In doing so, the work highlights that we can distinguish what is general and social from what is individual. Saussure argues that the execution of language is always individual, and refers to this as speech (parole), therefore distinguishing the language system itself ( langue) from speech actually produced by individuals. The role of the individual is also highlighted in Saussure 1983 in the distinction between langue and parole. The most notable of such early studies is Paul 1888, in which all language originates in an individual mind, and therefore the individual should be the focus of scrutiny. Notions of linguistic individuality can be traced back to the earliest formalized discussions of language and linguistics. It is a term that has a passing mention or glossary entry in most introductory textbooks in linguistics, yet it is a theory that is not easily observable or measurable, and for which there is little agreement and even less empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the concept of idiolect is familiar and mysterious in equal measure in the linguistics literature. In some fields, the advent of large collections of texts has facilitated a testing of the theory of idiolect. This includes debates over whether idiolect resides in the overall linguistic system of an individual or in their patterns of usage, or whether the individual plays a role in language change. However, since its introduction in linguistics in the late nineteenth century, the notion of linguistic individuality or the role of the individual in language, if not explicitly the term “idiolect,” has sporadically been the focus of discussion across a range of disciplines in linguistics. Despite being generally accepted in linguistics, the concept of idiolect has received relatively little rigorous or systematic research attention. While some elements may persist throughout a person’s life, others may drop out of favor, while new patterns, preferences, and features may be acquired over time. An idiolect, therefore, is not stable in its entirety. A person’s idiolect is all encompassing in that it includes linguistic features related to dialect and sociolect, for example, while also being influenced by a wide range of other sources of variation, such as their life experiences language encounters what they have read and listened to where they have been schooled jobs they have had their favorite hobbies and pastimes and their parents, friends, and teachers. In the same way that the variation exhibited in a person’s language production is influenced by their dialect(s), sociolect(s) and by register, so too is it influenced by their personal, idiosyncratic, often habitual linguistic preferences-their idiolect. Idio- is of Greek origin, and means “own, personal, private, peculiar, separate and distinct,” while - lect refers to a “social variety of a language.” The theory holds, therefore, that no two people who share a common language have exactly the same linguistic repertoire. This meaning is reflected in the etymology of the word: the two morphemes idio- and - lect. “Idiolect” refers to an individual’s unique variety and/or use of language, from the level of the phoneme to the level of discourse.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |