Reading Humboldt who is considered the father of linguistics, it occurred to me that among the various differences between European and non-European languages, the place of grammar in each of the world languages plays a predominant role. By non-European I specially mean those languages which have really not been 'touched' by colonisation or Western thought. To an extent can even include one's mother tongue into this, as long as it is not English!!
My guess is this. Most European languages have a defined and highly structured grammar. Mastery of such a language presupposes a thorough knowledge of the grammar. Teaching of such a language is very much linear: alphabet, vocabulary, grammar...
On the other hand, non-European languages (at least most of them), are not heavily grammar based. Not that they do not have a structure or syntax or whatever. It is just that it is not codified. It is not set. It is not rigid, but very fluid. Only when scholars from another context, zealous to learn about such a language, that language is formalised. The grammar, its rules and exceptions, is detailed. And the 'linear study' begins.
No wonder why worldviews differ so widely, among people of different languages. For Humboldt each language is a specific way of looking at the world, a world-view. None of which is exhaustive.
My guess is this. Most European languages have a defined and highly structured grammar. Mastery of such a language presupposes a thorough knowledge of the grammar. Teaching of such a language is very much linear: alphabet, vocabulary, grammar...
On the other hand, non-European languages (at least most of them), are not heavily grammar based. Not that they do not have a structure or syntax or whatever. It is just that it is not codified. It is not set. It is not rigid, but very fluid. Only when scholars from another context, zealous to learn about such a language, that language is formalised. The grammar, its rules and exceptions, is detailed. And the 'linear study' begins.
No wonder why worldviews differ so widely, among people of different languages. For Humboldt each language is a specific way of looking at the world, a world-view. None of which is exhaustive.
By the same act whereby he spins language out of himself, he spins himself into it, and every language draws about the people that possesses it a circle whence it is possible to exit only by stepping over at once into the circle of another one. ... But because we always carry over, more or less, our own world-view, and even our own language-view, this outcome is not purely and completely experienced (Humboldt 1999, On Language, 60).Elsewhere in speaking about language and worldview he states
In passing over to others, it joins the common stock of the entire human race, of which each individual possesses a modification containing the requirements for completion by others (Humboldt 1999, On Language, 56).
No comments:
Post a Comment