Natural language versus the literary standard from Varro to Saussure

Whilemost western linguists prefer the term “standard language”, the older term “literary language” still prevails in Ukrainian studies (as in other fields of Slavic studies). Although the expressions are theoretically synonymous, it is obvious that the traditional term “literary language” often creates serious problems. Particularly, this applies to various “Histories of the Ukrainian Literary Language,” which often turn out to be histories of the Ukrainian language of literature instead. Particularly, these works pay very scarce attention to the historical development of those factors that are decisive for the status of a “literary” or “standard language” as described, inter alia, by the Prague Linguistic Circle or Einar Haugen. Against the background of the theses that were suggested by the Prague Linguistic circle, histories of the Ukrainian “literary language” should provide considerably more information regarding the codification of Ukrainian and the dissemination of the codified language, the development of the multifunctionality and superregional outreach of Ukrainian and, to a certain extent, its stylistic diversification. The same is true if we look at our “Histories of the Ukrainian Literary Language” from Einar Haugens perspective (which is, after all, very similar to the Prague School theses) and want to know more about the processes of selection, codification, dissemination, and elaboration in their historical dimension. Unfortunately, the focus of the “Histories of the Ukrainian Literary Language” is clearly on the language of fine literature, although this sphere is in fact just one out of many that should be much more carefully studied in new monographs devoted to the history of the Ukrainian literary (or standard) language in the real meaning of the word. The present study offers a critical approach to the most widely used “History of the Ukrainian Literary Language” by Vitalij Rusanivskyj, which basically is a history of the Ukrainian language of literature.

در این پژوهش ما با هدف شناخت تفاوت‌های دو گونه زبانی معیار و ادبی، ابتدا بر اساس تحلیل مقابله‌ای کتاب‌های دستور زبان آثار ادبی با کتاب‌های دستور زبان‌ معیار، تفاوت‌های این دو گونه را استخراج‌ و سپس براساس میزان فراگیربودن آنها در آثار ادبی، تفاوت‌های زبانی کمتر رایج را به شش دسته تقسیم کردیم: 1. مؤلفه‌های زبانی متروک 2. مؤلفه‌های زبانی محلی 3. مؤلفه‌های زبانی دخیل کم کاربرد 4. مؤلفه‌های زبانی نوساخته 5. خطاهای زبانی و 6. مؤلفه‌های زبانی محاوره‌ای، عامیانه و شکسته. سپس براساس نظریه تداخل و همچنین بر مبنای پیروی از اصول علم نحو، تفاوت‌های زبانی رایج‌تر را به سه دسته تقسیم کردیم که عبارتند از: 1. مؤلفه‌های گونه ادبی با ظاهر یکسان نسبت به زبان معیار اما با کارکرد متفاوت 2. مؤلفه‌های گونه ادبی با ظاهر متفاوت نسبت به زبان معیار اما با کارکرد یکسان 3. حذف یا جا‌به‌جایی ارکان جمله. پس از معرفی، نمونه‌ای ادبی در دوازده حوزه زبانی نظام آوایی، اسم، صفت، عدد، ضمیر، موصول، فعل، قید، حروف، اصوات، واژه‌سازی و جمله، ارائه دادیم. در پایان معلوم شد که تفاوت‌های زبانی رایج‌تر، برای آموزش به غیرفارسی‌زبانان ضروری‌تر و در عین حال دشوارترند و گروه کمتر رایج‌ از اهمیت آموزشی کمتری برخوردارند ولی فراگیری‌شان راحت‌تر است.

