (Moscow, 1967).5 We shall not be concerned here in detail with the sentence-to-utterance opposition.The problem will be treated elsewhere.



104 JU. LEVICKIJ

relation to one another. From what has been said, we can deduce thatthe OBJECTIVE-RELATIONS remain expressed in a sentence, but they acquirea more general and abstract character.

As to the SUBJECTIVE RELATIONS, they are not necessarily expressed,especially when they are to be expressed by means of correspondingintonation. But when expressed grammatically (modal forms, moodforms, etc) they are, naturally, present.

(b) LINGUISTIC. Every sentence is a unit which has a certain grammati-cal form in full accordance with the rules of a given language. In everysentence (at least in so-called TWO-MEMBER SENTENCES) we can easily findout its main elements, the subject and the predicate, and all the secondaryelements which modify the main ones. It is the fact that all the INTERNALRELATIONS between sentence components are expressed by means ofcorresponding grammatical forms which make the formal analysis of asingle sentence possible.

As to the EXTERNAL RELATIONS, they are rather difficult to find, because,as has been mentioned, a sentence extracted from context and situationis analysed. Even though they can be formally expressed, it is hardlypossible to interpret them correctly, because there are no other sentencesconnected with the given one. Due to this fact, one cannot correctly andadequately determine the FSP components — the theme and the rheme —in a sentence. If we take, for example, a well known sentence analysedby H. Paul

Peter goes to Berlin tomorrow.

we can see that any sentence component may become its rheme dependingon the meaning of some previous sentence or a question to which thegiven sentence is the answer. Cf.:

(1) — Who goes to Berlin tomorrow?— Peter goes to Berlin tomorrow. (Rheme — Peter)

(2) — Does Peter go or fly to Berlin tomorrow?— Peter goes to Berlin tomorrow. (Rheme — goes)

(3) — When does Peter go to Berlin?— Peter goes to Berlin tomorrow. (Rheme — tomorrow)

(4) — Where does Peter go tomorrow?— Peter goes to Berlin tomorrow. (Rheme — to Berlin)

It is even possible to have:




(5) — Does Peter go via Berlin tomorrow?— Peter goes to Berlin tomorrow. (Rheme — to)

3.3 The reduction in the number of relations results in reduction in thevariety of means for expressing these relations. First of all, it is necessaryto be aware of the fact that a sentence, being a NAMING unit, is nevercharacterized by some specific intonation. It means that the use ofcorresponding grammatical forms is the only means of expressing allthe relations in the sentence. Consider also that grammatical forms areno longer analysed as expressing specific grammatical meanings (gram-memes' meanings), but as means of opposing different meanings withinone general category. Thus a present tense form, for example, is notregarded as relating an action to the moment of speech, but as a formthat differs from a past tense form and future tense form. In other words,on this level of analysis we are not interested in the expressing of SINGLEGRAMMEMES but in means of expressing certain GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES(of tense, number, person, etc.).

3.4 Words as units of the level of norm are characterized by generalityof their meaning. Each word is not a name of a single concrete anddefinite thing, but of a whole class of things. The vocabulary as a wholeis characterized by polysemy, synonymy and homonymy, which givesone the possibility to produce ambiguous sentences, puns, etc.

Words and word-groups can be grammatically classified in accordancewith either their class-meanings as belonging to certain PARTS OF SPEECH,or their specific positions in a sentence as belonging to classes of certainSENTENCE PARTS. For example, in analysing the sentence

The boy comes up to the door.

we define the word boy as a name of the performer of action. We canclassify it either as a noun (countable, animate) or as the subject of thesentence. In the same manner the word door can be defined as a nameof an object of the action and further classified either as a noun (countable,inanimate) or as a complement of the predicate in the given sentence. Themost evident is the case with substantives. For example, in the concreteutterance

He was eating an apple.

he is a name of a quite definite concrete real person, while in analysingthe corresponding sentence we shall define he as a substitute for the action



106 JU. LEVICK1J

performer's name and classify it as a noun substitute, the subject of thesentence.

In short, language description on the level of norm is a description ofgrammatical word-classes, grammatical categories, of sentence types andsentence elements.

