Lecture 1: The Scope of Theoretical Grammar PDF

БАНК ЛЕКЦИЙ ПО ДИСЦИПЛИНЕ «ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА» Макарова Н.П. LANGUAGE AS A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM Lecture 1 THE SCOPE OF THEORETICAL GRAMMAR 1. Theoretical grammar and its subject It is generally accepted that man as a human being occupies the upper stage in the evolution process. We proudly define...

БАНК ЛЕКЦИЙ ПО ДИСЦИПЛИНЕ «ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА» Макарова Н.П. LANGUAGE AS A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM Lecture 1 THE SCOPE OF THEORETICAL GRAMMAR 1. Theoretical grammar and its subject It is generally accepted that man as a human being occupies the upper stage in the evolution process. We proudly define ourselves as "homo sapiens" (man with wisdom) to set us apart from the rest of the animal world. The term Homo sapiens, however, is pretty confusing. For what do we mean by wisdom? It has not been proved so far that animals do not possess it. Those of you who have pets can easily prove the contrary. Most recently anthropologists have started defining human beings as "man the toolmaker". However, apes can also make primitive tools. What sets man apart from the rest of animal kingdom is his ability to speak: he is "Homo loquens" — "man the speaking animal". And again, you can easily object by saying that animals can also speak, naturally, in their own way. We know, for example, that many birds sing partly to establish a territory; that honey bees tell others in their hive where sources of food are located; that the calls of least some primates are in part learned and not wholly "instinctive". Generally speaking, however, their sounds are meaningless in the sense that there is no link between sound and meaning (or if there is, it is of a very primitive kind). At the same time the link for man is grammar. Only with the help of grammar we can combine words to form sentences and texts. Therefore, we can say that man is not merely Homo loquens, he is Homo Grammaticus, because grammar in the widest sense is what makes us human. Human language is, of course, uniquely human. Besides, more than anything else, grammar is what makes us human. Linguistics, the discipline that studies the grammatical structure, function and phenomena of language, has uncovered many surprising and fascinating things about the nature of our human language faculty (faculty — a natural power of the mind or body, e.g. the faculty of hearing). Human beings have probably been speaking for as long as we have existed, but it was only around 3,000 years ago than people began to be curious about the language and to start examining it. This happened independently in two places — India and Greece. However, even though the Indian tradition was much the more sophisticated of the two, it was the Greeks who founded the European grammar tradition. The term "grammar" goes back to a Greek word that may be translated as the "art of writing". But later this word acquired a much wider sense and came to embrace the whole study of language. Now it is often used as the synonym of linguistics. A question comes immediately to mind: what does this study involve? 2. The scope of linguistics What is grammar after all? We can see this point more clearly if we look briefly at the idea of communication. Men have for centuries been interested in the language they speak but only in recent years have they attempted to examine it in an objective or "scientific" way. Some scholars, in their resort to look at language without prejudice and preconception (preconception — an opinion formed in advance without actual knowledge), begin with the statement that language is a communication system and as such can and must be compared with other communication systems. Some systems of this kind are those used by animals. The gibbons, for instance, have at least nine different calls. The bees have a complicated system of dances to indicate the direction and the distance. Other systems are mechanical; traffic lights, for instance, use three different colours. All of these seem to have something in common with language — they all have something to communicate and they all have their own ways of communicating it. Can we say that these communication systems have grammars? The main difference here is the enormous complexity of language, and it is within this complexity that we must look for grammar. A gibbon call has merely a meaning such as "danger" or "food"; the traffic lights can only signal "stop" 1 and "go". But the possible sentences of English with all the possible meanings are infinite in number. We do not learn the meaning of each of afi these countless sentences separately. This is shown by the fact that many of the sentences we produce are new, in the sense that they are not identical with the sentences that we have produced or heard before, yet we understand their meanings. There is a highly complex system in their construction and this complex system differs from language to language — that is why languages are different. Within this system there is a complex set of relations that link the symbols of the language with the "meanings", the message they have to convey. In the widest sense grammar IS that complex set of relations. According to a recent definition, grammar is "a device that specifies the infinite set of well-formed sentences and assigns to each of them one or more structural descriptions". That is to say it tells us just what all possible sentences of a language are and provides a description of them. This is no small task, but one that is well worthy of human study. There are three characteristics of language that are important for the understanding of the nature of grammar: it is complex, productive and arbitrary (uncontrolled and used without considering our wishes). That language is highly complex is shown by the fact that up to now it has not proved possible to translate mechanically from one language to another, with really satisfactory results. There are a lot of funny stories of computer translation "masterpieces", for instance "out of sight, out of mind" was once translated as "invisible idiot". Anyway, the fault lies not in the computer but in the failure to provide it with sufficiently accurate instructions, because we are still unable to handle this complex system. Secondly, language is productive. We can produce myriads of sentences that we have never heard or uttered before. More strikingly, if I produce a sentence with completely new words, e.g. Lishespibs and assure you that this is a real English sentence you will be able to produce the whole set of other sentences based upon it, e.g. Pibs are popped by lishes, etc. It is clear that we have some kind of sentence producing mechanism. One task of grammatical theory is to explain this remarkable fact. Thirdly, language is arbitrary. There is no one-to-one relation between sound and meaning. The forms of linguistic units bear no natural resemblance to their meaning. The link between them is a matter of convention, and conventions differ radically across languages. Thus, the English word "dog" happens to denote a particular four-footed domesticated creature, the same creature that is denoted in Ukrainian by the completely different form. Neither form looks like a dog, or sounds like one. This accounts for the fact that languages differ. There is another explanation to the fact why languages