After the establishment of diplomatic relations between Korea and Russia in the 1990s, departments of Russian studies were founded at many universities, and Russian studies research was expanded and subdivided into various fields, and the quality of research rose to a considerable level. However, the scope of research in the history of the Russian literary language field is not wide and the research results and achievements are insignificant compared to other fields of Russian studies. Nevertheless, I think that it is time to organize the research results for the next generation of academics, and as a first step, I would like to address the problem of the Korean translation of the Russian term ‘литературный язык(ЛЯ, literary language)’. This paper, which focuses on the process of the development and the historical background of the formation of the relationships “signified-signifier” of the Russian ‘ЛЯ’ and the Korean “standard language” in the aspect of the Korean translation, asserts the following: First, in the history of Russian language, “Simple Russian” of the Peter the Great period in the 18th century is the embryo of the modern linguistic concept literary language. Second, through the 18th, the early and mid-19th century, “Simple Russian” came to form the characteristics of the nation’s literary language. Third, we cannot apply the concept of literary language to any of the language types of old Russian. Fourth, the signifier for the term literary language, which appeared in the mid-19th century with the meaning “language of literature”, gradually expanded, and deviated from the signified-signifier relationship at the beginning of its formation, but the signified does not change even in the present when the first signifier is not recognized. Fifth, for the translation of the term ЛЯ, the signified of the individual language closest to the signifier of ЛЯ should be selected. The Korean equivalent of the ЛЯ is a standard language, so it is reasonable to transfer ЛЯ to a standard language. Sixth, “history” is considered from a retrospective point of view from the point of origin or roots of the present to the present. Therefore, even if the ИРЛЯ begins in the 10th century when the ЛЯ did not exist, it is reasonable to translate it into the history of the Russian standard language.

The first remark is literal, but the two that follow are nonliteral: the wife's remark is an example of metaphor; the husband's is an example of irony. Metaphor and irony also pervade literature. Metaphor is central to both fiction and poetry, while irony is more often restricted to fiction, appearing either in characters' dialogue or authors' voice. One must be competent to recognize and understand these two forms of language in order to carry out ordinary verbal tasks such as having a conversation or reading a newspaper as well as more complex ones such as reading works of literature. Metaphor and irony are discussed together in this paper because they are the two chief forms of nonliteral language. Although similar by virtue of being nonliteral, they also differ in interesting respects. By juxtaposing them we hope to clarify what they have in common which distinguishes them from literal language as well as what is unique about each. In what follows, we first discuss the similarities and differences between metaphor and irony. Next we consider the skills needed to make sense of these two forms of language. Finally, we examine the errors children make in understanding metaphor and irony in order to test the hypothesis that these two forms of nonliteral language call on different kinds of cognitive skills and hence yield qualitatively different kinds of misinterpretations.

In the article, the author discusses the issues of linguistic education and the way it was implemented in particular European countries in the Middle Ages and in the early Modern Age. The author has identified, at least, two educational paradigms, developed in the West and East of the continent in different periods of history of the European culture. Paradigm One deals with the Latin tradition of language learning, which is based on the breakdown of educational disciplines into “seven liberal arts” headed by grammar. Paradigm Two is based on the study of literary texts. The objective of this research project consists in the reconciliation and analysis of interrelation between the two paradigms. The loss of several grammatical forms by the literary Slavic language caused this language to turn into the literary Russian language of the Modern Age. In his research, the author employs methods of the retrospective analysis of primary sources, comparative linguistics, general research methods of deduction, induction, and inference by analogy.

It is normally known that '' literary language '' is different from '' ordinary language '' . That is , it is full of deviation , while, Prat,(1977:80) maintains that '' ordinary language '' is accompanied by ordinary rules , and outlines the work of Grice (1975 ) concerning the appropriate conditions that accepting a particular illocution-conditions which language users assume to be in effect. In this study , the present tense is not referred to as an indication to the moment of speaking or action . Rather , in narratives , it signals that this genre is '' unmediated '' . As such , the present tense is heavily used by writers , regardless of the time being , to signify that a text can be read at any time. Moreover, it can be noted , that the shift from the past to the simple present tense offers readers an opportunity to think seriously of what is being said . It, thus,invites thought and suspense . As far as the writer is concerned , it seems that the writer resorts to the simple present tense just to comment , highlight and criticize some incidents or events within the story.

Pidgin and creole languages are spoken by more than 75 million people, but the vast majority of their speakers acquire literacy in another language – usually the language of a former colonial power. This paper looks at the origins of pidgins and creoles and explores some of the reasons for their lack of use in formal education. Then it describes some language planning efforts that have occurred with regard to instrumentalisation and graphisation of these languages, and the few cases where they are actually used to teach initial literacy. The paper goes on to discuss how speakers of pidgins and creoles more commonly acquire literacy in the standard European language officially used in formal education. It concludes with a short section on the role of pidgins and creoles in newspapers, literature and other writing.

Reviewed by: Jezik naš i/ili njihov: Vježbe iz poredbene povijesti južnoslavenskih standardizacijskih procesa Maciej Czerwiński Anita Peti-Stantić, Jezik naš i/ili njihov: Vježbe iz poredbene povijesti južnoslavenskih standardizacijskih procesa. Zagreb, Croatia: Srednja Europa, 2008. 495 pp. This book examines one of the most complex linguistic and cultural problems in the Slavic world, the case of literary languages in former Yugoslavia. The large amount of relevant scholarship devoted to this field has for many years attempted to answer one question: how many literary (standard) languages are there? This question entails several other questions concerning the existence or non-existence of this or that language, literariness and linguistic intelligibility, language and nationhood, and so on. As a result, there are, especially in the Croatian and Serbian literature, an enormous number of books that focused their study on this particular issue. When confronted with a work entitled Language, Ours and/or Theirs, one expects a similar dispute marshalling one or another sort of argumentation to demonstrate either that a Serbo-Croatian language does or does not exist. This is, however, not the case, as the book in question has a completely different nature. Although the monograph takes for granted that there are distinct literary languages, Croatian and Serbian (even though there exists at the same time a “dialect continuum” enabling unbroken communication between individuals speaking the two languages), the argumentation is not determined by this issue. It rather offers an indepth insight into the sociolinguistic reality of more or less conscious codification processes applied to Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian (the latter is however not relevant to the Serbo-Croatian conflict). It tries to exemplify how consciousness of the existence of a particular language–both as a tool of communication for a community and as a tool for defining (and thus establishing) a community (in virtue of that language, and its symbolic power), was emerging in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. We stress that this period is important insofar as it preceded the [End Page 111] National Revival in the 19th century and thus the final codification of literary languages, Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian. Therefore, the issue of identity and otherness, constructed in language and by language, is taken into consideration. The book also highlights the problem of spoken vs. written codes and repercussions of this dualism for the idea of language. It, further, deals with some important historical figures—a few of them unjustly forgotten—who influenced the standardization processes in the cultures in question. It has to be said that the monograph is very complex both in terms of the variety of problems and in terms of the variety of types of data taken into consideration. In this review I am only concentrating on some of the aspects and, at the end, I summarize them and try to give a conclusion with some additional remarks. The author, in the introduction and in the first chapter, seeks to establish a new (sub)discipline, comparative historical standardology or comparative historical sociolinguistics that would be able to reject a traditional, separatist (i.e., exclusively linguistic) approach. Accordingly, Peti-Stantić questions another traditional dualism, namely the internal versus external history of language. As a matter of fact this is not a new approach in Croatian philology, since there is already a firm tradition, though not called sociolinguistic, of such a multidimensional history of language; see for instance studies by Milan Rešetar, Eduard Hercigonja, Josip Vončina, Zlatko Vince, Josip Bratulić, and many others. It is of course a right decision since dealing exclusively with the language-internal sphere, without taking into consideration the external circumstances in which the language “lived”, makes an analysis incomplete. The second chapter is entirely devoted to definitions, and a sociolinguistic approach is specified with all the relevant terminology and references. A highly instructive distinction, that between language community and literary language community, is proposed.1 All this, alongside additional clarifications concerning nation-building processes (taken from theoretical works by historians and anthropologists, such as Anderson or Hobsbawm), helps us to grasp how one can speak of one dialect and multiple literary languages based on this dialect. [End Page 112] Moreover, social and...

It has been possible (and necessary) to distinguish at least three broad theories within the loose congeries of methodologies and practices generally known as critical modernism. First, and most ambitiously destructive, there is the theory of language latterly associated with Derrida and others, but in fact deriving from Bergson, Heidegger and Whitehead, that language is powerless to ‘express’ truth or reality adequately. (In Foucault this is wedded to a dissociation-of-sensibility thesis, dating a particular divorce of language and meaning at around the beginning of the seventeenth century.)1 Secondly, there is the theory of literary language, again associated with Bergson, but more familiar to English and American readers in the formulations of I. A. Richards and Susanne Langer, that literary language is different from ordinary language in consisting not of real statements, which assert feelings and truths, but of pseudo-statements, which amount to a kind of linguistic play. Lastly, there is the soft-core, or historicist version of this theory, that modern texts in particular (dating from the middle of the nineteenth or the end of the eighteenth century) differ from earlier literature in being incapable of ‘holding’ truth or reality of emotion or whatever, and so are non-referential or self-referring.

