Integrational theory of language

The Integrational theory of language is the general theory of language that has been developed within the general linguistic approach of integrational linguistics.
Differently from most other approaches in linguistics, integrational linguistics emphasizes a distinction between theories of language and theories of language descriptions. Integrational linguistics has therefore developed both a general theory of language and a theory of linguistic descriptions, the integrational theory of grammars.
The integrational theory of language contains two major subtheories: the integrational theory of linguistic variability, which is 'conflated' with the integrational theory of language systems.
One of the most distinctive features of the integrational theory of language is its adherence to ontological explicitness and constructiveness: the ontological status of every linguistic entity postulated by the theory is clearly determined, and every entity is a logical or set-theoretical construct ultimately related to a small number of sets of basic entities that include, in particular, objects and events in space-time.

The integrational theory of linguistic variability

Linguistic variability

From its inception, IL has regarded linguistic variability, i.e. the changeability of languages along dimensions such as time, geographical space, social stratification etc., as an essential property of natural languages that has to be treated in any realistic theory of language; certain idealizations, such as Chomsky's 'completely homogeneous speech-community,' are rejected.
The Integrational Theory of Linguistic Variability thus aims at providing a theoretical framework for variation research and a basis for a realistic theory of language systems. The theory centers around the notion of 'idiolect,' in a specific sense of the term that avoids traditional problems: an idiolect is a homogeneous part of an individual speaker's share of a language. Such an idiolect, understood as an individual means of communication of a person during a certain period of time, simultaneously belongs to a certain period of the language, to a certain dialect, sociolect, register, medial variety, etc. A natural language is construed as a set of idiolects, and each variety of the language is a subset of the language. Sets of idiolects are called 'communication complexes.' The varieties of a language are given through its 'variety structure': a classification system whose source is the language itself.

Idiolects and idiolect systems

Ontologically, an idiolect is construed as a set of abstract sentences: form-meaning pairs consisting, in the case of a spoken rather than a written or signed idiolect, of a structured phonetic sound sequence and a meaning of this sequence. For each idiolect in a language, there is a system that specifies which form-meaning pairs are elements of the idiolect. Every idiolect system consists of a phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexico-semantic, and sentence-semantic part; and each part determines a different type of properties that the form-meaning pairs must have in order to belong to the idiolect. In written idiolect systems, the phonetic and phonological parts are replaced by a graphetic and a graphematic part, in signed idiolect systems by a cheremic and a cherematic part. The parts of an idiolect system are grouped into the sound system, the morpho-syntactic subsystem, and the semantic subsystem of the idiolect system. Finally, a system for a language is a construct of properties shared by every system of every idiolect in the language. Idiolects, varieties, languages, and their systems are all construed as extramental and abstract.
Systems of idiolects and systems for languages differ from each other both ontologically and in their relation to speakers' minds. Idiolect systems are n-tuples whereas language systems are sets of properties of such n-tuples. Moreover, for every idiolect that is a means of communication for a given speaker, there must be a internal basis in the speaker that corresponds to a system of this idiolect, but there is no such internal basis for entire language systems. From an IL point of view, distinguishing between language systems, idiolect systems, idiolects, and speaker-internal bases for idiolects is a cornerstone for a realistic theory of natural languages and language use.
A full representation of the Integrational Theory of Linguistic Variability and discussion of rival theories can be found in Lieb ; for the conceptions of languages and idiolects, see also Lieb, Part A.

The integrational theory of language systems

General features

The Integrational Theory of Linguistic Variability is conflated with the Integrational Theory of Language Systems. The latter is concerned mainly with making general assumptions on the properties of idiolect systems in arbitrary languages and developing a conceptual framework, and corresponding terminology, for their description.
The well-known problems in defining a truly universal terminology in the face of linguistic diversity are tackled in Integrational Linguistics by making a number of essential meta-theoretic distinctions, implicit in linguistic tradition but typically blurred in modern approaches.
Most importantly, a distinction is made between the definition of a term and the identification of corresponding linguistic entities in given idiolect systems. For example, terms such as 'phoneme,' 'suffix,' 'verb,' 'singular,' 'accusative,' etc. are construed not as categorial terms but as names of two-place relations between linguistic entities and idiolect systems S. Names for categories of a given idiolect system are then derived from such relational terms: the expression 'verb of S_E' denotes the set of all verbs of S_E, i.e., denotes the set of all linguistic entities that are related to idiolect system S_E by the relation verb. While the relational term 'verb' is defined in the Integrational Theory of Language Systems so as to allow for arbitrary idiolect systems, the corresponding categories must be identified in a grammar for individual idiolect systems, and the identifying properties may vary greatly among the systems of idiolects in different languages or even within a single language. It is a task not of a general theory of language but of theories of individual languages or language varieties – e.g., of individual grammars – to formulate identifying properties for the entities postulated for the idiolect systems of a given language. Given this distinction, a term like 'verb' may be defined by means of word- or sentence-semantic criteria; the syntactic nature of the corresponding categories in individual idiolect systems is still guaranteed by the fact that the categories can be identified by resort to the syntactic means of the idiolect systems and, possibly, properties of lexical meanings. Defining a term in a general theory of language does not, however, imply that there are corresponding entities in all idiolect systems.
The elements of a category in a given idiolect system may, and usually will, have additional relevant properties not needed for identifying the category. Such properties must still be included in a complete characterization of the category. Finally, each entity proposed by a general theory of language or by a theory of an individual language, variety, or idiolect should also be justified by metatheoretic considerations. Consider, for example, the set of all adjective forms of a given English idiolect system whose sound sequences start with /bl/. Such a set should hardly be postulated as a syntactic category of this idiolect system, even though the set would easily be identified, and a corresponding term would easily be defined.
From an IL point of view, distinguishing between the definition of a term, the identification and characterization of a corresponding entity in an individual idiolect system, and the justification for postulating such an entity in a theory of a specific language, is a prerequisite both for formulating a general theory of language and for successfully integrating theories of individual languages or language varieties with such a theory. Integrational Linguistics appears to be the only modern approach to explicitly adopt the fourfold distinction between definition, identification, characterization and justification, implicit in Western linguistic tradition with its insistence on the semantic definition of many general terms used in identifying syntactic entities as described in individual grammars. — For a detailed discussion of the underlying metatheoretic principles, see, in particular, Budde : chapter 1; for an application in a general theory of parts of speech, using German for orientation, see Budde : chapters 2–10.
Reflecting the basic structure of spoken idiolect systems, the Integrational Theory of Language Systems comprises Integrational Phonology, Integrational Morpho-Syntax, and Integrational Semantics. For medial types of idiolect systems other than the spoken one, suitable subtheories – corresponding to Integrational Phonology – are provided for but have not yet been worked out in detail.
The most detailed representation to date of the Integrational Theory of Language Systems as a whole is found in Lieb ; for Integrational Syntax see also Lieb, for Integrational Semantics Lieb. Integrational Phonology is presented in Lieb. For major applications of IL in linguistic description, see, for example, Richter, Moltmann, and Eisenberg,Eisenberg, Peter. 1998/1999. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Band 1: Das Wort. Band 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler. concentrating on German; Sackmann for Mandarin Chinese; see also the contributions in Sackmann . The conception of paradigms, fundamental in IL, has recently been further elaborated in Lieb.