differ. It is based on the Bible. Names given to things and objects have for many centuries been defined as names for pre-existing categories. The following is a quotation from the Authorized Version of the Book of Genesis, in which Adam, who is still the only human being in the Garden of Eden, assigns names to other species with which he shares it: And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. This is one passage that for many centuries lay in the centre of linguistic thought in Christian Europe. Another was the story later in the same book of the Towel of Babel. The naming by Adam explained the origin of language, as a way of labeling things around us. The second story explained why, as we know it, "the whole earth" is not still "of one language, and of one speech" For, to curb mankind, God has to "confound" it (11:1-9). When we discuss grammar, however, we do assume that many characteristics of the language are shared. For this reason we talk of "nouns", of "verbs", of "gender" and other such grammatical notions and categories. Grammar may be practical and theoretical. The aim of practical grammar is the description of grammar rules that are necessary to understand and formulate sentences. The aim of theoretical 2 grammar is to offer explanation for these rules. Generally speaking, theoretical grammar deals with the language as a complex functional system. Lecture.2 BASIC NOTIONS OF MODERN LINGUISTICS J. General principles of grammatical analysis Linguistic units (or in other words — signs) can go into three types of relations: a) The relation between a unit and an object in the world around us (objective reality). E.g. the word "table" refers to a definite piece of furniture. It may be not only an object but a process, state, quality, etc. b) This type of meaning is called referential meaning of a unit. It is semantics that studies the referential meaning of units. c) The relation between a unit and other units (inner relations between units). No unit can be used independently; it serves as an element in the system of other units. This kind of meaning is called syntactic. Formal relation of units to one another is studied by syntactics (or syntax). d) The relation between a unit and a person who uses it. As we know too well, when we are saying something, we usually have some purpose in mind. We use the language as an instrument for our purpose. One and the same word or sentence may acquire different meanings in communication. This type of meaning is called pragmatic. The study of the relationship between linguistic units and the users of those units is done by pragmatics. Summing it up, we can say that there are three models of linguistic description: semantic, syntactic and pragmatic. The first part of the 20th century can be characterized by a formal structural approach to the language study. Only inner (syntactic) relations between linguistic units served the basis for linguistic analysis while the reference of words to the objective reality and language users were, in fact, not considered. The term "structural linguist", in use from 1930s, refers especially to linguists who explicitly followed F. de Saussure. This approach called structuralism, however, served the basis for modern linguistics. Later, semantic language analysis, which focused on the meanings words and sentences can convey, came into use. However, it was surely not enough for a detailed language study. Language certainly figures centrally in our lives. We discover our identity as individuals and social beings when we acquire it during childhood. It serves as a means of cognition and communication: it enables us to think for ourselves and to cooperate with other people in our community. Therefore, the pragmatic side of the language should not be ignored either. Functional approach in language analysis deals with the language "in action". A functionalist approach attaches little attention to determining precisely what is or is not grammatical. Instead, it focuses on the needs of speakers. Naturally, in order to get a broad description of the language, all these approaches must be combined. 2. A short outline ofV.de Saussure's theory of language 3 If any person is to be called the founder of modern linguistics it is the great Swiss scholar, Ferdinand de Saussure, whose lectures were published in 1915. Before F. de Saussure, most linguists took an atomistic approach to language structure. That is, they treated a language as primarily a collection of objects, such as speech sounds, words and grammatical endings. F. de Saussure's idea was that a language should be best regarded as a structured system of elements, in which the place of each element is defined chiefly by how it relates to other elements. Modern linguistic analysis is practically impossible without such notions as "system and structure", "language" and "speech", syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations, synchronic and diachronic approaches in language study. F.de Saussures main ideas are as follows: • Language is understood as a system of signals (linguistic signs), interconnected and interdependent. It is this network of interdependent elements that forms the object of linguistics as an independent science. • Language as a system of signals may be compared to other systems of signals, such as writing, alphabets for the deaf-and-dumb, military signals, symbolic rites, forms of courtesy, etc. Thus, language becomes the object of a more general science — semiotics — that studies different systems of signals used in human societies. • Language has two aspects: the system of language (French: langue) and the manifestation of this system in social intercourse — speech (French: parole). The system of language is a body of linguistic units — sounds, affixes, words, grammar rules and rules of lexical series. The system of language enables us to speak and to be understood since it is known to all members of a speech community. Speech is the total of our utterances and texts. It is based on the system of language, and it gives the linguist the possibility of studying the system. Speech is the linear (syntagmatic) aspect of languages, the system of language is its paradigmatic ("associative" as F.de Saussure called it) aspect. He illustrated his theory of the associative (paradigmatic) series of the system of language by the following diagram (example here is taken from the English language): educate form meaning verb formation – ate noun formation - ate education instruct relate debate educates teach locate prelate educated enlighten translate conglomerate etc. etc. etc. etc. • The linguistic sign is bilateral, i.e. it has both form and meaning. We understand the meaning of the linguistic sign as reflecting the elements (objects, events, situations) of the outside world. • The linguistic sign is "absolutely arbitrary" and "relatively motivated". It means that there is nothing obligatory in the relation of a phonological form to the object it denotes (according to the nature of the object). This fact becomes evident when we compare the names of the same objects in different languages, for example: English: French: Ukrainian: ox boeuf бик hand main рука winter hiver зима The "relative motivation" means that the linguistic sign taken in the system of language reveals connections with other linguistic signs in the system both in form and meaning. These connections are different in different languages and show the difference