Dialectic and regional lexicon has been and would continue to be a precious and inexhaustible resource for the standard literal Albanian language. Albanian language has got two dialects the Gheg and the Tosk. Both dialects meet together along the Shkumbin river, respectively on the right the Gheg dialect is spoken and on the left prevails the Tosk dialect. Both dialects are similar and alike to each other, so that they have always been Albanian language variants, used to write different works. This situation continued until the period of consolidation of Albanian language with the Orthographic Congress in 1972. The main principal of the Albanian language Congress was to represent the Albanian language with a common variant, with the same language for all Albanians in and out of the country borders. This could be done only with the standard literal language. The Orthographic Congress, with its achievements, makes an important irreversible turn in the history of the Albanian language. On the other hand, the processing of the standard Albanian language, did not have a negative affect upon the improvement and the development of dialects and regional language. All these changes have been clearly represented in explanatory dictionaries of Albanian language. Presentation of dialectisms and regionalisms from one dictionary to another, has been different because of the time and the linguistic circumstances on which they have been published. If we drop a look on all explanatory dictionaries of Albanian language, on a comparative plan, we will notice clear differences. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3s1p61

<i>Cultural Capital</i>: Reflections from a Latin Americanist

This article outlines some debates and issues in the field of Georgian linguistics and offers a research agenda for standard Georgian language, including its history, phases of development, present-day challenges and prospects. There is a multitude of conflicting and even mutually exclusive ideas and points of view regarding these issues. My key point is to provide the periodization of the standard Georgian language that encompasses sixteen centuries, taking into consideration not only the level of normalization and standardization of the Georgian language in a particular historical period, but also the language variety on which the standard / literary language was based, and the institutions controlling and governing the development of the standard language. The point of departure here is the definition of the “standard” as a historically determined set of commonly used language assets, recognized by society as the most appropriate and prestigious variety due to its common usage and high cultural status. Using descriptive, synchronic, diachronic, and comparative research methods, I have tried to identify four phases / periods in the continuous history of the Georgian standard language spanning sixteen centuries.

This examination of Joachim Du Bellay's Deffence et Illustration de la Langue Francoyse (1549) begins with a summary of the text's paradoxical thematic, namely, that its problem is not a problem: there is no need to defend French as a literary language against Latin, many have said, as there is already in the sixteenth century a thriving vernacular literature. However, there are some who insist on Latin's superiority: Du Bellay answers them, but also exaggerates their position in order to stage a defense that has legal and military overtones. He does so in order to bring French into a dialogical relationship with Latin, as well as with other European literary languages. Although some critics have pointed out that this procedure is but one of several put forth by Du Bellay, this reading of the Deffence shows that the author valorizes it over the others by engaging in it: Du Bellay incorporates into the Deffence a number of antecedent texts in order to respond to the conditions he faces. He situates France and the French language in relation to antiquity; the relation is sketched out as a spatial one, the space being that in which the shape of modernity is emerging.

In the process of learning a foreign/second language, students should learn spoken/colloquial language in addition to formal language. This is important for successful communication in a reallife situation. Spoken/informal language occupies a significant part of everyday communication. Moreover, colloquial language and face to face interaction represent the essential aspects in both learning and teaching process and plays an important role in terms of linguistic and cognitive development of learner (Hinkel, 2006). According to Engkent, students “are wellequipped if they can handle a basic formal! informal distinction and understand the principles of register use” (Engkent; 1986). Georgian as a second language teaching resource does not include materials discussing this part of the language. As a result, language learners do not have the appropriate skills and knowledge to select the correct forms and expressions, taking into account the quality of language formality and the actual communication situation, speaking, as well as obstacles in understanding the information received in everyday speech, which also requires specific knowledge. The aim of the article is to study the situation in Georgian higher education, to identify the level of students' knowledge and learning activities and approaches, and to develop relevant recommendationsto address the above-mentioned problem. The research was conducted on the basis of Georgian higher education institutions, foreign students who speak Georgian as a foreign language took part in the research. Finally, 35 students of different nationalities participated in the study. The paper is mainly based on qualitative research. In addition, the interview method was used in the study; informants were 35 students who completed the questionnaires with open-ended and closed- ended questions. The observation method was also used in the research. We looked at the components of teaching speaking and reading. We conducted an experiment during the research process. Students were given a text with the same content in formal and informal style to read. In addition, we offered them the task of participating in a conversation situation on the same topic in a different context in terms of formality/language register and the results in both activities were observed. The study involved a relatively small focus group, which prevents a more in-depth and generalized picture from being displayed and the results obtained. Observations of the lesson process have shown that students understand the formal text more easily than informal style language. Even when the teacher provides spoken language forms, students find it difficult to comprehend such material. This is due to the fact that spoken language learning activities are more spontaneous, less systematic and do not reinforce such knowledge in the audience. Student surveys and questionnaires completed by them revealed the following: At a certain level of language proficiency they find it relatively easy to learn information from university-created texts in literary language, but in everyday situations, it is difficult to establish successful communication and comprehend information due to ignorance of spoken forms. In addition, such activities are less covered in the curriculum as well as in the textbooks and in thisregard, the experience of both teachers and students is relatively scarce. The experiment revealed that students understand the text of a formal genre more easily and correctly than spoken, informal information. The same goes for building a talking situation. In order for the student to realize the similarities and differences between formal and informal languages, it is necessary to carry out a variety of activities in the learning environment, including 1. Identify formal and informal distinguishing marks, which is achieved by reading, processing and comparing different texts according to different levels, genres and formality levels. 2. Use of lexical activities: Identify lexical items (slang, language contractions, acronyms, etc.) in texts, create a dictionary and perform relevant exercises. 3. Conversational activities on different topics: The teacher presents and discusses a particular form with a student, after which the students build the spoken situation in different language registers and make a presentation through role-playing games. 4. Use of authentic recordings and multimedia to master natural, informal language forms and structures.

