Grammar the study of the structure of

Grammar • the study of the structure of human language • books that set out rules governing language’s use

Grammar studies the formal properties of words and sentences Morphology • Describes how words are structured and formed • How their constituents (morphemes) are classified and combined Syntax • Describes how words are arranged and combined into phrases and sentences • How phrases and sentences are classified and combined into larger structures

Theoretical Grammar Helps to comprehend • Ambiguity • Intricacies • Syncretism • Acquisition of new meanings by the already existing forms

Theoretical Grammar. Application. • My aunt’s murder (a play on the subjective and objective Genitive) • In the beginning was the end (peculiar word order - rhematic) • Crouched near broken house was …(absence of article) • There was another rap at the door (rhematization- important information is placed at the end of the sentence)

The Evolution of English Grammars • prescientific period ( the end of the XVI th c. till the beg. of the XX th c. ) 1. prenormative (descriptive) grammar 2. normative (prescriptive, demanding) grammar; • scientific period ( from the turn-of-the c. up to the middle of the 20 th c. ) with scientific explanatory grammar.

Prescriptive Normative grammars • prescribed, stated rules of grammatical usage • prohibited wrong, improper constructions and forms • set up (postulated) standards of correctness. • Latin grammar served as a model for almost all European grammars

Scientific descriptive grammars (Traditional Grammar) • Henry Sweet did not proscribe anything • He found what was widely used to be grammatically correct • He defined general grammatical concepts, grammatical categories • He anticipated Ferdinand de Saussure’s synchronic approach • He proclaimed the priority of oral speech over written one.

Scientific descriptive grammars (Traditional Grammar) • Otto Jespersen (1860 -1943), the Great Dane - a forerunner of structural grammar • emphasized the correspondence of grammatical and logical categories • proposed a symbolic representation of the structure of English • proposed new techniques of linguistic description • advanced theory of ranks: subject and predicate →primaries, secondaries and tertiaries

Scientific descriptive grammars (Traditional Grammar) criticized by newer grammars for • its obscuring (ignoring) language itself as an intra-linguistic phenomenon • focusing on logical and psychological (extra-linguistic) considerations, i. e. for its being meaning-oriented • its being atomistic

Grammars of the XX century • language as a system where all elements are interdependent and interconnected • Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 -1913), a Swiss linguist, a pioneer in structuralism and semiotics • contributed to theoretical foundations of language studies • “The General Course of Linguistics” (1916)

Structural and semiotic postulates 1. Language is a social phenomenon 2. Language is a structured system of signals or a sign system, consisting of linguistic signs, which are interdependent and interconnected

Structural and semiotic postulates 3. • the actual linguistic behaviour or • the system of language manifestation of this “la langue” system “la parole” • paradigmatic, vertical (speech) aspect • Paradigmatic relations are • horizontal linear based on substitution syntagmatic aspect of language • syntagmatic relations are based on cooccurrence

Structural and semiotic postulates 4. A study of language • diachronic or historical • focusing on historic change • synchronic (descriptive) • treating language as a self-contained system at a given moment of its existence. • F. De Saussure

Structural and semiotic postulates 5. A linguistic sign is bilateral • it has two aspects: form and meaning • The relations between them are asymmetrical

Structural and semiotic postulates • Language is a system • the elements of which are related by means of similarities and differences, i. e. (id est lat. – то есть) oppositions • oppositions on all linguistic levels - On the phonological level (long vowels : : short v) - On the morphological level (plural : : singular) - On the syntactical level (composite : : simple) - On the lexico-semantic level (man : : woman)

F. de Saussure • revolutionised linguistics • introduced structuralism as a method of analysis • structuralism analyzes systems by examining the relations and functions of the constituents of these systems, be it a human language or a cultural process • Modernism is opposed to Postmodernism as a system on the basis of following structural points: decentralization – centralization; changeability – steadiness; shifting time – linear time, etc.

F. de Saussure • affected highly the Prague linguistic school (functional linguistics ) • American linguists introduced 1. Structural descriptive grammar 2. Transformational and Transformational generative grammar

Prague Linguistic School (Functional Linguistics) • Vilem Mathesius, Roman Jakobson, Nikolai Trubetskoy • the synchronic approach to linguistics over the diachronic, or historical approach • It defined the phoneme in terms of distinctive features (the smallest unit of speech that can distinguish one word from another ) bin-pin voicing is a distinctive feature of English

Prague Linguistic School (Functional Linguistics) 1. The theory of the phoneme 2. The theory of oppositions and the oppositional method (N. Trubetskoy) 3. The functional sentence perspective (or theory of communicative dynamism) 4. The theory of the asymmetry of a linguistic sign ( S. Karčevsky)

American Descriptive Linguistics • Leonard Bloomfield (the head), Charles Fries, Zelic Harris, Charles Hockett • rejected the traditional techniques of linguistic analysis • studied the non-alphabetical languages of Indian tribes (incorporative languages ) • offered new procedures of description (arrangement, position, co-occurrence of linguistic elements) without resorting to meaning

American Descriptive Linguistics • Behaviorist Structural Grammar (L. Bloomfield) • language is just a form of behavior • Linguistics should focus on linguistic performance • study the behavior, distribution, arrangement, co-occurrence, structural characteristics of elements disregarding their meaning.

Transformational and Transformational Generative Grammar • Z. Harris (Pennsylvania) • operations called transformations • indicate links between various types of sentences and derive one type from another • passives are derived from actives: equivalent in meaning but distant in structure

Transformational Grammar • Zelic Harris, Charles Hockett • kernels and transformational rules for expansion and rearrangement of kernels • Kernels are simple naked sentences: E. g. The sun shines; She is beautiful; I have a car; I read a book; There is a book on the table, etc. • All possible sentences are derived from kernels

Transformational Grammar • connection between structure and meaning: 1. Different structures can be identical in meaning E. g. Jim drinks beer=>Beer is drunk by Jim 2. Formally identical structures may differ in meaning: E. g. He made Mary a star , He made Mary a toy, which can be seen transformationally: (He made a star of Mary, He made a toy for Mary)

Transformational Generative Grammar • N. Chomsky, USA, 1928 , linguist, philosopher and intellectualist, professor of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) • humans are equipped at birth with innate language faculty to acquire language, which is a specific neurological system • These are rules that govern sequencing sounds into words and words into sentences

Transformational Generative Grammar • the shift from behaviorism to investigation into language and universal grammar • language is not a form of behavior • Linguists should focus on the underlying linguistic competence • Generative grammar derives a surface structure from an abstract deep structure. • Surface are observable structures • Deep are underlying structures, they are logical structures of our brains – subject and predicate structures

Transformational and Transformational Generative Grammar • For Harris transformation relates to surface structure sentence forms: Jim drinks beer => Beer is drunk by Jim This transformation relates both structures, passive and active • For Chomsky transformation is a device to transform a deep structure into a surface structure, to show the generation of infinite living structures out of a finite set of deep structures I have a car. She is nice. . , etc,

The theory of deep structures • a method of analyzing and explaining the generation of surface structures E. g. He married young is a surface structure with a double predicate, the nature of which can be explained transformationally: He marries and =>He is young

The theory of deep structures • The sentence with a simple nominal predicate can be analyzed as comprising two deep structures : E. g. She a beauty? ! => She is a beauty. =>It is not true.

The theory of deep structures • Genitive constructions with semantically different genitives can be analyzed as E. g. John’s arrival => John arrives, or John arrived, or John will arrive. • the difference between a subjective and an objective genitive: 1. Napoleon’s victory=> Napoleon wins a victory over smb; 2. Napoleon’s defeat=> Smb wins a victory over Napoleon. ! Two identical surface structures may possess absolutely different meanings.

Semantic Syntax • Charles Mc. Cawley, W. Chafe, Russian linguists O. I. Moskalskaya and V. V. Bogdanov. • describes sentences in terms of propositions, semantic structures (= deep structures), predicates and arguments.

Semantic Syntax • Relations between predicates and arguments are analysed in terms of deep cases: • agentive case (деятеля), • objective case (предмета), • instrumental case(инструментальный), • locative case (места), • beneficiary case(получателя), etc.

Semantic Syntax E. g. I open the door is a proposition • It’s semantic structure is as follows : - the predicate is open; - arguments are I and the door; - I and open are connected by the agentive case; - open the door by objective case as the door is an object.