of "the segmentation of the picture of the world" — difference in the division of one and the same objective reality into parts reflected in the minds of different people. For example: English: arrow — shoot apple — apple-tree Ukrainian: стрiла – стрiляти яблуко — яблуня 4 • Language is to be studied as a system in the "synchronic" plane, i.e. at a given moment of its existence, in the plane of simultaneous coexistence of elements. We understand the synchronic plane as a given moment (of more or less longer duration) of the historical development of the language studied. • The system of language is to be studied on the basis of the oppositions of its concrete units. The linguistic elements (units) can be found by means of segmenting the flow of speech and comparing the isolated elements. For example, in "the strength of the wind" and in "to collect one's strength" we recognize one and the same unit "strength" in accord with its meaning and its form; but in "on the strength of this decision" the meaning is not the same and we recognize a different linguistic unit. 3. Notions of "system" and "structure". General characteristics of linguistic units Language is regarded as a system of elements (or: signs, units) such as sounds, words, etc. These elements have no value without each other, they depend on each other, they exist only in a system, and they are nothing without a system. System implies the characterization of a complex object as made up of separate parts (e.g. the system of sounds). Language is a structural system. Structure means hierarchical layering of parts in constituting the whole. In the structure of language there are four main structural levels: phonological, morphological, syntactical and supersyntatical. The levels are represented by the corresponding level units: The phonological level is the lowest level. The phonological level unit: is the phoneme. It is a distinctive unit {bag — back). The morphological level has two level units: a) the morpheme — the lowest meaningful unit (teach — teacher); b) the word — the main naming ('nominative) unit of language. The syntactical level has two level units as well: a) the word-group — the dependent syntactic unit; b) the sentence — the main communicative unit. The supersyntactical level has the text as its level unit. All structural levels are subject matters of different levels of linguistic analysis. At different levels of analysis we focus attention on different features of language. Generally speaking, the larger the units we deal with, the closer we get to the actuality of people's experience of language. To sum it up, each level has its own system. Therefore, language is regarded as a system of systems. The level units are built up in the same way and that is why the units of a lower level serve the building material for the units of a higher level. This similarity and likeness of organization of linguistic units is called isomorphism. This is how language works — a small number of elements at one level can enter into thousands of different combinations to form units at the other level. We have arrived at the conclusion that the notions of system and structure are not synonyms — any system has its own structure (compare: the system of Ukrainian education vs. the structure of Ukrainian education; army organization). Linguistic units represent bilateral elements possessing both a directly observable material structure and directly unobservable content or meaning: a linguistic unit has a particular form and a particular meaning. It follows that any linguistic unit is a double entity, or in other words, it has two aspects. It unites a concept (meaning) and a sound image (form). The two elements are intimately united and each recalls the other. Accordingly, we distinguish the content side and the expression side: [CONTENT SIDE] LINGUISTIC UNIT [EXPRESSION SIDE] 5 4. Language and speech Language is a collective body of knowledge, it is a set of basic elements, but these elements can form a great variety of combinations. In fact the number of these combinations is endless. Speech is closely connected with language, as it is the result of using the language, the result of a definite act of speaking. Speech is individual, personal while language is common for all individuals. To illustrate the difference between language and speech let us compare a set of rules how to play chess and a definite game of chess. Language is opposed to speech and accordingly language units are opposed to speech units. The language unit phoneme is opposed to the speech unit — sound: phoneme /s/ can sound differently in speech — /s/ and Iг!). The sentence is opposed to the utterance, the text is opposed to the discourse. 5. Systemic relations in language. Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic relations A linguistic unit can enter into relations of two different kinds. It enters into paradigmatic relations with all the units that can also occur in the same environment. PR are relations based on the principles of similarity, they are associative and unite similar units on one paradigmatic axis to form a paradigm or a set in which units relate to each other by association with some distinctive feature, or category, or a kind of relationship common to all members of such a paradigmatic set. They exist between the units that can substitute one another. For instance, in the word-group A PINT OF MILK the word PINT is in paradigmatic relations with the words bottle, cup, etc. The article A can enter into PR with the units the, this, one, same, etc. According to different principles of association or similarity PR can be of three types: semantic, formal and functional. a) Semantic PR are based on the similarity of meaning: a book to read = a book for reading. He used to practice English every day — He would practice English every day. b) Formal PR are based on the similarity of forms. Such relations exist between the members of a paradigm: man — men; play — played — will play — is playing. c) Functional PR are based on the similarity of function. They are established between the elements that can occur in the same position. For instance, noun determiners: a, the, this, his, Ann's, some, each, etc. PR are associated with the sphere of "language". A linguistic unit enters into syntagmatic relations with other units of the same level it occurs with. SR exist at every language level. E.g. in the word-group A PINT OF MILK the word PINT contrasts SR with A, OF, MILK; within the word PINT — P, I, N and T are in syntagmatic relations. SR are linear relations, that is why they are manifested in speech. Thus syntagmatic relations expose linear relationships of dissimilar units following each other in the syntagmatic chain. Such relations are obvious, seen on the surface, one can observe them in speech or a text and generalize them on the basis of common knowledge of the under study. Syntagmatic relations can be of three different types: coordinate, subordinate and predicative. a) Coordinate syntagmatic relations exist between the homogeneous linguistic units that are equal in rank, that is, they are the relations of independence: you and me; They were tired but happy. b) Subordinate syntagmatic rel ations are the relations of dependence when one linguistic unit depends on the other: teach + er — the morphological level; a smart student — the wordgroup level; predicative and subordinate clauses — the sentence level. c) Predicative syntagmatic relations are the relations of interdependence, they exist in primary and secondary predication. Primary predication is established between the subject and predicate of the sentence while secondary predication exists between any non-finite form of the verb in combination with a nominal element expressed by either a noun or a pronoun 6 (e.g. J saw John running). As mentioned above, SR may be observed in utterances, which is impossible when we deal with PR. Therefore, PR are identified with "language" while SR are identified with "speech". 6. Synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of language According to R de Saussure, linguistics has two main branches: one "synchronic" ("simultaneous in time") the other "diachronic" ("through time')- A. famous analogy provided by E de Saussure compares the history of a language with the progress of a game of chess. To study it synchronically is to describe the pieces on the board at any moments between moves. To study it diachronically is to say how they have reached these positions. Thus a linguistic analysis may be performed in two directions: if we focus on the structure of a language at a particular moment in time (not ; necessarily the present), we apply a synchronic approach, while using a diachronic approach we look at the development of a language over time, how a language has changed over some period of time. Most work in historical linguistics is diachronic in nature, but not all of it: a linguist might well be interested in constructing a purely synchronic description of, say, the Old English of King Alfred's day, without considering how a language has developed from an earlier form or what happened to it later. Lecture 3 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LANGUAGE 1. Language as a semiotic system Any human language has two main functions: the communicative function and the expressive or representative function — human language is the living form of thought. These two functions are closely interrelated as the expressive function of language is realized in the process of speech communication. The expressive function of language is performed by means of linguistic signs and that is why we say that language is a semiotic system. It means that linguistic signs are of semiotic nature: they are informative and meaningful. Besides, they constitute a structural system of signs. There are other examples of structural semiotic systems but all of them are no doubt much simpler. For instance, traffic lights use a system of colors to instruct drivers and people to go or to stop. Some more examples: Code Morse, Brighton Alphabet, computer languages, etc. What is the difference between language as a semiotic system and other semiotic systems? Language is universal, natural; it is used by all members of society while any other sign systems are artificial and depend on the sphere of usage. Linguistics, however, provided the model of analyzing other non-linguistic semiotic systems like symphonies or architecture and a lot more. 2. Language as a social phenomenon. Language functions The essential nature of language is cognitive. It is seen as a psychological phenomenon: what is of primary interest is what the form of the language reveals about the human mind. However, this is not the only perspective and not the only aspect of language that states the fact that language is preeminently human. For although language may indeed be a kind of cognitive construct, it is not only that. It also functions as a means of communication and social control. True, it is stored in the mind as abstract knowledge, but to make it possible it must also be experienced in the external world as actual behavior. Another way of looking at language, therefore, would be to see it in terms of the social function it serves. What is particularly striking about the language from this point of view is the way it is fashioned as systems of signs to meet the cultural and communal needs of human societies. The focus of attention in this case is on the language as s system of signs, which are 7 socially motivated or informed in what these signs have been developed to express social meanings. Functions of language may be regarded through various purposes to which language may be put. As it was mentioned above, the main function of language is communication, but things are more complicated than that. Language serves a number of functions, only some of which can reasonably be regarded as communicative. Here are some of the functions of language which we can distinguish: 1. We pass on factual information to other people. 2. We try to persuade other people to do something. 3. We entertain ourselves and other people. 4. We express our membership in a particular group. 5. We express our individuality. 6. We express our moods and emotions. 7. We maintain good (or bad) relations with other people. 8. We construct mental representations of the world. There is one more function that is worth mentioning here — playful (or "ludic") function of language. According to the linguist David Crystal, ' the ludic function of language is quite important for our appreciation of language as a whole. He explains it by the fact that we play with language when we manipulate it as a source of enjoyment, either for ourselves or for the benefit of others: we take some linguistic unit or feature and make it do things it does not normally do. We are, in effect, bending and breaking the rules of the language. And if someone were to ask why we do it, the answer is simple: for fun. All of these functions are important, and it is difficult to argue that some of them are more important, or more primary, than others. For example, studies of conversations in pubs and bars have revealed that very little information is typically exchanged on these occasions and that the social functions are much more prominent. Of course, a university lecture or a newspaper story will typically be very different. It can be conceded that other animals also use signs to communicate with each other and to establish their communities. But the structure of these communities is simple in comparison with human ones and their signs are hardly comparable to the subtleties of semiotic systems that have been developed in language to serve the complex social organization and communicative requirements of human communal life. With this social view of language there is a concern for explanation. Why is human language as it is? The answer is that it has evolved not with the biological evolution of the species but with the socio-cultural evolution of human communities. Thus, one requirement of language is that it should provide the means for people to act upon their environment, for one individual to cope with another individual reality of events and entities "out there", to organize it and so bring it under control by a process of what is called a conceptual projection. In other words, language has to have an ideational function. Another necessity is for language to provide a means for people to interact with each other, for the first person to cope with the second person, to establish a basis for cooperative action and social relations: so language needs to discharge an interpersonal function as well. So language can be seen as distinctive because of its intricate association with the human mind and human society. It is related to both cognition and communication, it is both abstract knowledge and actual behavior. 