154 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
4.4.1.2. Stratificationalists
While the role of the code model of communication has been somewhat obscured in the generative tradition, it is much more obvious in the stratificational tradition of
linguistics. The same may be said of the role of the Saussurean influence within strat- ificational linguistics. Consider, for example, the following comments from Sidney
Lamb, which clearly involve a Saussurean notion of relationship:
A language may be regarded as a system of relationships. As such, it is not directly observ- able. The linguist can only observe the manifestations of linguistic structure, i.e., samples of
speech andor writing, and the situations in which they occur. Yet, SG strives to generate a specific text in a specific situation.
Lamb 1966 :3
Stratificational linguistics characterizes linguistic structure as being organized into layers, or strata. Building upon Saussure’s notion of structure being organized via syntag-
matic and paradigmatic relations, stratificationalists propose that each layer has its own rules of syntax, labeled tactics, and that each layer is related to others through relation-
ships, labeled realizations. All stratificationalists employ this notion of strata, but they do not all agree regarding the number of strata involved. As Algeo points out, the major
investigators consistently employ at least three particular strata: the semiological, the grammatical, and the phonological
Algeo 1973 :6. As Edmondson and Burquest note in
their review of stratificational linguistics, the number of strata employed by any one investigator has varied from three to six
1998 :97.
In contrast to Saussure, stratificationalists do not strictly dichotomize the concerns of structure and the concerns of context. They purport to be accounting for communicative
acts, rather than simply structure. In this regard, stratificational accounts attempt to address several issues which Chomsky
1965 :3–4 had regarded as “grammatically-
irrelevant.” In other words, they are trying to fill in details that have been traditionally neglected. Sullivan writes:
The immediate aim of SG is to account for the production and deciphering of spoken or written texts of arbitrary length. This includes what is produced, how it may be produced,
what is understood, and how it may be understood, including the pragmatic and sociocultural purposes of the discourse. If possible, the model used should also give insight into language
acquisition and language change. In any case, the model used must be internally consistent in a logical sense and must not contradict anything we know about the structure and operation of
the brain. Note that this is a requirement, not a claim that SG is a neurological theory of language.
The long-term aim of SG is to account for language and language use as a portion of general cognitive-neurological functions. This includes logical and nonlogical thought, slips of
the tongue, troublesome ellipses of all kinds, communicative grunts, etc. This suggests to me that linguistics will ultimately have to develop a neurological theory of language.
Sullivan 1980
:301–302
4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 155
Edmondson and Burquest 1998
explain:
Stratificationalists make it quite clear that they are not interested in describing some platonic ideal, the essence of reality only imperfectly realized in the real world. Yet, on the
other hand, they also wish to describe something free of extralinguistic disturbances though deciding what is extralinguistic may be difficult. Lockwood
1972 :10 speaks of ideal perfor-
mance, which is to contain competence “… plus conventions for its activation.” Thus, they would strive to study not only the knowledge of a speaker but also all linguistically significant
factors involved in putting this knowledge to use. There should be a direct relationship between competence and performance. And, moreover, as Lamb recently described it, the
position of SG is to describe a typical speaker-hearer in a diverse speech community.
Edmondson and Burquest 1998 :95
Whereas generativists rarely address communication per se, stratificationalists do so regularly. The fact that stratificationalists maintain an expanded form of the code model
also makes it easy to identify respective components of that model. As quoted in section 2.4
, Lockwood appeals to the code model concept of communication. In contrast to certain other stratificationalists, however, his account employs little of the classic infor-
mation theoretic terminology, drawing instead from Saussure’s speech circuit model:
Communication through the medium of spoken language is concerned with the conveying of concepts by means of vocal noises. Let us attempt to outline a simple view of what goes on
when two individuals communicate using language. One participant in the communication process, let us label him A, goes from concepts inside his brain to muscle movements leading
to the articulation of vocal sounds. A second participant, B, receives these vocal noises as they have been transmitted through the air. He perceives them by means of his auditory mechanism,
which ultimately leads to a stimulation of his conceptual apparatus.
Lockwood 1972 :1
Ilah Fleming, also quoted previously, provides a more classic appeal to the code model:
In a stratificational view of communication, there are a number of strata, each of which represents a different aspect of the communication system. The stratal levels are, by conven-
tion, ordered vertically in diagrams with content at the top and means of expressing the content at the bottom. If the dynamic use of the strata is to encode a message, the communicator starts
with the content of his message at the top and encodes it through the relevant strata until it is expressed ultimately by the lower expression level strata with sounds, non-verbal body move-
ments, writing andor other signals. If an audience wants to decode a message, he starts with input from the expression level and decodes through the relevant strata until he is able to
decode the content of the message. The success of the communication is affected by the degree to which the inferred message of the decoder matches the intended message of the encoder.
Fleming 1990 :25; preliminary edition, quoted with permission
It should be noted, however, that in her approach to stratificational linguistics, which she calls, “communication analysis,” Fleming employs a rather holistic approach to the
general problem of communication, and in so doing addresses several areas which are not typically considered in code model linguistics. Her five areas of concern include:
1. Communication situation—culture, language, social setting, social relationship 2. Semantic
3. Morphosyntax
156 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
4. Expression level—graphemic, phonemic, prosodic, and kinesic 5. Physical phenomena—hand movements, auditory perception, articulatory
movements, visual, tactile perception She also lists a sixth concern, the transmission channel, although this is not incorporated
into a stratal level as are the other five Fleming 1990
:3, 27, also see Edmondson and
Burquest 1998 :112.
The result of this characterization is a speech chain version of the code model see again figure
3.7 . As Fleming describes it, several different kinds of organizational struc-
tures “form a connected network when woven together to encode a communication act” Fleming 1988
:2.
4.4.1.3. Sociolinguists
Kategori