Refer to the diagram on page 9 in Aitchison’s linguistics. How do you combine different disciplinary perspectives to formulate a more holistic understanding of your target language? Do you give preference to one disciplinary approach over the others? How will your knowledge of language structures and disciplinary methodologies inform the trajectory of your learning plan?
How to investigate language structure and the diagram in Aitchison’s linguistics both present different levels of linguistic organization that work together to form an entity called language. How to investigate language structure primarily talks about four levels of language structure: phonetics (study of human speech sounds), phonology (patterns of sounds), grammar (the way words are brought into sequence), and semantics (study of overall meaning and patterns). In contrast, Aitchison’s linguistics considers grammar to be a combination of phonology, syntax, and semantics. Hence, grammar is not only restricted to make-up of words and their arrangement in a sentence, but it also constitutes sound patterns and meaning patterns in a language. In addition, Aitchison’s diagram also introduces a new aspect of linguistic study called pragmatics that focuses on how speakers use language beyond the linguistic knowledge, through topics such as psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, computation linguistics etc.
In terms of my target language- ASL, it would be safe to say that phonetics and phonology play almost no role. Based on what I have learnt until now, I believe semantics is the most integral aspect of ASL and any sort of learning must prioritize this aspect over others. It is because, unlike English or any other language that I have learnt before, ASL does not rely on defined structure or patterns. The primary purpose of ASL is to allow people to communicate without sounds. So, the message is more important that the form it is disseminated in. Once we understand the semantics and the necessary vocabulary for ASL, we can start thinking about grammar. Even then, the grammar is not consistent in ASL like it is in other languages. For example: in English, we say “I ate rice” i.e. subject+ verb+ object whereas in Nepali, we say “I rice ate.” i.e. subject+ object+ verb. I have found these two structures to be the most popular and widely use grammar structures in languages around the world. However, the same message can take multiple forms in ASL. I could sign “Ate rice I”, “I ate rice” or “I rice ate” and all of them would be correct as there is no definite order required as a part of ASL grammar. While grammar in ASL seems to be more fluid, there is a new aspect that seems to be really crucial: facial expressions. As ASL cannot rely on phonetics and phonology to differentiate between different emotions expressed in a statement, facial expressions fulfill that role instead. For example, one can sign “You eat” with a stern expression vs. “You eat” with raised eyebrows. The former would be interpreted as an order whereas the latter would be interpreted as a question.
Thus, I have realized that my learning plan for ASL should prioritize semantics and facial expressions before anything else. This is entirely different from my previous language learning experiences, where I used to emphasize the phonetics and vocabulary first, and then make my way towards grammar and finally semantics.
Replies