4.1 THE LEVEL OF SYSTEM presents a description of a still more generaland abstract character. Here the analyst has to take into account theelements of which words are composed and the general rules and schemesaccording to which sentences of various types are combined. Conse-quently, the basic units of the level of system are MORPHEMES and SENTENCESTRUCTURES.6

As the analysis on the level of system is restricted by finding out theclasses of morphemes and patterns of their typical combinations, NOCONTEXT AT ALL is taken into account. Hence we have further reductionin the number of relations and further change in their character. Letus now examine in more detail the changes we have touched upon.

(a) EXTRALINGUISTIC. Of these, only OBJECTIVE relations remain ex-pressed on the level of system. But here they become extremely generaland abstract. Now they are the most general types of relations betweenthings and phenomena — between thing and characteristic, person andaction, action and object, and the like. All these relations can be reducedto one general type of relation — the relation of subordination.

As to the SUBJECTIVE relations, they are hardly to be found. Weremember that on the level of norm we could point out some kinds ofsubjective relations expressed by grammatical forms of modality, moodetc., while on the level of system NO SUBJECTIVE RELATIONS are expressed.

(b) LINGUISTIC. As already mentioned, the EXTERNAL RELATIONS almostcompletely disappear when we take a single sentence out of some context.They can be, of course, formally expressed but are hardly to be semanti-cally interpreted. We have attempted to demonstrate that it is verydifficult to divide a single sentence correctly into the theme and the rheme,because it can be done in different ways. But while one and the samesentence can be realized in several ways as SEVERAL REAL UTTERANCES,one and the same sentence structure can be realized as an INFINITENUMBER OF SENTENCES. For example, the sentence

Peter goes to Berlin.

can be the base for at least four different utterances (see above), while the6 Stepanov, 1966.




sentence structure NVD can be the base for the following sentences:

Peter goes to Berlin.The boy comes up to the door.Father returns home.Mr. Smith went abroad.My brother works at a hospital.Etc. ad infinitum.

4.2 If words regarded from the point of view of the level of norm are notnames of single objects but of classes of objects, the elements of the levelof system are names of classes of words, i.e., names of classes of classesof things. The word boy, for example, in the sentence

The boy was eating an apple.

is the name of any boy, of any representative of the class of boys, whilethe element N in the sentence structure NVD is the name of any nounand any noun-equivalent.

Consequently, language description on the level of system is a de-scription of morpheme classes and the patterns of their combinabilities.

5. Regarded from the angle of the analysis described in the precedingsections, the process of language functioning is performed in the reverseorder — morphemes are joined into words, words are combined intosentences and sentences are actualized into concrete utterances. In viewof what has been said, we can state that a description on the level ofspeech is a description of a living and functioning language, while descrip-tions on the higher levels are products of breaking down the livinglanguage into elements and rules for combining these elements. In otherwords, language functioning is a PROCESS (energeid) while the product oflanguage analysis is a STATE (ergon). In connection with this fact, aproblem often arises whether the levels described above really exist, orwhether the three levels are real constituents of real language or theproduct of some linguists' thoughts, the notions composed in order tomake a language description more convenient. Before trying to answerthis question we think some brief comment is necessary on the forms oflanguage functioning.

5.1.1 The process of communication is intended for transmitting portionsof information from one partner to another; that is why the DIALOGUE



108 JU. LEVICKIJ

FORM OF ORAL SPEECH is the most typical and natural one. Dialogue ischaracterized as a TWO-WAY-COMMUNICATION which necessarily involvesTWO PARTICIPANTS — the speaker and the listener. Every speech act,as we have pointed out, takes place within a DEFINITE CONCRETE SITUATION.It results in the possibility of using FORMALLY INCOMPLETE utterances.This formal incompleteness of the utterances is conditioned by the factthat the partners of communication have no need to repeat what wasalready named or to name a thing which is straight before the partners'eyes and thus can simply be pointed at or indicated. It means that anyreply is semantically complete enough if it consists even of only oneFSP component, but the most important one, the rheme. Now, if thequestion asked is

— Who goes to Berlin tomorrow?

the answer

— Peter (does).

will be quite sufficient. In the same way:

— When does Peter go to Berlin?— Tomorrow. Etc.

These examples testify to the fact that formal incompleteness of utterancesdoes not at all mean semantic incompleteness. As to the general meaningof utterances, it is well known that depending on the aim of communi-cation they can express INFORMATION, QUESTION or ORDER/REQUEST.

5.1.2 MONOLOGUE FORM OF ORAL SPEECH is not so general and typical forthe ordinary communication process. Monologue is characterized asONE-WAY COMMUNICATION involving ONE SPEAKER and usually MORE THANONE LISTENER (a typical example — story telling). This form of speech isusually connected with a situation OTHER THAN THE SITUATION OFCOMMUNICATION. That other situation is replaced by its linguistic equiva-lent — the context. It results in the use of FORMALLY COMPLETE UTTER-ANCES. Utterances follow one another in a succession connected bothsemantically and formally. The FSP of an utterance is both semanticallysupported by the meaning of the preceding utterances and by specificINTONATION CONTOUR AND GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE of the utterance inquestion. As to the general meaning of utterances, they mostly expresseither INFORMATION about some object (phenomenon) or DESCRIPTIONof some object (phenomenon).




5.1.3 Written dialogue is a PECULIAR TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION thatinvolves the speaker addressing THE LISTENER WHO is ABSENT at the momentof speech (a typical example — letter writing). The dialogue of this typecan be called a SPLIT DIALOGUE because the situation of communicationis split into two parts with a certain shift of time: the speaker's (or, better— writer's) questions remain unanswered for a period of time while theanswers are given to the questions that have been asked some time before.

This form of speech, like the corresponding oral form, can be charac-terized by utterances that may be FORMALLY INCOMPLETE but that arealways complete semantically. The FSP of an utterance is clear becauseof the MEANING of the preceding utterances. As to the general meaning,the utterances, as in the oral variant, can express INFORMATION, QUESTION,ORDER/REQUEST.

5.1.4 Written monologue can be characterized as ONE-WAY COMMUNI-CATION that involves the speaker (writer) addressing the LISTENERS (usuallymore than one) WHO ARE ABSENT at the moment of speech (a typicalexample — fiction, newspaper writing, etc.). Here, as in the oral variant,we deal with Other' or DESCRIBED situation which again results in theuse of FORMALLY COMPLETED utterances. The FSP of an utterance isclear because of both the MEANING of the preceding utterances and theGRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE (first of all — WORD ORDER) of the givenutterance. Consider, for example, the succession quoted by V. Mathesius:

Byl jednou jeden kral a ten m£l tfi syny. NejstarSiho z nichnapadlo, Ze sipüjde do sv$ta hledat nev$stu ...

[Once there lived a king who had three sons. The oldest gotthe idea to go out into the world in order to look for a bride ...].

Such are the four main forms of language functioning. Here we are notto forget that they are so strictly distinguished only for the sake ofanalysis, while in fact, in the real process of language functioning, theyvery often get mixed with one another.

All these forms of functioning are characteristic of so-called NATURALLANGUAGE that serves the people, THE WHOLE SOCIETY, for the needs ofeveryday communication. The plan of meaning (content) of this languageis presented by the social knowledge of the surrounding world, theempirical knowledge that is usually known as COMMON SENSE.

Besides this natural language we can, however, find out languages(or sub-languages) that can function and do FUNCTION ON HIGHER LEVELS



110 JU. LEVICKÜ

without stepping down to the level of speech. The so-called LANGUAGEOF SCIENCE is a typical example of a language that usually functions ONTHE LEVEL OF NORM.7

In this connection, language of science is characterized, on the onehand, by the features typical of the LEVEL OF NORM and, on the other, bythe features typical of the PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION in general. Themain characteristic feature common to all forms of language functioning,no matter on which level this functioning is performed, is the CONNECTED-NESS OF TEXT.

6. LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE usually functions as written speech,8 as a con-nected text. The most typical form of scientific speech is written mono-logue, i.e., one-way communication. But while we can somehow feel thepresence of the speaker (writer) and his taking part in the process ofcommunication in written form of NATURAL LANGUAGE functioning,LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE functions as if there were neither speaker norlistener.9

The units of communication in language of science, its 'utterances',are FORMALLY COMPLETE SENTENCES constituting a connected text. TheFSP components are expressed only grammatically (no intonation in-volved), mainly by WORD-ORDER. As to the general meaning of sentences,they usually express INFORMATION.

Dialogue form of written scientific speech from the modern point ofview seems rather artificial and archaic (consider, for example, scientificdialogues by ancient authors).

At first, scientific speech as a form of language of science functioningis very much like the written form of natural language functioning. Tofind out the difference between the two, we must first review the peculi-arities of language of science.

