REVIEW OF G.B. DJAHUKYAN’S UNIVERSAL LINGUISTIC THEORY

G.R. HOVHANNISIAN, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Romance and Germanic Philology Yerevan State University REVIEW OF G.B. DJAHUKYAN’S UNIVERSAL LINGUISTIC THEORY The article was published in IRAN AND THE CAUCASUS, vol.5, 2001, Tehran. The problem of creation of a universal linguistic theory is the final aim and challenge for any serious linguist. Besides, the modern tendencies in research of language processing claim a well - structured, multifunctional language system, which avails adequate explanation of language processing both on social and individual levels. In this concern, the monograph ''The Universal Linguistic Theory. Prolegomena to Substantional Linguistics'' by Gevorg Djahukian is a naturally expected one if regarded on the background of his scientific biography. The book is published in Moscow in 1999, several months before the 80 -th anniversary of the talented and distinguished scientist. The book contains a Preface, an Introduction (pp. 3 - 22) and two major chapters, called ''Invariative Panlinguistics'' (pp. 23 - 75) and ''Variative Panlinguistics'' (pp. 76 - 217). the author mentions in the Preface that the main reason for the emergence of this book were the speculations over the History of Philosophy, that stimulated the idea of non-contradictory explanation of the world of language. Another reason for the appearance of the monograph was the accumulated long-term teaching and research experience, during which a number of principal dissimilarities and analogous classifications of linguistic terms and concepts were observed. All these stimulated the idea of working out a complete linguistic theory, which would reconstruct all the linguistic knowledge according to similar principles, in other words, would create system and harmony among extralinguistic infrastructures and linguistic units and elements. Having been the author of two volumes of ''The History of Linguistics'' (1960) and ''General and Armenian Linguistics'' (1978) G. Djahukian had profoundly analyzed and summarized the shortcomings and achievements of the existing trends and already in 70 -s ot the XX century formulated some of his fundamental statements and assumptions, that later lay in the basis of his Universal Linguistic theory and model. The conceptual basis of this new linguistic theory lies in the Introductory part, where the author presents a brief critical analysis and interpretation of Ferdinand de Saussure's and other preceeding essays of universal linguistic theories. The point of discussion is the correlation between form and substance. In this respect Djahukian particularly notes, that his own vision of an integral linguistic theory is directly opposed to Saussurean structural understanding of language, that was postulated as ''form and not substance''. To give a single universal explanation (NB! -not description) of the phisical and psychical (or as he puts the term - spiritual) character of linguistic phaenomena, and to classify them for linguistic purposes, Djahukian suggests a new, substantional approach to the language. This approach is more or less close to the functional one and stands far off the structural and generative approaches to language, as it goes from the substance to the form. The reasons for each and every one of the author’s statements are given in the final part of Notes of the monograph, where one can find different viewpoints and extensive analytical speculations of the author written in a lively style. An excursive digress to this part of the book would be not less interesting, as one finds here not only theoretical explications of a number of terms (metaphore, linguistic antinomy, et c.), but also pages of original interpretations of modern linguistic theories (Functional Linguistics, Generative Grammar, Pragmalinguistics,), excellent knowledge and understanding of History and Philosophy of Linguistics, also speculations over the influence of policy on the signification and development of linguistic ideas. The central thing, that should be borne in mind, is that in the Djahukian’s linguistic theory we deal with the dichotomy language - communication, where the second element is the realization of the first-ideal one. The relation between social language and individual speech here is mediated through the language of the individuum, thus forming one opposition between social and individual languages and another opposition between the individual language and speech as linguistic competence and realization. Thus, following the rules of system and logical harmony, the author suggests the following levels of consideration of linguistic phenomena: human language, language of a social unit, individual language and speech. To avoid misunderstanding and associations with Saussurean langue - langage - parole the following should be mentioned. First, speech is taken by a linguist as language realization. Second, speech is processed as a realization of definite syntagmatic matrices of a language, so it also belongs with the linguistic models. Third, a speech act is highly situational, i.e. conditioned by extralinguistic factors. So, to model a language means to consider all possible types of speech act, keeping in mind that their final aim is to transmit extralinguistic situations for the purposes of human cognition and communication. Thus, a new universal opposition language-communication with a single-featured contradiction, comes to replace the well known dichotomy language - speech. Speech, on the other hand, is opposed to the notion text. Logically, Djahukian has adopted the well known notion '' Language - Mind'' and ''Communication - Thought'', correspondingly, involving both the static and dynamic aspects of verbal and mental representations where Language and Communication minimally present the explicit side, whereas Mind (consciousness) and Thought are the implicitly inherent side of community. According to the upmentioned hierarchic principles of the general, particular and individual, six main linguistic disciplines - Invariative Panlinguistics, Variative Panlinguistics, Invariative Monolinguistics, Variative Monolinguistics, Invariative Idiolinguistics and Variative Idiolinguistics are identified by the author of the book, each of them regarded both synchronically and diachronically. And of course, the universal linguistic model is connected with the tasks of the most abstract linguistic generalization, Invariative Panlinguistics, which is expected to include all kinds of language phenomena. Three types of models are defined in respect of language, the first one being verbal and developing in human consciousness together with linguistic competence, the second type being linguistic to reflect scientific knowledge of language itself, also phisiological, psychological mechanisms of language processing (Djahukian calls them correspondingly - panlinguistic, idiolinguistic, monolinguistic models) and a third type of metamodels is proposed to characterize the validity of linguistic models.The connection between these three types of models is proposed to be realised by means of transmodelling passages. The first part of the book opens with the statement of the principles of the ULM (Universal Linguistic Model) construction. There are five of them: Substantionality, Universality, Integrity, Economy and, which is essential, monistic approach. Each of these principles provides for a harmonic explanation of language emergence and development, its structure and functions of cognition and communication. The basic categories characterizing physical object are identified in the ULM; object’s constituent features are broken down into: materiality (resp. spatiality); the obect is material or non-material; internality, or in the broad sens of the word substantivity (resp. externaly): in the first case, the object is viewed in its internal relationships; in the second, in its relations to external things. Quality (or uncountability) (resp. quantitativeness): the object is either qualitative (cannot be counted), independet of the quantity, or quantitative, independent of the quality: On the basis of these three constituent features one can identify eight basic categories: composition, number, dependence, order, from, measure, direction and position (place). The first four characterize material objects, the last four immaterial spatial ones. Composition, number, form and measure characterize the object internally, in relation to whats is found in it, and distinguish it qualitatively (composition, dependence, form, and direction) and quantitatively (number, order size, and position) from other objects. The Principle of Substantionality assumes a basic approach to the language study from realistic point of view. Linguistic as well as mental activities of human beings are available for realistic interpretation. ''One cannot concieve the essence of the communicative act without having a general theory of features and correlations of real things. One cannot create a theory of phonemes without knowing the substanial physical characteristics of sounds and their physiological realization. And one cannot explain why this system is possible and that one is not without considering the extralinguistic, metalinguistic reality. The second principle of universality presupposes the application of the model to real as well as virtual languages. This assumption is extrapolated from the substantional character of any semiotic system and the psychological character of any human language. The principle of integrity combines all possible language levels, units and elements, facilitating sufficient bases for universal typology and complete description of both the plans of expression and content. The idea of linguistic economy comes from L. Hyelmslev. It is aimed at the description of as many objects as possible by the help of least possible number of linguistic means. In the ULM a strict correlation between the number of characteristics and the objects characterized is meant, i.e. every object differs from another by only one characteristic feature. The concept f e a t u r e is related to the concept of r e l a t i o n. Meanwhile, the first belongs to the epistemological plan, and corresponds to the concept of sign (mark) in the plan of ontology. They are mutually transformable. So, the universal linguistic model is expected to avail the interpretation of any linguistic as well as non-linguistic object. For the description of the structure of the model, also of any of the objects, a system of categories, is used. Each category is represented by a couple of terms. On the one hand all possible linguistic categories are generalized and the main semantic derivates of the plane of contents and on the other hand the means and significant features of the plane of expression are found out. Thus, there is nothing in the contents of the object, that cannot be projected in the characterization. Particularly, any meaning can be precisely defined by a definite genus proximum and differentia specifica, as it is done in dictionaries. The main substantive and attributive categories describing physical objects are presented in a scheme according to four main characteristics. However, for the description of psychical objects the categories of causation and dependence are included. Each of the categories is represented by two marginal terms to express contrary and contradictory relations. If a category displays the common character of a relator, that in markation becomes a feature (sign) of another relate, terms come to show the type of the relator in respect to the relate, i.e. they express the feature of the relate. To symbolize the main terms, Djahukian uses a number of signs, that in fact, reflect all the possible types of real, substantional states and relations, also their linguistic representation. . The description of the structure and function of the model is followed by interpretations of its synchronic and diachronic processing. When speaking of universal systems, we should beat in mind that they are ideal and designed for all cases and times, and consequently are not essentially changeable (panchronic). The universal system takes all substantive means into account; the squares in the tables must not be completely filled in by subjects; all limits on filling or not filling in squares have a natural substantive basis. Here to speak of change (movement) in the system means to speak of a change (movement) in all the components so that the system of oppositions does not change. There can be subjective as well as objective factors: a removal from the system requires an imporovement to an ideal state. A really beautiful explantion to how human language appeared, is given in this book. The origin of the human language is reasoned as a naturally developing exteriorization and substantional representation of internal processes of the organic world. Language (usually speaking of the origin, the vocal sign system is meant) is one of the substantional, material expressions of human spiritusl activities and is deeply rooted in the initial and internal states of human nature - his physical and psychic world. And of course, correspondingly, it has its external and internal sources of origin. Speaking of the origin of human language, we usually have in mind spoken language at the stage of development when expression becomes a sign and material expression is purposeful, with the goal of being perceived. Material expression is not only the effect of a cause but is itself a causal phenomenon, with a psychic-sign character. Djahukian argues that the correlation between the planes of content and expression of natural language, also its structural tagmatic hierarchy are caused by natural factors. Anyhow, in the semiotization of human vocal sounds - signs and symptoms, he much agrees with K. Buhler's well-known viewpoint. Proceeding the explanation of the universal linguistic model on definite levels of language generalization, the author shows the reader to the second largest part of the book, Variative Panlinguistics, in other words, the part about language typology, with an opening chapter about the or two-sided nature of linguistic units, their structural significance, modelling and transmodelling capacities, also their diachronical aspect. The principles of universal linguistic the model are applied in lexicological, taxological, protaseological and textological levels. Before that, however, the levels, the units of each of them and the parts of the Linguistic science are defined. Another surprise of the universal approach to the structure of Linguistics is that the phonetic and prosodic means of the language do not make a separate language level, as they used to be considered in our manuals of Linguistics. Here they are distributed among the other language levels, which are identified beginning with the lexical level. Why so? Djahukian argues this with the statement, that the word is the smallest independent, linear two-sided linguistic unit. And that phonemes have only defining features, but not planes of content and expression, and that linear independence is not aviable for them. This argument is reached after a critical analysis of the level systems known by E. Benvenist, A, Martinet, L. Hjelmslev, L. Weisberger (Saussure) and S.M. Lamb. In other wors the minimal speech unit is the word, as speech itself is nothing else than language realization. Sounds from a speech but yet they are not speech. Words are semantically complete units and thus free enough to represent a language. The lexical level is subdivided into two substrata - risematical and lexematical, each correspondingly having root and lexeme as their neuclei. Next comes the taxematical leve, where tagm and syntagm are the substratal units. The third one is the predicative level with protasematic and symprotasematic substrates of sentence study. Text makes the highest level that consists of two hierarchically arranged units - the texteme and the syntexteme. It should be said that each following unit is formed by means of neuclear and byneuclear elements, thus generating or transmodelling language models. They can be homogenious, heterogenious and in the process of transmodelling they may undergo either transposition or unification. Hetrogeneous models emerge from primary or homogenous models as a result of transmodelling. Two transmodelling operation-transposition and unification -–from two types of heterogeneous models: transposed and unified. Transposition involes an internal change in the model components, specificaly in the sequence and functional transitions of model components from subordinating to subordinate and vice versa. Stricly speaking, the model changes according to the following material categories: composition, number, dependence and sequence. The transposed model can differ from the primary one in composition, number, dependence and sequence of un Unification combines two models, either completely or partially, at the same level. A typical example is parataxis in the broad sense, and the linking of roots, words, syntagmas, sentences and texts. Redublications belong here. To illustrate: a common model changes because it has absorbed another model fully or paritally. If Variative -Synchronic Panlinguistics deals with a kind of abstract models, then diachronic modelling deals with the language changes and evolution. Variative – diachronic panlinguistics deals with a universal structural model suitable for describing particular at all unit levels regardless of diachronic change. Language, however, is in constatn flux, and we can speak of language structure without addressing change only conditionaly. The question “why linguistic change occurs” is somewhat superfluous: language, as any other phenomenon, must change , and we must not opposite synchrony to diachrony too vigorously. The so-called external factors, however, can be considered external only, for any language operating in a language collective exists in the brains of its members who think independtly (“internal speech”) and who come into social contact (“external speech”). Linguistic change chiefly during social contacts. We should make a distinction between linguistic change sa real phenomenon and as an object of linguistic representation. In the first case, change is a natural state of language, as well as of all things and phenomena, and must occur one way or another. Only in the second case, however, does diachronic contrast sharply with synchrony. As an object of of linguistic representation, language can be depicted without the notion that it exists statically at a particular time. The monolingual study of these changes may reveal the type, characteristics and genetic ties of a language. To sum up the description of variative linguistic modelling, we want to add, that, on the whole, the changes in planes of content and expression are naturally expected to be of the following types: extralinguistic, paradygmatic, syntagmatic, semantic or phonetic. Language units change simultaneously in three areas: on the content- and expression- planes and in their correlation. Particular patterns can be established for each of these each of these areas. The elements that change on the expression-plane are: 1) extra-linguistic-the object of the sign (the denotata); 2) paradigmatic-the psychological dependencies between units (their associations); 3) syntagmatic-the influence of context in the board sense (the communicative environment and situatuion, and the liner-contensive sequence); 4) phonetic (compare the influence of endings on the categorical-symbol for composition), and, to a lesser degree, kinetic and graphic. The elements that on the content-plane are 1) extralinguistic-the correlation between the phsical components; 2) paradigmatic-the influence of phonetic system to fill in incomplete links and cells and move from least probable to the more probable typs, etc.; 3) syntagmatic- the influence of neighbouring links-combinatory changes influencing the positions of units in their phonetic chain; 4) semantic changes based on analogies, under the influence of semantic links. Further comes the interpretation of every language level (according to Djahukian) within the framework of the Universal Linguistic Theory. Here also many new, revised interpretations of linguistic units and their functions from the universal substantional point of view can be found. The fact is that the reader may face a completely new explanation of language processing, meanwhile having the intriguing feeling of "deja view", which certainly appeares in case of understanding the internal harmony of the model proposed. On the other hand, one who is interested in paralinguistic, especially, pragmatic aspects of human verbal activities, may easily understand, that the ULM is a green light, a positive signal to a new era in "why do we study language". The Universal Linguistic Model, suggested by G. Djahukian, can surely be considered the summing up of the clear - linguistic era and the starting point of paralinguistic and extraliguistic studies based on a non - contradictory, universal knowledge of language as a system, means and product of human activity. I believe that the monograph is a good stimulator of speculations and ideas, also an interesting framework for Variative Linguistic research in Universities and Linguistic Centers. On the whole the monograph is written in a clear and consistent scientific style that avails the wide use of the book for the purposes of both theoretical and practical research by advanced linguists. Concerning the terminology should be noted, that it is monosemantic and highly international and may cause a unification tendency in linguistic terminology, if properly considered. Such careful attitude to the use of concepts and terms is the result of Djahukian's considerable knowledge and understanding of various linguistic theories and his analytical and reconsrtuctive abilities. Of course, the book is strongly recommended to universtity students as a manual of Modern Linguistics. 1 1