Substance(s) and the rise and imposition of structure(s)

TY - JOUR

T1 - Substance(s) and the rise and imposition of structure(s)

AU - Harder, Peter

PY - 2016/1/2

Y1 - 2016/1/2

N2 - The distinction between substance and structure is one of the centrepieces of European structuralism – and also part of the heritage of Danish functional linguistics. Although it may appear that usage based linguistics has made the distinction superfluous, this article argues that there can be no linguistics that does not recognize a role for structure. In order to preserve the valid point of the distinction between substance and structure in a functional-cognitive framework, however, a major reconstruction is required. The presuppositional relationship must be reversed (structure presupposes substance rather than the other way round), and substance in a linguistic context must be understood as function-based: language does not structure ‘the world’, but a universe of functional options (for communication). As a crucial prerequisite, this includes a shared universe of meaning, arising out of the evolution of joint attention and activity, cf. Tomasello (2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). However, the bottom-up approach to structure that is rightly viewed as basic in usage based linguistics needs to be supplemented with a recognition of the essential role of certain top-down aspects of language. Further, it is argued that it is necessary to distinguish between three different sets of structure and substances: both substances and structures differ depending on whether the object of description is a language as an aspect of community life (the system, or ‘langue’), language in the individual mind (‘competency’, with a –y), or language as usage. The three structures-and-substances need to be linked by equivalence relations in order for the whole setup to be viable – and such relations are what classic structuralism mistakenly saw as the ‘underlying structure’. One result of this reconstruction is that the dichotomy between usage and structure disappears: usage can remain usage and still be structured, although not in exactly the same way as the system or individual competencies. A new role for structure that is part of this picture is that systematic forms of variation become part of the language system, rather than excluded from it.

AB - The distinction between substance and structure is one of the centrepieces of European structuralism – and also part of the heritage of Danish functional linguistics. Although it may appear that usage based linguistics has made the distinction superfluous, this article argues that there can be no linguistics that does not recognize a role for structure. In order to preserve the valid point of the distinction between substance and structure in a functional-cognitive framework, however, a major reconstruction is required. The presuppositional relationship must be reversed (structure presupposes substance rather than the other way round), and substance in a linguistic context must be understood as function-based: language does not structure ‘the world’, but a universe of functional options (for communication). As a crucial prerequisite, this includes a shared universe of meaning, arising out of the evolution of joint attention and activity, cf. Tomasello (2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). However, the bottom-up approach to structure that is rightly viewed as basic in usage based linguistics needs to be supplemented with a recognition of the essential role of certain top-down aspects of language. Further, it is argued that it is necessary to distinguish between three different sets of structure and substances: both substances and structures differ depending on whether the object of description is a language as an aspect of community life (the system, or ‘langue’), language in the individual mind (‘competency’, with a –y), or language as usage. The three structures-and-substances need to be linked by equivalence relations in order for the whole setup to be viable – and such relations are what classic structuralism mistakenly saw as the ‘underlying structure’. One result of this reconstruction is that the dichotomy between usage and structure disappears: usage can remain usage and still be structured, although not in exactly the same way as the system or individual competencies. A new role for structure that is part of this picture is that systematic forms of variation become part of the language system, rather than excluded from it.

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0374-0463

SP - 7

EP - 34

JO - Acta Linguistica Hafniensia

JF - Acta Linguistica Hafniensia

M1 - 1

ER -