The Hebrew roots are shown to be two-phonemic and not three-phonemic to begin with. Those binomes... more The Hebrew roots are shown to be two-phonemic and not three-phonemic to begin with. Those binomes are often of onomatopoetic origin, This is directly linked to the phylogenetically evolutionary origin of language and to its persisting biological dynamics. This is connected to 'LUIT : Language - a Unified and Integrative Theory' (Kirtchuk 2007 and forthcoming).
'La Parole' is at the origin of 'La Langue', at the opposite of the Saussurean dogma, and Perform... more 'La Parole' is at the origin of 'La Langue', at the opposite of the Saussurean dogma, and Performance at the origin of Competence, at the opposite of Chomsky's dogma.
Verbs with multiple valencies. A syntactic, morphologic, semantic and pragmatic survey including ... more Verbs with multiple valencies. A syntactic, morphologic, semantic and pragmatic survey including among others verba liquendi, verbs denoting change of color, stative verbs, etc.
The so-called 'nota accusativi' of Hebrew - /'et/ - is originated in a pragmatic marker. Examples... more The so-called 'nota accusativi' of Hebrew - /'et/ - is originated in a pragmatic marker. Examples gallore of unexpected aned even ungrammatical uses of the morphem if one sticks to its syntactic use alone.
Linguistic typology is usually associated to morphology (seminal contributions: Humboldt 1836, Sa... more Linguistic typology is usually associated to morphology (seminal contributions: Humboldt 1836, Sapir 1921) and more recently to syntax, with the groundbreaking work of Joseph ; however grammar and indeed language encompass other domains as well, which can be explored from a typological viewpoint. Morphology: Hebrew is an inflecting language. Moreover, morphology is probably its most robust structure, bearing an unequivocal Semitic stamp. A typological difference that distinguishes Contemporary Hebrew (CH) from Biblical Hebrew (BH) and Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) relates to composition and prefixation. BH exhibits practically no example of composition -all nouns are construed by derivation and can be expanded by means of the construct state. CH, on the other hand, has a number of compound nouns and a score of nominal prefixes, mostly spatio-temporal and quantitative . Neither stage has verbal composition, as opposed to IE, for example, in which pre-verbs of prepositional and ultimately nominal origin are common. BH being a synthetic and an accusative language, all finite verbs take a subject affix, but the bi-or tri-valent verb (Tesnière 1959) can take, in addition, a direct object suffix, if the object is determined. Thus, ראיתי /råiti/ see, past-1sg.subj means 'I saw', and ראיתיה /ritihå/ see, past-1sg.subj.-3sg.f.obj. means 'I saw her'. CH, on the other hand, has no object markers on the verb in the colloquial register but does display them in a literary style or in a high register. Syntax: Hebrew conforms to Greenberg's Universals (op. cit.); thus, the attribute (including adjectives, subordinate clauses and genitives) follows the noun and the preposition precedes it. BH has the verbal predicate in initial position, with the subject marker affixed to it, then a possible explicit and autonomous nominal or deictic subject in second position and, finally, the other verbal complements. This order 1 is preserved in MH and Medieval Hebrew (MdH), whereas in CH the order of the first two components is reversed under the influence of word order in the European languages 1 In the terms popularized by Greenberg it would be VSO. They are inadequate, however, insofar as they (1) mix a part of speech (Verb) with parts of the sentence (Subject; Object) and (2) imply the existence of the Verb category in language as such, which is wrong on dynamic -synchronic, diachronic, ontogenetic, phylogenetic, creolistic and diaglottic -grounds and on grammatical as well as pragmatic evidence (
The so-called passive' participle in NENA dialects is said to function as both passive and active... more The so-called passive' participle in NENA dialects is said to function as both passive and active. This apory is resolved once it is shown that it is neither one or the other, namely that the opposition is not diathetic to begin with but aspectual. Tha so-called passive participle is perfect(ive) and the so-called active one is imperfect(ive). Transitivity, or rather valency, is narrowly linked to that, and in this language so are ergativity and case.
From G as Geo- or Grammato-centric to H as Helio- or Humano-Centric.
