2009年度第1回AA研フォーラム

Abstract： It sounds trivial to state that, in principle, there are two ways of looking at language systems: static and dynamic. The static view is said to be typical of linguistic amateurs who consider language to be fixed, stable, and long-lived. In contrast to this, the linguist’s view is dynamic, because it proceeds from the assumption that language is exposed to constant change and does, strictly speaking, not concede normative ascription. In practice, however, linguists tend to treat language nearly as static as do amateurs, both at the synchronic and diachronic level. Thus, grammars of modern languages as well as descriptions of earlier stages of languages reflect, as a rule, just a section of linguistic reality and not the incessant process of change. In African linguistics, unsteadiness and even indisposition are frequently observed when it comes to identifying the kind of linguistic variation met with. Sometimes linguistic varieties are referred to rather hastily and uncritically as dialects, regiolects, sociolects or ethnolects - to mention but a few labels - before any systematic investigation has ever been embarked on. Evidently, such usages are merely impressionistic. But even in thoroughly studied situations of variation it is often quite difficult to accurately determine and designate the type(s) of variation found. In other words, as easy as it may be to perceive linguistic variation as such, to comprehend its true nature seems fairly complicated. In my talk I shall present and discuss three different cases of linguistic variation from three different parts of Africa in order to illustrate the state of affairs.