Despite the rhetoric of the Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training (ET2020) to prison education – in particular, the learning needs of people excluded from policy and the recent research that emphasizes the crucial role of education for young prisoners’ personal development, and for their rehabilitation reducing the chances of recidivism (e.g., Jonck et al., 2015) in the Greek context, it seems that educational policies do not meet young prisoners’ educational needs (Petsas, 2017). We report on a project that directly addressed the inappropriate curricula and texts, and teachers’ lack of preparation for this population’s needs. The project ACTinPRISON (https://actinprison.sed.uth.gr)[1] pursued empowerment of young prisoners by creating common spaces between “insiders” --young prisoners-- and “outsiders” –the academic team and students/prospective teachers. Our “common spaces” framework mitigated the dominant, disciplinary, prison discourse with the perspective and techniques of Critical Communicative Methodology (CCM) for developing mathematics and language literacy. This challenged symbolic boundaries separating the two groups by using co-creation of mathematics to foster equal participation and interaction. The initial needs analysis phase of the project introduced young prisoners to the idea and practice of research as a matter of participatory practice, and incorporated important mathematics concepts and skills within jointly constructed community-building activities. Likewise, moments of open-ended discussion were effective as emergent language and mathematical literacy events The second project phase applied that experience to the preparation of university students for entering the prison, followed by the university students and young prisoners working together in the common spaces inside prison. Again, mathematical activities evolved as extensions of the information regarding their funds of knowledge. Work sometimes integrated this knowledge into theatrical play, at other times the group exploited mathematics contexts as here-and-now moments of group development. These experiences afforded the expression of situated mathematical concepts through informal mathematical language as the young prisoners were exposed to the idea of a mathematics register. We report on our persistent pursuit of a transition to scientific language use in this educational context despite the complexity of this challenge. (Resource limitations combined with super-diverse sociolinguistic repertoires and literacy backgrounds of the participants were treated as opportunities rather than obstacles). The ACTinPRISON project extends previous action creating common spaces with young prisoners and prospective teachers (http://cospirom.sed.uth.gr) that identified the need for new participatory practices to challenge typical research protocols. This new work responds through joint mathematically-rich activity to post-colonial critiques of research with marginalized populations. Such critiques often describe research as a “dirty word” (Thambinathan &amp; Kinsella, 2021), because it perpetuates forms of hierarchy and injustice. We counteracted this concern by inviting young prisoners to be co-researchers of their experiences. The examples we present here result from bottom-up extra-curricular experiences involving mathematical ideas. We discuss how such an atypical “school framework” challenges together numerous expectations of both traditional mathematics education and commonsense discourse of prison life. Based on this project experience, we propose in our conclusion the potential for co-constructed needs analysis research to set the stage for informed curriculum development when working with disenfranchised learners who research their own needs. We also discuss the challenges of making this kind of work sustainable and institutionalized.