6.1 Language of science from the very beginning of its existence is aspecific language which is not intended for daily communication, butfor making up general statements about the regularities and laws ofNature.10 The content of this language is not COMMON SENSE which ispresented by empirical knowledge of the surrounding world, but theproduct of analysis of this empirical knowledge. This product, now

7 Ju. Levickij, "Jazyk nauki i aktualizadja", Filologija (Moscow, MGU, 1969).8 Th. H. Savory, The Language of Science (London, 1953), p. 50.9 M. M. GluSko, "Sistema i struktura jazyka nauki", Symposium 1, 201.10 E. I. Gilbert, Langage de la Science (Paris, 1945), 25.




shared not by the whole society, but only by A CERTAIN PART OF THESOCIETY,11 is in fact what we call SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. Nevertheless,this language is intended for communication between people, though notall people, but only those who "fait partie de la Science".12

Because of its general character, language of science is a second-orderlanguage, or a METALANGUAGE, and all its peculiarities are conditionedby this fact.

While natural language is both informative and emotional, "purescientific writing is essentially informative".13 Any utterance in languageof science is unambiguous, monosemantic and, at the same time, generaland universal, having one and the same meaning for all those who usethis language.

6.2 Now consider language of science from the point of view of therelations determined in the process of natural language analysis.

(a) EXTRALINGUISTIC. Since natural language and the language ofscience describe the same reality, OBJECTIVE relations are expressed in thelatter as well, but they undergo certain changes. While every utterance innatural language is connected with a definite concrete situation, utterancesin language of science are, primarily, ASITUATIVE — usually no speakeror listener is involved.

We can hardly speak of any SUBJECTIVE relations. If no speaker (author)is involved, no influence can be expected on his part on the characterof the text. While in natural language, especially in fiction, "le style estrhomme meme",14 the scientific writer "must abandon all hope of beinginterestingly original in style".15

(b) LINGUISTIC. Utterances in language of science are complete sen-tences that follow one another to make up a connected text. Accordinglywe can point out that both kinds of linguistic relations, INTERNAL ANDEXTERNAL, are expressed in language of science.

6.3 The relations stated in the previous section are expressed by the samegrammatical forms that are used in natural language. However, becauseof the peculiarities of language of science, the meanings of the grammaticalforms are somehow different. Various grammatical oppositions relevant11 Ju. Levickij, "World-sectioning and Language Typology", Linguistics 74 (1971).12 Gilbert, 1945.18 W. E. Flood, The Problem of Vocabulary in the Popularization of Science (Edin-burgh-London, 1958), p. 10.14 Quoted by Gilbert, 1945:30.16 Savory, 1953: 84.



112 JU. LEVICKIJ

to natural language are neutralized within language of science. Forexample, the opposition of the number forms is neutralized in sentenceslike the following:

The capacitor is an electric device.Capacitors are electric devices.

The first and second person forms, which are rarely used, no longerindicate the speaker and the listener. Of all the tense forms the mostwidely used is the present which now expresses a NON-TEMPORAL meaning,i.e., it expresses not an action, but some characteristic of an object.Modality forms no longer express the speaker's attitude to one fact oranother, but some degree of possibility or probability of the fact's occur-rence under given conditions.16

Regarded from the LEVEL OF NORM, the meaning of grammatical formsin language of science is identical to the meaning of grammatical formsin natural language.

6.4 Words in language of science are of a terminological character. Thismeans that every word is a name of either an abstract notion or a classof objects. Polysemy, synonymy, and homonymy are not characteristicof this type of words, or at least there is a tendency to avoid thesephenomena.

In science just as one word has, or should have, one meaning only, so alsothere is usually only one word to express any particular meaning. Even sosimple a statement as total internal reflection occurs if the angle of incidence isgreater than the critical angle cannot be in any other words, except, of course,by using absurd explanatory periphrases. Total internal reflection has no othername, nor have the angle of incidence and the critical angle.17

Now we can conclude that language of science is of a dual character; onthe one hand it shares the peculiarities of any functioning language(connectedness of the text), on the other, the peculiarities of the level ofnorm of the natural language (generality and abstractness). Consequently,a description of language of science is a description of a system of termsand rules for grammatical formation and combination, for the productionof abstract asituative sentences which are formally and semanticallyjoined in a connected text, describing some general relations in thesurrounding world.

