Comparative Study on the Theoretical Development of Functions of Language with Reference to Bühler, Jakobson, and Halliday

R. Markandan
{"title":"Comparative Study on the Theoretical Development of Functions of Language with Reference to Bühler, Jakobson, and Halliday","authors":"R. Markandan","doi":"10.15642/NOBEL.2021.12.2.277-291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper attempts to describe and compare the functionalist explanations of the language of Bühler, Jakobson, and Halliday. These three functionalists are not the leading figures to propose the theory of functions of language, but their descriptions of the theoretical framework and the natural selection of language usages have proven to be more credible and therefore accepted by the linguistics community today. Since these functional insights are original conceptions, there have been significant theoretical developments, and there is now a large evidence base to authenticate the contemporary theoretical development. This study, thus, discusses the specific claims of the theoretical framework of the three functionalists, highlights their similarities, and differentiates major characteristics on the queries of how the functionalists explain their observations of functions of language and theory of language explain the multiplicity of language functions. This comparison has revealed that the functionalists initially have perceived the importance of an individual’s language as a social need and the ubiquity of these comparisons. The complexity of social comparisons presents a potentially fruitful explanation. Further, this paper recommends that explanations be considered for studying languages and other semiotic resources.","PeriodicalId":32715,"journal":{"name":"Nobel Journal of Literature and Language Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nobel Journal of Literature and Language Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15642/NOBEL.2021.12.2.277-291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper attempts to describe and compare the functionalist explanations of the language of Bühler, Jakobson, and Halliday. These three functionalists are not the leading figures to propose the theory of functions of language, but their descriptions of the theoretical framework and the natural selection of language usages have proven to be more credible and therefore accepted by the linguistics community today. Since these functional insights are original conceptions, there have been significant theoretical developments, and there is now a large evidence base to authenticate the contemporary theoretical development. This study, thus, discusses the specific claims of the theoretical framework of the three functionalists, highlights their similarities, and differentiates major characteristics on the queries of how the functionalists explain their observations of functions of language and theory of language explain the multiplicity of language functions. This comparison has revealed that the functionalists initially have perceived the importance of an individual’s language as a social need and the ubiquity of these comparisons. The complexity of social comparisons presents a potentially fruitful explanation. Further, this paper recommends that explanations be considered for studying languages and other semiotic resources.
语言功能理论发展的比较研究——以赫勒、雅各布森和韩礼德为参照
本文试图描述和比较布勒、雅各布和韩礼德对语言的功能主义解释。这三位功能主义者并不是提出语言功能理论的领军人物,但他们对理论框架和语言用法的自然选择的描述被证明是更可信的,因此被今天的语言学界所接受。由于这些功能性见解都是独创的概念,因此有了重大的理论发展,现在有了大量的证据来验证当代理论的发展。因此,本研究讨论了三位功能主义者理论框架的具体主张,强调了他们的相似性,并在功能主义者如何解释他们对语言功能的观察和语言理论如何解释语言功能的多样性的问题上区分了主要特点。这种比较表明,功能主义者最初已经意识到个人语言作为社会需求的重要性,以及这些比较的普遍性。社会比较的复杂性提供了一个潜在的富有成效的解释。此外,本文建议在研究语言和其他符号学资源时考虑解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信