Semantic Syntax E. g. The door opened. • the door is logically an object, though grammatically it’s a subject, so that is an objective case. E. g. The hammer broke the window • the hammer logically is an instrument, broke is the predicate, the window is an object.

Textual linguistics and intertextual linguistics • describe discourse, its generation and relations between sentences and texts

Methods of Linguistic Analysis • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. inventory of methods: Traditional method Oppositional method Distributional method IC method (the method of immediate constituents) Transformational method, The Functional Sentence Perspective Deep and Surface structures method The Contextual method The method of Componential analysis

Parsing (Traditional Syntactic Analysis) • dividing a sentence into the main and secondary parts by putting questions. • at times inadequate: E. g. Flying planes can be dangerous What can be dangerous? 1. flying (a gerund used as a subject) 2. planes (flying is a present participle, which functions as an attribute)

Parsing (Traditional Syntactic Analysis) E. g. Visiting relatives can be a nuisance (What? Which? )

The Oppositional Method • N. Trubetskoy to investigate phonology e. g. Russian and English vowels contrasted to each other as to their length → short and long ones (not relevant for Russian) ! Russian and English vowels do not correlate as to length e. g. Consonants are contrasted as to voice being involved → voiced and devoiced ! Consonants do correlate as to voice in both languages

The Oppositional Method • based on discrepancy, antinomy or objective contrasts • Life: harmony and disharmony of oppositions→ the basic law of dialectics

The Oppositional Method • Things contrasted to each other always have something in common, • comparable • basic likeness • Chinese philosophers before Christianity, Jordano Bruno: “Contraria sunt complementa” i. e. contrary notions complete each other

The Oppositional Method • language a system of elements interrelated on the basis of their similarities and differences i. e. oppositions

The main notions • • Opposition the root of opposition the marked member of the opposition the unmarked member of the opposition • a distinctive feature • neutralisation

The main notions • Opposition: a functionally relevant relationship of partial differences between partially similar elements • The root of opposition: the basis of an opposition • The distinctive feature distinguishes the marked member of the opposition from the unmarked one: table : : tables

Types of Oppositions • the number of constituents - binary - ternary - multi-element ones • relations between constituents 1. privative oppositions read : : is read (binary); 2. equipollent oppositions (равноценные) - both elements are marked went : : go : : shall go (ternary), man : : woman; 3. gradual oppositions fine – finer – the finest (ternary); black : : grey : : dim : : vague : : clear : : bright : : radiant : : white (multi-element), ! can be reduced to a binary privative opposition e. g. black : : white

Neutralization of oppositions • The distinction between the marked and unmarked elements • the unmarked element signifies what is meant by the marked element: • I hear that he came: : I have heard that he came. • Where have you been, what have you done, what brings you here

Neutralization of oppositions E. g. He left which shocked everybody : : He left and that shocked everybody (subordination : : coordination)

Application • all domains of linguistics • especially suitable for description of morphological categories • binary relations are especially evident on the morphological level, which better reflects the structural organisation of a particular language

Application • English morphology - common case : : genitive case - perfect : : non perfect - active : : passive etc

Application • Grammatical categories in English: at least 2 forms standing in opposition e. g. read : : is read (voice) read : : is reading (aspect) read : : has read (correlation, perfect) boy : : boys (number) boy : : boy’s (case) fine : : finer : : the finest (degrees of comparison)

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic Oppositions • E. g. paradigmatic oppositions on the lexico-semantic level: synonyms and antonyms which belong to the same semantic field e. g. dawn : : sunset; left: : right, etc. Semantic fields microfields Furniture: bedroom furniture : : office furniture

Syntagmatic oppositions • N. A. Shekhtman • studied semantic relations between semantically reduplicated words in a context: 1) synonyms: E. g. Please : : delight is a semantic reiteration based on the gradual semantic opposition. 2) antonyms: E. g. Her hideous face was unutterably beautiful with grief. 3) Words of absolutely different semantic fields: E. g. : How frail poems are in a world burning with flowers.

Application • to analyze linguistic facts paradigmatically and syntagmatically on all linguistic levels: • the phonological level voiced : : devoiced consonants

Application • the morphological level N in the singular : : N in the plural ( table: : tables); • the lexico-semantic level words are semantically opposed (man : : woman, singular: : plural)

Application • the syntactical level - one-member sentences : : two-member sentences - coordination (parataxis) : : subordination (hypotaxis), etc. .

The Distributional method • describes environments of linguistic units ( morphemes, words, phrases), representing them symbolically: N – noun, A– adjective, T – article, V – verb, D – adverb

Distribution • the total of all the environments in which an element can occur; • all occurrences can be symbolized: to make He makes me do it (NVNVto. N), He makes up for smth (Nvup for N), I make a present (NVTN), I make a bed (NVTN), etc.

The Distributional method • In each particular environment an element develops peculiar qualities. e. g. a morpheme modifies its qualities getting into various environments, variants - allomorphs: Phenomena, genii, teeth, children, tables, cats, brushes - concrete allomorphic representations of the morpheme of plurality; - abstract; unobservable deep structure

The Distributional method • morphemes standing in contrastive distribution jump : : jumped • uncontrastive distribution learnt : : learned • complementary distribution bed: : beds, house: : houses, child: : children, etc. (plural)

The Distributional method • In syntax they compare distributional formulas or coded structures i. e. the distribution of a verb, e. g. , can be represented by a set of distributional formulas (symbolic representations of concrete structures)

The Distributional method • Postulates to be observed: - if two or more distributional formulas are identical their meanings are identical; - if two or more distributional formulas are different their meanings are different.

The Distributional method (Weak points-deficiencies) • too formalized: one and the same distributional formula conceals different meanings: Semantically different structures I make a bed, I make a basket, I make a road, I make a promise → NVTN

The Distributional method (Weak points-deficiencies) • doesn’t reveal any difference between the structures Napoleon’s victory Napoleon’s defeat • semantically different

The Distributional method (Weak points-deficiencies) • Semantically different structures - John’s eager to please ( NVbe. AVto) - John’s easy to please (NVbe. AVto )-identically coded

The Distributional method (Weak points-deficiencies) • mechanistic, form-oriented, ignores meanings • ineffective when analyzing polysemy, homonymy, ambiguity, implicit syntactic relations, syncretism: E. g. The syntactico-semantic syncretism of the element greyly in the sentence The rain falls greyly remains unrevealed

The IC Method (method of immediate constituents) • Leonard Bloomfield (the head of American Descriptive Linguistics) • aims at describing any complex form ranging from long sentences to multi-element words in terms of their constituents

The IC Method (method of immediate constituents) • The form is divided into two parts, the remaining parts are also divided into parts until ultimate indivisible pieces are arrived at: un][gent]le][man][ly

The IC Method (method of immediate constituents) • The main requirement on the morphological level: - ultimate constituents (or at least one of them) recognizable as morphemes: book||let; let - a diminutive suffix • ham||let (a small village)

The IC Method • Proceeding from the intuition of a native speaker, L. Bloomfield analyzed the sentence Poor John ran away in the following way: Poor ][ John // ran ][ away

The IC Method • The main requirement of the method on the syntactical level: - ultimate constituents should be words

• • • The IC Method Common Abbreviations nominal phrase - NP the finite verb-phrase — VP noun - N and verb - V adverb – D Adjective – A Sentence – S Article - T Preposition – P Pronoun - I

Diagramming The IC Method • the candelabra division (1) Poor John ran away └-----┘ └--------┘ • the derivation tree division (2) S / NP VP / A N V D Poor John runs away

Diagramming The IC Method (weak points) S / NP VP / T N V D The rain falls greyly. The word greyly semantically refers to the noun rain, but the diagram doesn’t show it

The IC Method (Advantages & Disadvantages) • shows the derivation of a sentence, but • formalized, mechanistic • disregards meanings and can’t be employed to analyze polysemy, homonymy, ambiguity, implicit syntactic relations, syncretism

The Transformational Method • based on the following notions: • a kernel the simplest elementary subjectpredicate structure with explicit grammatical relations; • transformation : a process of rearranging elements in syntactic structures with meanings being kept unchanged;

The Transformational Method • transformation rules - addition (adding elements); - deletion (cutting elements out); - substitution (replacing one element by another one in the same position); - permutation (replacing elements: putting from the beginning into the end and vice versa) : John drank his beer => the beer was drunk by John; - recategorization (changing the category of an element: verbalization of a noun, nominalization of a verb, etc)

The Transformational Method • Postulates : 1. if two or more structures are transformed identically, their meanings are identical; 2. if two or more structures are transformed differently, their meanings are different.

The Transformational Method Application (I) • a broad sphere of application 1. clarify relations between structures; 2. reveal semantic similarities and differences between structures; 3. disambiguate ambiguous structures; 4. reveal covert information from implicit relations, etc.

The Transformational Method: Application (II) Transforming identical Genitives we reveal their internal differences: Napoleon’s victory => Napoleon won a victory over someone (subjective genitive). Napoleon’s defeat => Somebody has won the victory over Napoleon (objective Genitive). A Soldier’s uniform => a uniform habitually worn by a soldier (descriptive genitive). Children’s bedroom => the room for children (destination Genitive). John’s arrival => John arrives, John arrived, will arrive (temporal Genitive)

The Transformational Method Application (III) • disambiguate ambiguous structures: E. g. The King’s portrait => The King has a portrait of somebody. The King has a portrait of himself. The King has drawn a portrait of somebody. Somebody has a portrait of the king, etc.

The Transformational Method Application (IV) • interpret syntactic homonymy: Vanessa is impossible to help. => It is impossible to help Vanessa is anxious to help. => *It is anxious to help for Vanessa. John made her a present. => He made a present to her. John made her a star. => He made a star of her.

The Transformational Method Application (V) • more powerful→ reveals hidden implicit relations between the constituents of a sentence The rain falls greyly => the rain is falling and it is grey

Application (VI) • interpret double predicates: E. g. The moon rose red => the moon rose and it was red. Rose is an explicit predicate and is red is an implicit one. • describe a predicate of double orientation: E. g. He is said to have come he to have come - a Subjective with the infinitive construction, he - a subject; is said to have come - a predicate of double orientation as to have come refers to the subject and is said refers to a subject beyond the border of the sentence => they say that he has come

Application (VII) • analyze neutralization between coordination and subordination: E. g. He married early which surprised everybody => Him married early and that surprised everybody a complex sentence with an attributive clause is transformed into a compound sentence, the semantic difference between them being neutralized

Application (VIII) • analyze predicative constructions with infinitives, gerunds, participles A simple sentence carrying a predicative construction with a non-finite form of the verb can be analyzed into a complex sentence with a subordinate clause where the formerly non-finite form is presented as a finite form functioning as a simple verbal predicate: He heard music coming from the room inside => he heard that the music was coming from the room inside. He was happy with the whole universe to improve => he was happy because he was to improve the whole universe.

The Method of Deep and Surface Structures • N. Chomsky • the notions of deep and surface structures A surface structure A deep structure observable unobservable

Deep structures • a purely logical structure, underlying a surface structure; • revealed transformationally; • simple, subject- and- predicate structures, roughly comparable with kernels; • Underlying surface structures, they convey semantic relations which are deeply hidden.

The Method of Deep and Surface Structures Application • as large as that of the TM • One surface structure can be analyzed in terms of several deep structures to reveal explicit and implicit predicative lines: E. g. The invisible God has created the visible world => The God is invisible. The world is visible. The God created the world.

The Method of Deep and Surface Structures Application 1. identical structures, feeling their semantic differences E. g. John is eager to please => John pleases somebody; John is easy to please => Somebody pleases John;

The Method of Deep and Surface Structures Application 2. the nature of the double predicate E. g. The moon rose red => The moon rises. The moon is red. In the second transform the formerly implicit predicate red is made explicit

The Method of Deep and Surface Structures Application 3. the nature of the predicate of double orientation E. g. He is said to come => They say. He comes. We see that the two parts of this predicate refer to different subjects, one of which being beyond the borders of the sentence under analysis

The Method of Deep and Surface Structures Application 4. semantic and syntactic syncretism E. g. It is dark and raining => It is dark. It is raining. The former is - an explicit linkverb and the latter is - an implicit auxiliary, forming a continuous form

The Method of Deep and Surface Structures Application 5. the mechanism of ambiguity E. g. Flying planes can be dangerous => A plane flies. It is dangerous. I fly a plane. It is dangerous; The king’s portrait => The king has a portrait of somebody; The king has a portrait of himself; The King draws a portrait of somebody; Somebody draws a portrait of the king, etc.

The Functional Sentence Perspective Method (FSP) • The syntactic structure of a sentence is in part determined by the communicative function of its constituents, that is the FSP

FSP • dividing a sentenceсe into two sections: - the starting point of the statement (the theme); - the new information (the rheme) for whose sake the sentence has been uttered or written.

FSP • studies an objective distribution of information among the elements of the sentence, the actual division of a sentence (актуальное членение предложения) into theme and the rheme

FSP • The Greek terms “the theme” and “the rheme” • the earlier terms “the logical subject” and “the logical predicate” • to avoid wrong associations

FSP • "psychological subject" and "psychological predicate", proposed by the German scholar H. Paul • lies beyond the sphere of linguistic investigation

FSP • The terms "lexical subject" and "lexical predicate“Prof. A. Smirnitsky • take the whole problem out of the sphere of syntactic study and to include it into that of lexicology

FSP 1. the interrelations between the grammatical structure of a sentence and its functional organization, its communicative dynamism 2. the system of means to thematize and rhematize sentence elements 3. varieties of word order

The theme and The rheme • the first element of • a sentence, usually the subject; • carries thematic, i. e. • known, familiar information; • thematic • elements tend to the beginning of the sentence the final elements (predicates, objects, adverbial modifiers) carry rhematic, i. e. new or important information. the rhematic elements strive to the end

Communicative varieties of word order 1. thematic word order rendered by the model theme – transition – rheme John has written a letter

Communicative varieties of word order 2. rhematic non-emotive word order rheme – transition - theme A woman entered the room • The indefinite article is a signal of new information

Communicative varieties of word order 3. rhematic emotive word order rheme –transition – theme Strange his wife was to him • Normally the predicate and predicatives do not precede the subject, but if they do, they become rhematic

Means of Rhematisation • To rhematise the subject: 1. Put it in the final position by inversion E. g. Followed a complete silence. Dort komt eine Dame. 2. Turn an active construction into a passive one E. g. A letter was written by John. 3. Transform a simple sentence into a complex one with a complement clause E. g. It’s John who has written a letter.

The Componential Method • a logico-linguistic method of decomposing the semantic content of a word or a grammatical form into the smallest units of sense (semantic components, semantic markers, semes, or SCs) • Generative Semantics • the content sphere of language

A semantic component • the smallest indivisible unit of sense comparable to elementary particles in physics. e. g. “bachelor” - a human being - a male - maturity - in a state of being unmarried

A semantic component e. g. “to giggle” - an action - a female - young - a concrete emotional reaction associated with young females

The Componential Method not quite adequate by itself • superimposed upon other methods (the Transformational method and the contextual analysis) •

The Componential Method • semantic varieties of the genitive case: 1. Possessive Genitive e. g. Mary’s hat => Mary has a hat; 2. Subjective Genitive e. g. Napoleon’s victory =>Napoleon is a victor; 3. Objective Genitive (e. g. Napoleon’s defeat => Somebody has won a victory over Napoleon); 4. Genitive of Destination (e. g. The women’s magazine => The magazine is for women); 5. Ambiguous Genitive (can be interpreted as a Subjective or an Objective Genitive: e. g. A mother’s love)

The Contextual Method • Professors V. V. Vinogradov, I. V. Arnold, I. R. Galperin, N. Amosova, N. A. Шехтман, Palmer, M. Halliday

A context • an immediate environment of a linguistic unit, which actualizes, semantizes, desemantizes, hypersemantizes or disambiguates it

Types of Contexts • Distance between the elements distant immediate • Reference to reality linguistic contexts Extralinguistic (structure) (situational) phrasal sentential supraphrasal the context of discourse;

Types of Contexts • the character of constituents lexical lexico-semantic lexicogrammatical • length macrocontext microcontext

Semantic agreement/disagreement • based on logical agreement / disagreement • expresses itself in the presence or absence of similar semantic components in the contents of the words or forms combined or juxtaposed.

Semantic agreement/disagreement • Of semantic components between the semantic structures of the words combined • the semantic content of a word and that of its form

Conclusion on Methods of LA • None of the methods, taken isolatedly, is sufficient to produce an adequate linguistic analysis. • All the methods covered complement each other. Only a synthesis of them can result in a reliable analysis of linguistic units.