1β GluSko, 1971:205.17 Savory, 1953:82.




7. A language (sub-language) which is even more general and abstractthan language of science can also be distinguished within a nationallanguage. This language can be compared in terms of abstraction withthe highest level of natural language analysis, the LEVEL OF SYSTEM. Butnow it is no longer a collection of elements and rules of their combinations.It is a FUNCTIONING LANGUAGE on the basis of which connected textsare produced. It is a so-called INFORMATIONAL LANGUAGE.

7.1 INFORMATIONAL LANGUAGE appears much later than language ofscience, because scientific knowledge alone is not sufficient for the originof this new type of language. The necessary condition is a certain levelof technical development characterized by wide use of COMPUTER SYSTEMSbecause informational language is intended for COMMUNICATION BETWEENMAN AND COMPUTER who are the speaker and the listener here.

This communication is carried out in the form of a specific kind ofwritten dialogue that can be called a MIXED DIALOGUE. Its 'questions'and 'answers' are in tact short complete monologues consisting ofFORMALLY COMPLETE SENTENCES forming connected texts of a restrictedlength. Each monologue is either a MAN'S QUESTION about the availabilityof a certain text (or a series of certain texts) on the problem of interestor a COMPUTER'S ANSWER whether the text (texts) is available or not.Generally, both questions and answers are usually descriptive.

The content of informational language is not just scientific knowledge,but scientific knowledge presented in the most EXTREMELY GENERAL ANDSTRICTLY FORMALIZED WAY. This first peculiarity of extreme generality isconditioned by the fact that the content of any 'talk' in informationallanguage is not ALL the scientific information of a certain paper, but onlythe ESSENCE of the information.18 The second peculiarity, strict formali-zation, is conditioned by the fact that 'utterances' of informationallanguage must be ADJUSTED TO THE COMPUTER'S 'WAY OF THINKING'.

Compared to language of science, informational language is a SECOND-ORDER FORMALIZATION of reality or, in other words, it is a METALANGUAGEIN RESPECT TO LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE, thus resulting in the main peculi-arities of informational language.

7.2 The basic units of communication in informational language are, aspreviously mentioned, sentences of a more or less uniform character,

18 I. A. Mixailov, I. A. Cernyj, R. S. Giljarevskij, Osnovy naucnoj informacii (Moscow,1965), p. 251.



114 JU. LEVICKIJ

generally passive and impersonal.19 In these sentences the following typesof relations are expressed:

(a) EXTRALINGUISTIC. Informational language ultimately describes thesame surrounding world as natural language and language of science.That is why OBJECTIVE relations must necessarily be expressed in thislanguage. The character of these relations is still more general andabstract than in language of science because informational language doesnot describe the surrounding world directly, but with the help of languageof science. A description in informational language is in fact a ΜΕΤΑ-DESCRIPTION. The SUBJECTIVE relations are never expressed here.

(b) LINGUISTIC. The INTERNAL relations, within a sentence, are ex-pressed, while the EXTERNAL relations, between sentences, often remainformally unexpressed; though all the sentences constituting one and thesame text are semantically connected.

7.3 All these relations can be sufficiently and effectively expressed by1C grammar which expresses only one general relation, the relation ofsubordination between a leading (kernel) element and the subordinate(dependent) element.

7.4 The words of informational language, the so-called DESCRIPTORS, areextremely broad and abstract names of notions (MEASUREMENT, TENSION,etc.) or of the most general classes of objects. While words of the firsttype (names of notions) are identical to the words of language of science,the words of the second type are in fact names of classes of classes ofobjects. For example, ammeter, voltmeter, audio-generator, oscilloscope,etc. in informational language are all named by one and the same generalname — device.

Words within informational language are mostly monosemantic withonly some synonymy allowed; for example: device — arrangement.

Now we can say that informational language, like language of science,has a dual character, combining the peculiarities of any functioninglanguage (connectedness of text) and the peculiarities of natural languageanalysis on the level of system (extreme generality and formality). Thus,a description of informational language is a description of specific words(descriptors) and 1C grammar of specific sentences, joined in a connectedtext of a restricted length describing another text written in language ofscience.19 L. V. Saxarnyj, "Funkcionirovanie IPJa kak analog reoevoj dejateFnosti",Symposium 2, 655.