3. General characteristics of the grammatical structure of language The grammatical structure of language is a system of means used to turn linguistic units into communicative ones, in other words — the units of language into the units of speech. Such means are inflexions, affixation, word order, function words and phonological means. Generally speaking, Indo-European languages are classified into two structural types — synthetic and analytic. Synthetic languages are defined as the ones of "internal" grammar of the word — most of 8 grammatical meanings and grammatical relations of words are expressed with the help of inflexions (Ukrainian, Russian, Latin, etc). Analytical languages are those of "external" grammar because most grammatical meanings and grammatical forms are expressed with the help of words {will do). However, we cannot speak of languages as purely synthetic or analytic — the English language (Modern English) possesses analytical forms as prevailing, while in the Ukrainian language synthetic devices are dominant. In the process of time English has become more analytical as compared to Old English. Analytical changes in Modern English (especially American) are still under way. 4. Morphology and syntax as two parts of linguistic description Given a piece of language, we can, obviously enough, describe it in different ways, at different levels of analysis. A word can be taken as a combination of letters, sounds or morphemes, a constituent of a sentence, or an isolated unit of meaning like a dictionary entry. The analysis of language can be adjusted to focus on different things, and this calls for a degree of detachment. With language, it is not always easy to achieve since our natural inclination is to engage with language and interpret it, rather than treat it as data to be analysed. As the word is considered the main unit of traditional grammatical theory, it serves the basis of the distinction that is frequently drawn between morphology and syntax. Morphology deals with morphemes., the internal structure of words, peculiarities of their grammatical categories and their semantics while traditional syntax deals with the rules governing combination of words in sentences (and texts in modern linguistics). We can therefore say that the word is the main unit of morphology. MORPHOLOGY LECTURE 4 THE MORPHEME 1. General characteristics of morphemes The meaning of words can be defined in terms of syllables or the pattern of vowels and consonants they display. The word "parson", for example, has two syllables. So has the word "parting". In syllabic structure they are alike. But we cannot divide the second word in another way as well. There is an independent lexical item "part" in English and "-ing" can be attached to the end of innumerable other words — meeting, passAmg, departAmg» depressing, to give just a few examples. So we might propose that the word is made up of two elements of meaning, or morphemes, part and -ing the first of which is independent, or free, and the second dependent, or bound. We may consider dismantling the word "parson" in the same way. There are, after all, words which start with the same sequence of letters par: "parcel", "parking" "particle", and so on. However, "par" does not signal anything semantically in common, and -eel, -king and -tide do not seem to attach themselves as bound morphemes to any other words in English. We might try another division of the word and propose the morphological structureparsAo«therebyinvolving the analogy with words like "parsimony,;; "parsley", "parsnip", but we would be no better off, since we cannot assign pars-, -imony, -ley or -nip any morphemic status either. It seems clear, then, that the syllable as a unit of sound has, in of meaning. The word "parson" has two syllables, but consists of only one morpheme while the word "parting" has two syllables and two morphemes. The morpheme can be described as a minimal unit of grammatical analysis — the units of the lower level out of which words, the units of the next level, are composed. The morpheme is the unit of the morphological level which can be defined as an abstract element of meaning. In other words, it is 9 a minimal meaningful unit. As all other language units morphemes are twofold signs which have the plane of content and the plane of expression. As meaningful units morphemes may have a definite meaning:lexical(teachAer,partAing,unAlikeAable),grammatical(writeAs, crossAing, playAed), lexicalgrammatical (singAer, happiAness, loveAly). Within word forms morphemes serve as lexical, grammatical and word-building markers. In accordance with these functions, morphemes are defined as lexical, grammatical and word-building. A lexical morpheme is the invariant component of all word forms, a grammatical morpheme is the variant component in the morphological paradigm of word forms, and a word-building morpheme is the variant component in the lexicological pattern of word forms. In the hierarchy of meaningful language units including the word, the word-group, the sentence and the text, the morpheme can be described as the minimal and indivisible unit: it cannot be segmented further without losing its constitutive essence, that is, the meaning of a definite form. For example, the morpheme -ed cannot be segmented into smaller meaningful units as the phonemes e and d possess no meaning. Unlike a word, the morpheme is not an autonomous unit, it occurs in speech only as a constituent of the word. Therefore, we can define the morpheme as the minimal indivisible meaningful unit which Participates in the formation of the word and regularly occurs in other words. 2. The morpheme as a language unit and its speech variants — morphs and allomorphs The morpheme is a language unit which is realized in speech as the mot ph. Morphs are the smallest meaningful successions of phonemes into which words are broken up. For example, in the words paint, paintAs, paintAed, paintAing, paintAer the morphs are paint, -s, -ed, -ing, -er. If different morphs are the variants of the same morpheme, they are called allomorphs of the morpheme, in other words allomorphs manifest in speech the same morpheme. Allornorphs can be additive (lookAed, smallAer) which are outer grammatical suffixes, since, as a rule, they are opposed to the absence of morphemes in grammatical alteration. The root phonemes of grammatical interchange are defined as replacive allomorphs (men, stood, feet). iUloniorphs can be phonemically conditioned, for example, /s/, /z/, /iz/ are the allomorphs of the plural morpheme (books, boys, boxes). Similarly, /id/, /d/, III are the allomorphs for the past tense morpheme. These allomorphs are r5aid to be in complementary distribution — complementary distribution takes place when two variants do not occur in the same environment. Alloniorphs can also be morphemicaily conditioned as -en in the words "oxen", "children". The morpheme may be represented by only one morph, or may have a zero realization called a zero morpheme (sheep, out, put). Amalgamated allomorphs are distinguished on the basis of realizing different meanings simultaneously: boys", cats' — plural + genitive case). Phonemically and morphemicaily conditioned allomorphs are singled out on the basis of distributional analysis. There exist three main types of distribution: • Non-constrastive (learnt, learned) — meanings or functions are the same; • Contrastive ('export, ex'port) — meanings or functions are different; • Complementary (illiterate, irrelevant, nmurnerous, impossible) — different environments of formally different morphs which are united by the same meaning or function. Thus, the morpheme is a kind of abstraction, it is the notion of the sphere of language (paradigmatics) while morphs are their speech realizations which regularly occur in different utterances and belong to the sphere of speech (syntagmatics). The morpheme as a set of morphs may be represented by their variants — allomorphs. 3. Classification of morphemes 10 The morpheme may be characterized by its semantics, form and distribution (the correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the word). According to their semantics, morphemes can be classified into lexical (roots), grammatical (inflections), lexical-grammatical (affixes). The root expresses the concrete, "material" part of the word meaning. It is of an obligatory character as there are no words without roots. The root is the common lexical element of words within a word family: formate, formative, formatively, formation, formational, formalistic, formality. The notion of "root" should not be confused with the notion of "stem" s the stem is the part of the word which remains unchanged throughout ts paradigm, e.g. singer, singer s, singers, singers'. English permits the addition of meaningful dependent elements both efore and after the root: these are called affixes. Affixes which precede he root are prefixes; those that follow it are suffixes. Prefixes in English have a purely lexical role, allowing the construction « a large number of new words: un-, de-, anti-, super-, etc.: unhelpful, defrost, antisocial, superstructure. Suffixes in English are of two kinds. Most are purely lexical, their primary function being to change the meaning of the root form: examples of these derivational suffixes include -ness, -ship, able: happiness, friendship, workable. A few are purely grammatical, their role being to show how the word must be used in a sentence: examples here include plural -s, past tense -ed, and comparative -er. Elements of this second type, which have no lexical meaning, are the inflectional suffixes of the language. According to the form, morphemes can be classified into free, bound and semibound. A free morpheme is defined as one that in the form of one-morpheme word can function independently, e.g. box, dark. The characteristic feature of the English language is that in the majority of simple words, or one-morpheme words, the form of the stem, root and the word is one and the same (desk, work, pet, etc.). A bound morpheme functions only as a constituent part of the word. Prefixes and suffixes are bound morphemes for they always make part of a word.' Unlike the free morpheme, the bound morpheme has no meaning in itself: it acquires its meaning only in combination with the free morpheme. Semi-bound morphemes are those that can function in the analytical form both as a part of this form and as a free morpheme. For example, the morpheme "will" occurs as a free morpheme in the context that makes its identity clear as in He will do it tomorrow — I know he will, and as a bound morpheme as in He will come, being the immediate constituent of the semantic and functional unit. On the basis of formal presentation, overt and covert morphem&s.. are distinguished. The overt morphemes are those expressed explicitly^ they build the words; the covert morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence the morpheme expressing a certain function (deer — deer). On the basis of linear characteristics, continuous (linear) and discontinuous morphemes are distinguished. Discontinuous morphemes can be found in grammatical units which consist of an auxiliary word and a grammatical suffix, for example: be ... ing — for the continuous forms have... en — for the perfect forms be ... en — for the passive forms On the basis of linear characteristics, continuous (linear) and discontinuous morphemes are distinguished. Discontinuous morphemes can be found in grammatical units which consist of an auxiliary word and a grammatical suffix, for example: be ... ing — for the continuous forms have... en — for the perfect forms be ... en — for the passive forms LECTURE 5 THE WORD AS THE CENTRAL UNIT OF LANGUAGE 11 1. The problem of word definition The Bible says: "In the beginning was the Word". In fact, the word is considered to be the central (though not the only) linguistic unit of language. The word is so much a part of everyday knowledge that it is taken for granted. Grammar books often make no attempt to give a definition of the word though they happily define other grammatical units in terms of it. The sentence, for instance, is a "combination of words" and the parts of speech are "classes of words". But what a word is and how it can be defined is often not considered. The chief reason for this is that in the written language there is no doubt at all about the status of the word because words are clearly identified by spaces between them. In the spoken language, however, the problem cannot be solved this way. If we listen to an unfamiliar language, we find it difficult to divide up the speech into single words. Therefore, it is very difficult to arrive at an adequate definition of such a complex linguistic unit as the word. There are tree approaches to this problem. The first is to see the word as a semantic unit, a unit of meaning; the second sees it as a marked phonological unit; the third is associated with the idea that the word is an indivisible unit. Let us begin by looking at semantic definition of the word. One well-known definition of the word runs as follows: "A word may be defined as a unit of a particular meaning with a particular complex of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment". It follows that the word is said to be a linguistic unit that has a single meaning. Sometimes, however, it is impossible to produce a meaning division. Examples here are numerous: we cannot divide heavy smoker into heavy and smoker orsimilarly, criminal lawyer; or the King of England's hat. Clearly as far as the meaning is concerned the word is not a single unit. A phonological criterion also sometimes fails as it does not always work, properly. Let us compare the following: that stuff a nice cake grey day that's tough an ice cake Grade A It is hard to distinguish the real meaning of these units without a proper context. There are similar difficulties with any definition of the word as an indivisible unit. The great American linguist Leonard Bloornfield defined a word as a "minimum free form". What he meant was the smallest unit of speech that can occur in isolation. However, many words would not occur by themselves in any natural conversation. Such words as a or the can hardly be found in isolation. Sometimes the word is simply defined as a linguistic unit larger than a morpheme but smaller than a phrase. In this case words can be defined in at least four different ways, and these ways are not equivalent at all. « An orthographic word is something written with white spaces at both ends but no white space in the middle. Orthographic words are of minimal linguistic interest. <> A phonological word is something pronounced as a single unit. «> A lexical item, or lexeme, is a dictionary word, an item which we would expect to find having its own entry in a dictionary. A grammatical word-form (GWF) (or morphosyntactic word) is any one of the several forms which a lexical item may assume for grammatical purposes. Let us look at some examples. The item fee cream is two orthographic words, but a single phonological word (it is pronounced as a unit), a single lexical item (it has its own entry in a dictionary) and a single GWF (indeed, it hardly has another form unless you think the plural ice cream is good English). The singular dog and the plural dogs are each a single orthographic word, a single phonological word, and a single GWF, but they both represent the same lexical item (they would get only one 12 entry in the dictionary). The same is true of take, takes, took, taken and is taking: five orthographic words, five phonological words, five GWFs (at least), but only one lexical item. The contraction hasn't is a single orthographic word and a single phonological word but it presents two lexical items (have and not), and two GWFs (has and not). The phrasal verb make up (as in She made up her face) is two orthographic words, two phonological words, but only one lexical item (because of its unpredictable meaning, it must be entered separately in the dictionary). And it has several GWFs: make up, makes up, made up, making up. The very different sense of make up illustrated by She made up a story would be regarded by most linguists as a different lexical item from the preceding one (a separate dictionary entry is required), but this lexical item exhibits the same orthographic, phonological and grammatical forms as the first. Consequently, when we are talking about words, it is essentia! to specify exactly which sense we have in mind, and it may be preferable to use one of the more specific labels. Therefore, we have to admit that the word is not a clearly definable linguistic unit. For the sake of linguistic description, we will proceed from the statement that the word is a meaningful unit differentiating word-groups at the upper level and integrating morphemes at the lower level. It is the main expressive unit of human language, which ensuresthe thought-forming function of language. It is also the basic nominative unit of language with the help of which the naming function of language is realized. As any linguistic sign the word is a level unit. In the structure of language it belongs to the upper stage of the morphological level. It is a unit of the sphere of "language" and it exists only through its speech actualization. One of the most characteristic features of the word is its indivisibility. As any other linguistic unit the word is a bilateral entity. It unites a concept and a sound image and thus has two sides — the content and expression sides: WORD = concept -------------------------sound image 2. The word as the carrier of grammatical meaning. The notion of the word-form When we speak of the word as a grammatical imit, we abstract ourselves from its lexical meaning and concentrate on the kind of grammatical information it carries. The term "word-form" is more convenient in this case than "word" because it shows that it is a carrier of grammatical information, for example, the word-form speaks shows the present tense third person singular. It can be identified in such a way exclusively due to the existence of opposed forms, such as speak, spoke, is speaking, etc. contrasted to speaks in different distinctive features (or grammatical meaning). Here the relational property of grammatical meaning is revealed. The lexical meaning of the word is irrelevant for the detection of the type of the word-form. A word-form may be analytical by structure, which means that it consists of more than one word (e.g. has spoken); an analytical word-form is equivalent to one word on the rank scale as it expresses one unified content of a word, both from the point of view of grammatical and lexical meaning. Words (as well as morphemes) are directly observable units by nature as they are characterized by a definite material structure of their own. They can be registered and enumerated in any language, however complicated the system of form-building might be in a language. Therefore the system of morphological units is a closed system in that all its items are on the surface and can be embraced in an inventory of forms. Every word is a unit of grammar as a part of speech. Parts of speech are usually considered a lexico-grammatical category since, on the one hand, they show lexical groupings of words; on the other, these groupings present generalized classes, each with a unified, abstract meaning of its own. 13 The latter makes word-classes a grammatical notion since wide-range abstraction is characteristic of grammar. Each part of speech, as a generalized word-class possesses a certain valency, i.e. inner potential to combine with other word-classes in linear order in actual speech. In accordance with this potency words make combinations (word-groups) which present the next unit of the next level in the structure of language. LECTURE 6 GRAMMATICAL MEANING OF THE WORD I. The notion of ''grammatical meaning" Notional words combine in their semantic structure two meanings—lexical and grammatical. Lexical meaning is the individual meaning of the word; for instance, a lexical meaning of the word table may in short be defined as a definite piece of furniture with aflat top supported by one or more upright legs, an individual lexical meaning of the word speak is defined in the dictionary as expressing thoughts aloud, using the voice. Grammatical meaning is not individual, it is the meaning of the whole class or a subclass. For example, the class of nouns has the grammatical meaning of thingness. If we take, for example, the noun table, we may say that it possesses its individual lexical meaning (it corresponds to a definite piece of furniture) and, in addition, the grammatical meaning of thingness (this is the meaning of the whole class). Besides, the noun table has the grammatical meaning of a subclass — countableness. Any verb combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical meaning of verbiality —the ability to denote actions or states. Thus the verb speak combines in its semantic structure its own lexical meaning — expressing thoughts aloud — with the grammatical meaning of the whole class of verbs verbiality. Any adjective combines its individual lexical meaning (e.g., the lexical meaning of the adjective beautiful is giving great pleasure to the mind or senses) with the grammatical meaning of the whole class of adjectives — qualitativeness —the ability to denote qualities. Adverbs possess the grammatical meaning of adverb iality — the ability to denote quality of qualities. There are some classes of words that are devoid of any lexical meaning and possess the grammatical meaning only. This can be explained by the fact that they have no referents in the objective reality. All function words belong to this group — articles, particles, prepositions, etc. Their grammatical meaning may be defined in accordance with their operational functions which they have in the sentence and in the text (for further details about the meaning function words possess see Chapter 6 "Function Words"). 2. Types of grammatical meaning The grammatical meaning may be explicit and implicit ("implicit" means implied or understood though not directly expressed). The implicit grammatical meaning is not expressed formally (e.g. the word table does not contain any hints in its form as to it being inanimate). The explicit grammatical meaning is always marked morphologically — it has its marker. In the word cats the grammatical meaning of plurality is shown in the form of the noun; cat's — here the grammatical meaning of possessiveness is shown by the form 's; is asked — shows the explicit grammatical meaning of passiveness. The implicit grammatical meaning may be of two types — general and dependent. The general grammatical meaning is the meaning of the whole word-class, of a part of speech (e.g. nouns — the general grammatical meaning of thingness). The dependent grammatical meaning is the meaning of a subclass within the same part of speech. For instance, any verb possesses the dependent grammatical meaning of transitivity/ intransitivity, terminativeness/non-terminativeness, stativeness/ non-stativeness; nouns have the dependent grammatical meaning of contableness/uncountableness and animateness/inanimateness. The most important thing about 14 the dependent grammatical meaning is that it influences the realization of grammatical categories restricting them to a subclass. For example, the dependent grammatical meaning of countableness/uncountableness influences the realization of the grammatical category of number as the number category is realized only within the subclass of countable nouns; the grammatical meaning of animateness/inanimateness influences the realization of the grammatical category of case, teminativeness/non-terminativeness — the categories of tense and aspect, transitivity/intransitivity — the category of voice. Types of grammatical meaning are shown in the diagram below: GRAMMATICAL MEANING EXPLICIT GENERAL DEPENDENT LECTURE 7 GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES THE WORD 1. The notion of "grammatical category" Within the sphere of morphology there exist parts of speech or word-classes established in accordance with the identity of semantic, formal and distributional characteristics. Parts of speech are opposed to each other as classes of units possessing contrasting grammatical features serving the reason for their classification into different groups. A linguistic category which has the effect of modifying the forms of some class of words in a language is defined in linguistics as a grammatical category. As the words of every language are divided up into parts of speech, it often happens that words in a given class exhibit two or more forms used in somewhat different grammatical circumstances. In each such case the variation in form is required by the presence in language of one or more grammatical categories applying to that class of words. The notion of grammatical categories is confined to associative relations existing between the units of paradigmatic sets, to those general relations which unite all constituents of a morphological paradigm. If, for instance, case is common to all nouns in English or Ukrainian and a set of paradigms (or one paradigm) constitutes this grammatical notion, it can be regarded as a grammatical category because all its exponents, different cases, are united by one common grammatical meaning and function, that of designating meaningful relations between words of certain classes in speech. Mood, for example, is a grammatical category because it covers a certain set of special forms and their meaning, individual in every language. The same criterion can be applied to every grammatical category. It follows that grammatical categories are made up by the unity of identical grammatical meanings that have the same form and meaning (e.g. singular::plural). Due to dialectal unity of language and thought, grammatical categories correlate, on the one hand, with the conceptual categories and, on the other hand, with the objective reality. It may be shown with the help of a triangle model: 15 Conceptual reality Conceptual category Objective reality Lingual reality Objective category Grammatical category Therefore, we may define grammatical categories as references of the corresponding objective categories. For example, the objective category of time finds its representation in the grammatical category of tense, the objective category of quantity finds its representation in the grammatical category of number. Those grammatical categories that have references in the objective reality are called referential grammatical categories. However, not all of the grammatical categories have references in the objective reality, just a few of them do not correspond to anything in the objective reality. Such categories correlate only with conceptual matters: Conceptual correlate ↓ Lingual correlate These categories are called significational categories. To this type belong the categories of mood and degree (English adjectives and adverbs of manner vary for the grammatical category of degree, as with big/bigger /biggest). Speaking about the grammatical category of mood we can say that it has modality as its conceptual correlate. It can be explained by the fact that it does not refer to anything in the objective reality — it expresses the speakers attitude to what he says. To generalise what has been said above concerning the grammatical categories it is necessary to draw attention to the following: • the notion of grammatical category applies to the plane of content of morphological paradigmatic units; • it refers to grammatical meaning as a general notion; • it does not nominate things but expresses relations, that is why it has to be studied in terms of oppositions; • grammatical categories of language represent a realization of universal categories produced by human thinking in a set of interrelated forms organized as oppositions; • grammatical categories are not uniform, they vary in accordance with the part of speech they belong to and the meaning they express; • the expression of grammatical categories in language is based upon close interrelation between their forms and the meaning they convey. 2. Vie notion of "opposition" The notion of "opposition" was originally introduced in phonology. The specific character of phonological opposition consisted in the latterщ being a distinctive opposition of sound. The concept of distinctiveness presupposed the concept of opposition. One thing can be distinguished only from another thing: it can be distinguished only insofar as it is contrasted with or opposed to something else. In accordance with this concept an elaborate set of contrast criteria for the identification and classification of phonological oppositions was developed. The most widely known is the binary "privative" opposition in which one member of the contrastive pair is characterized by the presence of a certain feature which is lacking in the other member (hence "privative), e.g. table::tables. The element possessing the feature in question is called the "marked" (strong) member of the opposition, the other is called the "unmarked" (weak) member of the opposition. 16 The majority of oppositions in the English language are privative binary. Some scholars, however, hold the opinion that oppositions can be gradual (big — bigger — biggest) and equipollent (am — is — are). Later the method of oppositions was successfully extended to grammar as it was extremely suitable for describing morphological categories. It turned out that the binary privative opposition served the basis for realizing grammatical categories. Any grammatical category must be represented by at least two grammatical forms (e.g. the grammatical category of number — singular and plural forms