A Copernican or rather Lama... more From G as Geo- or Grammato-centric to H as Helio- or Humano-Centric.
A Copernican or rather Lamarckian-Darwinian Revolution in Linguistics. Language is (1) originated (2) rooted and (3) continues to function in interaction, itself anchored in emotion, desire and need.
Language is but an expression, albeit probably the most complex one, of human
properties which ar... more Language is but an expression, albeit probably the most complex one, of human properties which are not linguistic in themselves. Accordingly, it must be explored within a larger framework that comprises other sciences of life. It is not mathematics that language and linguistics are related to, but biology. True, linguistics has always applied to biological metaphors (language families, trees, etc.). Time has come to go further, and that is the first task cast upon linguistics today: language’s link to biology is not metaphoric but essential. In this sense LUIT is integrative: it integrates language into a broader framework. One corollary is that the concept ‘natural language’ is a pleonasm. The second task linguistics is facing now – and in this sense LUIT is unified - is recognizing its own intrinsic unity, which follows from the intrinsic unity of language, due not to an imaginary universal grammar but to the fact that in language, all levels - phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics - are solidary and must therefore be investigated as such: as in any complex phenomenon, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, separate only on methodological grounds (Coseriu 1988). Linguistic analysis must reflect the unity of language and not impose on it a division into domains with little or no connection with each other, blurring what language is and the way it works. Syntax – including among others constituent-order1 and agreement - is certainly not autonomous, but neither are phonology, morphology or lexicon; language’s first aim is communication, i.e. transmitting pragmatic and conceptual content, and the means to do it is form, which in itself conveys and to a tangible extent reflects meaning, since the linguistic sign is not completely arbitraire but to some extent iconic; oppositions in language are not binary but scalar, and language is not synchronic or diachronic but dynamic. In the framework of LUIT, several notions are fundamentally reconsidered.
The Pragmatic and Grammatical Modes are not reductible to each other. The former is certainly not... more The Pragmatic and Grammatical Modes are not reductible to each other. The former is certainly not a modification of the latter. An utterance which consists only of a Focus or in which a certain element is focalized does not mostly or necessarily result from the contraction of a grammatical sentence, and an utterance with initial topic does not mostly or necessarily result from dislocation, There is a set of properties inherent to each one of those modes, which naturally are not discretly separated - they are the two directions of a continuum. Yet the fact that the pragmatic mode is dynamically prior to the grammatical one and has communicative supremacy over it bears far-reaching consequences as far as the biological - and not mathematical- nature of language, and of Man, is concerned.
Language is a biological, pragmatic, evolutionary phenomenon. Performance creates competence, dia... more Language is a biological, pragmatic, evolutionary phenomenon. Performance creates competence, dialog creates language, discourse creates grammar, deixis precedes conceptualization - not the other way round. Extinct languages are deprived of pragmatics, not of grammar. Living ones, including pidgins and creoles, exist in dialog, no matter how elaborate or not is they grammar.Grammar is a means, not an end nor an organ: both at the beginning and end there is communication. Generative grammar explains language as accurately as Ptolemaic Astronomy explains the Universe. Linguistics should take the pragmatic turn (Quine, Rorty...). Further developments are displayed on http://kirtchuk.wikidot.com/start
The Hebrew roots are shown to be two-phonemic and not three-phonemic to begin with. Those binomes... more The Hebrew roots are shown to be two-phonemic and not three-phonemic to begin with. Those binomes are often of onomatopoetic origin, This is directly linked to the phylogenetically evolutionary origin of language and to its persisting biological dynamics. This is connected to 'LUIT : Language - a Unified and Integrative Theory' (Kirtchuk 2007 and forthcoming).
'La Parole' is at the origin of 'La Langue', at the opposite of the Saussurean dogma, and Perform... more 'La Parole' is at the origin of 'La Langue', at the opposite of the Saussurean dogma, and Performance at the origin of Competence, at the opposite of Chomsky's dogma.
Verbs with multiple valencies. A syntactic, morphologic, semantic and pragmatic survey including ... more Verbs with multiple valencies. A syntactic, morphologic, semantic and pragmatic survey including among others verba liquendi, verbs denoting change of color, stative verbs, etc.
The so-called 'nota accusativi' of Hebrew - /'et/ - is originated in a pragmatic marker. Examples... more The so-called 'nota accusativi' of Hebrew - /'et/ - is originated in a pragmatic marker. Examples gallore of unexpected aned even ungrammatical uses of the morphem if one sticks to its syntactic use alone.
Linguistic typology is usually associated to morphology (seminal contributions: Humboldt 1836, Sa... more Linguistic typology is usually associated to morphology (seminal contributions: Humboldt 1836, Sapir 1921) and more recently to syntax, with the groundbreaking work of Joseph ; however grammar and indeed language encompass other domains as well, which can be explored from a typological viewpoint. Morphology: Hebrew is an inflecting language. Moreover, morphology is probably its most robust structure, bearing an unequivocal Semitic stamp. A typological difference that distinguishes Contemporary Hebrew (CH) from Biblical Hebrew (BH) and Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) relates to composition and prefixation. BH exhibits practically no example of composition -all nouns are construed by derivation and can be expanded by means of the construct state. CH, on the other hand, has a number of compound nouns and a score of nominal prefixes, mostly spatio-temporal and quantitative . Neither stage has verbal composition, as opposed to IE, for example, in which pre-verbs of prepositional and ultimately nominal origin are common. BH being a synthetic and an accusative language, all finite verbs take a subject affix, but the bi-or tri-valent verb (Tesnière 1959) can take, in addition, a direct object suffix, if the object is determined. Thus, ראיתי /råiti/ see, past-1sg.subj means 'I saw', and ראיתיה /ritihå/ see, past-1sg.subj.-3sg.f.obj. means 'I saw her'. CH, on the other hand, has no object markers on the verb in the colloquial register but does display them in a literary style or in a high register. Syntax: Hebrew conforms to Greenberg's Universals (op. cit.); thus, the attribute (including adjectives, subordinate clauses and genitives) follows the noun and the preposition precedes it. BH has the verbal predicate in initial position, with the subject marker affixed to it, then a possible explicit and autonomous nominal or deictic subject in second position and, finally, the other verbal complements. This order 1 is preserved in MH and Medieval Hebrew (MdH), whereas in CH the order of the first two components is reversed under the influence of word order in the European languages 1 In the terms popularized by Greenberg it would be VSO. They are inadequate, however, insofar as they (1) mix a part of speech (Verb) with parts of the sentence (Subject; Object) and (2) imply the existence of the Verb category in language as such, which is wrong on dynamic -synchronic, diachronic, ontogenetic, phylogenetic, creolistic and diaglottic -grounds and on grammatical as well as pragmatic evidence (
The so-called passive' participle in NENA dialects is said to function as both passive and active... more The so-called passive' participle in NENA dialects is said to function as both passive and active. This apory is resolved once it is shown that it is neither one or the other, namely that the opposition is not diathetic to begin with but aspectual. Tha so-called passive participle is perfect(ive) and the so-called active one is imperfect(ive). Transitivity, or rather valency, is narrowly linked to that, and in this language so are ergativity and case.
From G as Geo- or Grammato-centric to H as Helio- or Humano-Centric.
A Copernican or rather Lama... more From G as Geo- or Grammato-centric to H as Helio- or Humano-Centric.
A Copernican or rather Lamarckian-Darwinian Revolution in Linguistics. Language is (1) originated (2) rooted and (3) continues to function in interaction, itself anchored in emotion, desire and need.
Language is but an expression, albeit probably the most complex one, of human
properties which ar... more Language is but an expression, albeit probably the most complex one, of human properties which are not linguistic in themselves. Accordingly, it must be explored within a larger framework that comprises other sciences of life. It is not mathematics that language and linguistics are related to, but biology. True, linguistics has always applied to biological metaphors (language families, trees, etc.). Time has come to go further, and that is the first task cast upon linguistics today: language’s link to biology is not metaphoric but essential. In this sense LUIT is integrative: it integrates language into a broader framework. One corollary is that the concept ‘natural language’ is a pleonasm. The second task linguistics is facing now – and in this sense LUIT is unified - is recognizing its own intrinsic unity, which follows from the intrinsic unity of language, due not to an imaginary universal grammar but to the fact that in language, all levels - phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics - are solidary and must therefore be investigated as such: as in any complex phenomenon, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, separate only on methodological grounds (Coseriu 1988). Linguistic analysis must reflect the unity of language and not impose on it a division into domains with little or no connection with each other, blurring what language is and the way it works. Syntax – including among others constituent-order1 and agreement - is certainly not autonomous, but neither are phonology, morphology or lexicon; language’s first aim is communication, i.e. transmitting pragmatic and conceptual content, and the means to do it is form, which in itself conveys and to a tangible extent reflects meaning, since the linguistic sign is not completely arbitraire but to some extent iconic; oppositions in language are not binary but scalar, and language is not synchronic or diachronic but dynamic. In the framework of LUIT, several notions are fundamentally reconsidered.
The Pragmatic and Grammatical Modes are not reductible to each other. The former is certainly not... more The Pragmatic and Grammatical Modes are not reductible to each other. The former is certainly not a modification of the latter. An utterance which consists only of a Focus or in which a certain element is focalized does not mostly or necessarily result from the contraction of a grammatical sentence, and an utterance with initial topic does not mostly or necessarily result from dislocation, There is a set of properties inherent to each one of those modes, which naturally are not discretly separated - they are the two directions of a continuum. Yet the fact that the pragmatic mode is dynamically prior to the grammatical one and has communicative supremacy over it bears far-reaching consequences as far as the biological - and not mathematical- nature of language, and of Man, is concerned.
Language is a biological, pragmatic, evolutionary phenomenon. Performance creates competence, dia... more Language is a biological, pragmatic, evolutionary phenomenon. Performance creates competence, dialog creates language, discourse creates grammar, deixis precedes conceptualization - not the other way round. Extinct languages are deprived of pragmatics, not of grammar. Living ones, including pidgins and creoles, exist in dialog, no matter how elaborate or not is they grammar.Grammar is a means, not an end nor an organ: both at the beginning and end there is communication. Generative grammar explains language as accurately as Ptolemaic Astronomy explains the Universe. Linguistics should take the pragmatic turn (Quine, Rorty...). Further developments are displayed on http://kirtchuk.wikidot.com/start
Uploads
Papers by Pablo Kirtchuk
A Copernican or rather Lamarckian-Darwinian Revolution in Linguistics. Language is (1) originated (2) rooted and (3) continues to function in interaction, itself anchored in emotion, desire and need.
properties which are not linguistic in themselves. Accordingly, it must be explored within a
larger framework that comprises other sciences of life. It is not mathematics that language
and linguistics are related to, but biology. True, linguistics has always applied to biological
metaphors (language families, trees, etc.). Time has come to go further, and that is the first
task cast upon linguistics today: language’s link to biology is not metaphoric but essential.
In this sense LUIT is integrative: it integrates language into a broader framework. One
corollary is that the concept ‘natural language’ is a pleonasm.
The second task linguistics is facing now – and in this sense LUIT is unified - is
recognizing its own intrinsic unity, which follows from the intrinsic unity of language, due
not to an imaginary universal grammar but to the fact that in language, all levels -
phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics - are solidary and must therefore be
investigated as such: as in any complex phenomenon, the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts, separate only on methodological grounds (Coseriu 1988). Linguistic analysis must
reflect the unity of language and not impose on it a division into domains with little or no
connection with each other, blurring what language is and the way it works. Syntax –
including among others constituent-order1 and agreement - is certainly not autonomous, but
neither are phonology, morphology or lexicon; language’s first aim is communication, i.e.
transmitting pragmatic and conceptual content, and the means to do it is form, which in
itself conveys and to a tangible extent reflects meaning, since the linguistic sign is not
completely arbitraire but to some extent iconic; oppositions in language are not binary but
scalar, and language is not synchronic or diachronic but dynamic. In the framework of
LUIT, several notions are fundamentally reconsidered.
Keywords : accusativity - actancy - Afroasiatic - Amerind – anaphore = Intra-Discursive deixis - Aramaic - autopoiesis - biology - biphonematism of the Semitic root – Bolinger - Bühler - cognition - complexity - context - creologeny - Darwin - deixis - diachrony - diaglottics - dialogue ( > categorisation / conceptualization) - human dimension of language - dynamics: interlocution > language faculty, discourse > grammar, parole > langue, praxis > system - epigeny - ergativity - evolution - expressivity - focalization – Fonagy - function – Givón - grammaticalization - Greenberg - Guarani - Hebrew - Hispanic - interactive nature of language - internal hierarchy of the utterance – interaction - iconicity - Indo-european - intonation - Lamarck - languaging - loanability scale – Lieberman - Maturana (& Varela) - multiple encoding - noun - non-person - onomatopoetics - ontogeny - paleontology - phylogeny - Pilagá - pragmatics - prosody - proto-sapiens - Quechua - reduplication - scalarity - subsegmentals, segmentals & cosegmentals - Semitics - Spanish - taboo - topicalization - typology - valency - verb - zero marking
A Copernican or rather Lamarckian-Darwinian Revolution in Linguistics. Language is (1) originated (2) rooted and (3) continues to function in interaction, itself anchored in emotion, desire and need.
properties which are not linguistic in themselves. Accordingly, it must be explored within a
larger framework that comprises other sciences of life. It is not mathematics that language
and linguistics are related to, but biology. True, linguistics has always applied to biological
metaphors (language families, trees, etc.). Time has come to go further, and that is the first
task cast upon linguistics today: language’s link to biology is not metaphoric but essential.
In this sense LUIT is integrative: it integrates language into a broader framework. One
corollary is that the concept ‘natural language’ is a pleonasm.
The second task linguistics is facing now – and in this sense LUIT is unified - is
recognizing its own intrinsic unity, which follows from the intrinsic unity of language, due
not to an imaginary universal grammar but to the fact that in language, all levels -
phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics - are solidary and must therefore be
investigated as such: as in any complex phenomenon, the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts, separate only on methodological grounds (Coseriu 1988). Linguistic analysis must
reflect the unity of language and not impose on it a division into domains with little or no
connection with each other, blurring what language is and the way it works. Syntax –
including among others constituent-order1 and agreement - is certainly not autonomous, but
neither are phonology, morphology or lexicon; language’s first aim is communication, i.e.
transmitting pragmatic and conceptual content, and the means to do it is form, which in
itself conveys and to a tangible extent reflects meaning, since the linguistic sign is not
completely arbitraire but to some extent iconic; oppositions in language are not binary but
scalar, and language is not synchronic or diachronic but dynamic. In the framework of
LUIT, several notions are fundamentally reconsidered.
Keywords : accusativity - actancy - Afroasiatic - Amerind – anaphore = Intra-Discursive deixis - Aramaic - autopoiesis - biology - biphonematism of the Semitic root – Bolinger - Bühler - cognition - complexity - context - creologeny - Darwin - deixis - diachrony - diaglottics - dialogue ( > categorisation / conceptualization) - human dimension of language - dynamics: interlocution > language faculty, discourse > grammar, parole > langue, praxis > system - epigeny - ergativity - evolution - expressivity - focalization – Fonagy - function – Givón - grammaticalization - Greenberg - Guarani - Hebrew - Hispanic - interactive nature of language - internal hierarchy of the utterance – interaction - iconicity - Indo-european - intonation - Lamarck - languaging - loanability scale – Lieberman - Maturana (& Varela) - multiple encoding - noun - non-person - onomatopoetics - ontogeny - paleontology - phylogeny - Pilagá - pragmatics - prosody - proto-sapiens - Quechua - reduplication - scalarity - subsegmentals, segmentals & cosegmentals - Semitics - Spanish - taboo - topicalization - typology - valency - verb - zero marking