8. Besides the difference in the character of the basic units and therelations expressed, the three types of languages have both formal andsemantic differences in the TEXT STRUCTURE.

8.1 The following peculiarities can be pointed out about the formalstructure:

Natural language, which usually functions as an oral dialogue, ischaracterised by: first, FORMAL INCOMPLETENESS of utterances (elliptical,incomplete etc. sentences); and second, UNLIMITED VARIETY of the sentencetypes realized (simple, composite, verbal, non-verbal, personal, imper-sonal, active, passive, declarative, interrogative, imperative) expressingEMOTIONS, ACTIONS, STATES and CHARACTERISTICS.

Language of science, which usually functions as a written monologue,is characterised by: first, FORMAL COMPLETENESS of utterances (sentences);and second, a LIMITED VARIETY of sentence types (the most common arecomposite, verbal, impersonal, passive, declarative sentences) expressingSTATES and CHARACTERISTICS.

Informational language, which in fact usually functions as a writtenmonologue, is characterised by: first, FORMAL COMPLETENESS of sentences;and second, a certain UNIFORMITY of sentence types (mainly verbal,passive, declarative sentences) expressing CHARACTERISTICS.

8.2 The following peculiarities can be pointed out in the semanticstructure:

While THE RHEME is ALWAYS EXPLICIT in all the three types of languages,THE THEME is most frequently:

(a) IMPLICIT in natural language,(b) USUALLY EXPLICIT in language of science,(c) USUALLY IMPLICIT in informational language.For convenience all the peculiarities of the three types of languages

mentioned are arranged in Table I.

9. To sum up the preliminary analysis performed, the following con-clusions can be made:

9.1 Within one and the same national language at least three types oflanguages (sub-languages) can be distinguished: NATURAL LANGUAGE,LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE and INFORMATIONAL LANGUAGE. These three lan-guages are typologically different from one another. Because they are allbased on the vocabulary and grammar forms of the SAME NATIONAL



116 JU. LEVICKÜ

TABLE I

characteristics

OriginConditioningPlan of

ContentSituation of

CommunicationCharacter of

CommunicationPartnersLinguistic

Relevance ofthe Speaker

Type ofFunctioning

Units ofFunctioning

Formal Typesof Units

Content ofUnits

With the rhemeexplicit, thetheme is:

NaturalLanguage

NaturalSocialCommon sense

Real, concrete

two-way

Man to man

max.

Oral dialogue

Utterances

Various

Emotions, actions,

Language type

Languageof Science

ArtificialScientificScientific

Knowledge

—one-way

Man to people

min.

Written monologue

Sentences

Restrictedlyvarious

States,

InformationalLanguage

ArtificialTechnologicalScientific Texts

—two-way

Man to computer

0

Written dialogue

Sentences

Uniform

Characteristicsstates, characteristics characteristics

Implicit Usually explicit Usually implicit

LANGUAGE, they are difficult to distinguish. The fundamental differencelies in the character of the use of these forms and in the meanings of thewords used.

9.2 In terms of the meanings of words and grammar forms the threetypes of languages can be compared with the products of natural lan-guage analysis on three different levels: the meanings of words and gram-mar forms used in the utterances of natural language correspond to thedescription of natural language ON THE LEVEL OF SPEECH; the meanings ofwords and grammar forms used in utterances of language of sciencecorrespond to the description of natural language ON THE LEVEL OF NORM;the meanings of words and grammar forms used in the utterances ofinformational language correspond to the description of natural lan-guage ON THE LEVEL OF SYSTEM.

9.3 The difference between the three types of languages, on the one hand,and the levels of analysis of natural language, on the other, is in the




fact that in the former case we deal with the FUNCTIONING OF ONE LAN-GUAGE OR ANOTHER, while in the latter with the ANALYSIS OF ONE AND THESAME LANGUAGE on different levels of abstraction, with its decompositioninto various classes of elements and the rules of their formation andcombination.

9.4 The three levels of language analysis, SPEECH, NORM and SYSTEM, arenot mere abstractions made by linguists for the sake of convenience intheir studies. These levels CORRESPOND TO THE REAL HIERARCHAL STRUC-TURE of language. This view is supported by the fact that a language,which at an early stage of its existence functions on its lowest level, inthe course of its development begins, alongside this ordinary operation,to function on higher levels, developing the corresponding forms offunctioning.



LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING

Documents

Transcript of LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING