DOCSLIB.ORG

Of Structural Or Descriptive Data. the Linguists of Today Can Begin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Of Structural Or Descriptive Data. the Linguists of Today Can Begin ll DOC UME NT RESUME TE 000 674 ED 022 766 By.Chwasky. Noss THE CLMENT SCDE IN LINGUISTICS:PRESENT DIRECTIONS. Pub Date May 66 Note-10p. Journal Cit-College English: v27 n8p587-95 May 1966 EDRS Price t4-S025 HC-S0A8 INSTRUCTION. *GRAMIAR.LANGUAGE. Descriptors-DEEP STRUCTURE.DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS. ENGLISH THEORY. PERCEPTION. RESEARCH *LANGUAGE RESEARCH. LEARNINGTHEORIES. *LINGUISTICS. *LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE. TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR. METHODOLOGY. STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS, SI.RFACE TRANSFORMATION GENERATIVE GRAMMAR of Two traditions aredistinguishable in modern linguistictheory: the tradition 'universal grammar' which flourished inthe 17th and 18th centuries,and the tradition of structural or descriptivelinguistics which reached itspeak 15 or 20 years ago. with (1) the relationof deep structure tosurface Universal grammar was concerned (3) forms and to the use and acquisitionof language. (2) the actof perception. and general. Structural linguistics. onthe other hand, has the acquisition of knowledge in study of been particularly valuablefor providing a methodologyfor the recording and data. The linguists oftoday can begin toutilize the methods factual problems which developedlancirstructural linguiststo scientificallyinvestigate the concernpd the-universalgrammarians..We may well witness.then. a synthesis of these langUAge study which i411 allow ourstudents to haVe insightinto ttie two traditions in the mysteries of complexities of the grammar they useunconsciously and its relation to the human intelligence itself.(DL) NS NUMMI 0. IOW. MIKAHON s MOAN *HU * NIKON TINS OKUNIIII HAS MN MONK* (um AS *WV* NON III P11501 01 OKAIII1A11011 0101611116 II. MINIS Of VIEW 01 OPINIONS 5IA111 HO IN INCISSAIU IMMO ODKIAl OKI OfMOTION POSMON 01 POW. COLLEGEENGLISH AN OFFICIAL ORGAN OFTHE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH President Executive SecretaryCollege Section Chairman Mtiam. Caossir JAhtes R. SQUIRE ROBERT M. GORRELL Wilmington, Delaware, Public Schools Universityof Illinois University of Nevada Editor:James E. Miller,jr., University of Chicago,Chicago37,Illinois Vol. 27 CONTENTS FOR MAY 1966 No. 8 THE CURRENT SCENE IN LINGUISTICS: NOaM Chomsky 587 ENGLISH WORDS OF VERY HIGH FREQUENCY: William Card and Virginia McDavid 596 PHONOLOGY AND THE TEACHINGOF PRONUNCIATION: J.C. Catford 605 HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH PROGRAMS: f ames R. Squire 613 LITERATURE, THREATAND CONQUEST: Walter 1. Ong, S.1. 620 SPEECH, ENGLISH,AND TRAINING: Henry W. Sams 623 A BACKWARD GLANCE: James E. Miller,Jr. 624 ROUND TABLE: The Copyright Law and T. 4:1 S. Eliot(Oscar Cargill);A Letter 4) to One More Newly-Elected Committee Set Upto Plan and Administer a Course in Freshman Composition(Ken Macrorie);A Note on Culture,or Animation and thejobless (Eric Larsen) 627 C\I REBurrAL: A Comment C\I on Richard Ohmann's "Literatureas Sentences" and Martin Steinmann's "RhetoricalResearch"(A. M. Tibbetts);Pinfeathers 0 for a Ruptured Duck(Raven I. McDavid, Jr.) CI 634 ta DEPARTMENTAL MEMO(Jerome W. Archer,Editor): Master Assistantsat the University of Wisconsin(Edgar 1V. Lacy, William Lenehan,andEdnah S. Thomas); 4. Shift in Composition Sequenceat Fort Hays Kansas State College (W. R. Thompson) 637 NEWS AND IDEAS NO (Louis H. Leiter,Editor);Verse: Man's His Own Wine(James Edmund Magner, fr.) 640 0 Books(Robert E. Knolland 40 Bernice Slote,Editors) 4/ 0 ANNUAL INDEX 661 tki I% COLLEGE ENGLISH V olume 27 May 1966 Number 8 The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present Directions NOAM CHOMSKY THE TITLE OF THIS PAPER may suggest possible, and that it is, to Some extent, something more than can yae provided. It being achieved in current work. Before would be foolhardy to Jttempt to fore-approaching thc problem of synthesis, 1 cast the development of linguistics or any would like to skctch brieflyand, neces- other field, even in general tcrms and insarily,with some oversimplification thc short run. There is no way to antici- what seem to 1 i.e to b thc most signifi- pate ideas and insights that may, at anycant features in these two traditions. time, direct research in new directions or As the name indicates, universal gram- reopen traditional problems that had mar was concerned with general features been too difficult or too unclear to pro-of language structure rather than with vide a fruitful challenge. The most thatparticular idiosyncrasies. Particularly in one can hope to do is to arrive at a clearFrance, universal grammar developed in appraisal of the present situation in lin- part in reaction to an earlier descriptivist guistic research, and an accurate under-tradition which held that the only proper standingofhistoricaltendencies.Ittask for the grammarian was to present would not be realistic to attempt to pro- data, to give a kind of "natural history" ject such tendencies into the future. of language (specifically, of the "culti- Two major traditions can be distin-vated usage" of the court and the best guished in modern linguistic theory: onewriters). In contrast, universal grammar- is the tradition of "universal" or "philo-ians urged that the study 'of language sophical grammar," which flourished inshould be elevated from the level of "nat- the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries;ural history" to that of "natural phi- the second is the tradition of structurallosophy"; hence the term "philosophical or descriptive linguistics, which reachedgrammar", "philosophical" being used, of the high point of its development perhaps course, in essentially the sense of our fifteen or twenty years ago. 1 think thata term "scientific." Grammar should not synthesis of these two major traditions is be merely a record of the data of usage, but, rattier, should offer an ,-xplanation Mr. Chomsky, whose fourth book on linguis- for such data. It should establish general tic theory, Cartesian Linguistics, is now in press, principles, applicable to all languages and is professor of Modern Languages and Linguis- tics at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- based ultimately on intrinsic properties nology. Tbis paper was read at tbe NCTEof the mind, Which would explain how convention in November 1P61. language is used and why it has the par- "MONA TO IDIONCE MS , gy7...r.,,.e ioll42 COMMIS MEM NAS na GRANTED' TO MK AN OPTIONS NE MOM MIN INC II.S. oma of REAM IRMO litIONCTION OM 1NE OK SYSTEM MOMS PENNON Of TIE LOMAT OWNER." 588 COLLEGE ENGLISH ticular properties to whidi thedescriptive modelisrather curious. Infact, the grammarian chooses, irrationally, to re-earliest studies of universal grammar,in strict his attcntion. France, wcrc a part of the movement to Universal granmiarians did not content raise th: status of thc vernacular,and arc themselves with merely stating this goal. conccrncd with details ofFrench that In fact, many generations ofscholarsoften do not even have anyLatin proceeded to develop a rich and far- analogue. reaching account of the generalprinci- As to the belief that modern"anthro- ples of language structure, supported bYpological linguistics" has refutedthc as- whatever detailed evidence theycouldsumptions of universal grammar,this is find from thc linguistic materials avail-not only untrue, but,for a rather impor- able to thcm. On thc basis ofthese prin-tant reason, could not be true.Thc rea- ciples, they attempted to explain manyson is that universal grammarmade a particular iacts, and to develop a psycho-sharp distinction between what we 1112V logical theory dealing with certain as-call "deep structure" and "surface struc- is pects of language use,with the produc-ture." The deep structure of a sentence de- tion and comprehensionof sentences. thc abstract underlying form which The tradition of universal grammartermines the meaning of the sentence;it came to anabrupt end in the nineteenth is present in thc mind but notnecessarilY that 1 will discussrepresented directly in the physicalsig- century.. for reasons directly.I. urthertniire, its achievementsnal. The surface structure of a sentence were very rapidlyforgotten, and an in-is the actual organization of thcphysical teresting mythology developed concern-signal into phrases of varying size,into ing its limitations and excesses. It has now words of various categories, withcertain become something of a cliché amongparticles, inflections, arrangement,and so assunipti9n of the linguists that universal grammarsuffered on. The fundamental from the following defects: (1) it wasuniversalgrammarians was thatlan- not concerned withthe sounds of speech,guages scarcelyditrer at thc level of deep but only with writing; (2) it wasbased structurewhich , eflects the basic prop- primarily on a 11atin model, and was,inertics of thought andconceptionbut the much some sense"prescriptive"; (3) its assump-that they may vary widely at tions about language structure havebeen less interesting level of surface structure. linguistics refuted by modern "anthropologicallin-But modern anthror 'logical guistics." In addition, manylinguists, does not attempt to dcal withdeep struc- though not all, would hold thatuniversal ture and its relations tosurface structure. surface grammar wasmisguided in principle inRather, its attention is limited to phonetic form of an ut- its attempt to provide explanationsratherstructurcto the organization into units of than mere description of usage.the latterterance and its informa- being all that can be contemplatedby the varying size. Consequently, the direct bear- "sober scientist." tion that it provides has no concerning deep The first two criticisms arequite easy ing on thc hypotheses by thc universal to refute; thethird and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Repor T Resumes
    REPOR TRESUMES ED 020 167 TE DOD 444 LINGUISTICS AND WRITTEN COMPOSITION. BY- ALLEN, HAROLD B. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENG.,CHAMPAIGN,ILL PUB DATE 63 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.25 HC-$0.60 13P. it DESCRIPTORS- *APPLIED LINGUISTICS, *COMPOSITION (LITERARY), *LINGUISTICS, *RHETORIC, SENTENCE STRUCTURE, COMPOSITION SKILLS (LITERARY), PARAGRAPH COMPOSITION, PUNCTUATION, STRUCTURAL GRAMMARI.TRANSFORMATION GENERATIVE GRAMMAR, TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR, WRITING SKILLS, SENTENCES, THE DESCRIPTIVE SCIENCE OF LINGUISTICS AND THE SKILL OF WRITTEN COMPOSITION MEET IN THE "SENTENCE," AND THE INFORMATION WHICH LINGUISTICS PROVIDES ON SENTENCE STRUCTURE' CAN AID THE TEACHER OF COMPOSITION. ALTHOUGH TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR DOES.NOT IMPROVE A STUDENT'S WRITING, CONSTITUENT GRAMMAR AND TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR, BY PRESENTING METHODS OF ANALYZING AND ORGANIZING SENTENCES, ENABLE THESTUDENT TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE BASIC FORMS AND ELEMENTSOF THE SENTENCE. THROUGH PRACTICE, A STUDENT'S "REPLACEMENT POTENTIAL" (THE RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES HE HAS AVAILABLEFOR A GIVEN SLOT IN A SENTENCE) IS INCREASED, AND HE LEARNSTHE MANIPULATION AND GROUPING OF SENTENCE PARTS. AS HISOBJECTIVE APPRECIATION OF SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND ITSVARIATIONS GROWS, HE ACQUIRES A CONCEPT OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH CAN BEAPPLIED TO GROUPS OF SENTENCES AS WELL AS GROUPS OF WORDS, AND CONSEQUENTLY IS BETTER ABLE TO WRITE UNIFIED PARAGRAPHS AND PAPERS. THUS, ALTHOUGH LINGUISTICS PROPER IS NOT CAPABLE OF .DEALING WITH UNITS OF COMPOSITION LARGER THAN THE SENTENCE, THE APPROACHES DEVELOPED BY LINGUISTS FOR STUDYING SENTENCES CAN AID THE STUDENT OF COMPOSITION TO IMPROVE HIS WRITING SKILLS. (THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN "LANGUAGE, LINGUISTICS, AND SCHOOL PROGRAMS, PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPRING INSTITUTES,1963." CHAMPAIGN, ILL., NCTE, 1963.) (LH) LANGUAGE, LINGUESTICS, AND SCHOOL PROGRAMS r-4 CD Proceedings of the Spring Institutes, 1963 C\J of the 1.0 National Council of Teachers of English Bernard J.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Irrelevance of Transformational Grammar to Second Language Pedagogy
    ON THE IRRELEVANCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR TO SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY John T. Lamendella The University of Michigan Many scholars view transformational grammar as an attempt to represent the structure of linguistic knowledge in the mind and seek to apply transformational descriptions of languages to the de- velopment of second language teaching materials. It will be claimed in this paper that it is a mistake to look to transformational gram- mar or any other theory of linguistic description to provide the theoretical basis for either second language pedagogy or a theory of language acquisition. One may well wish to describe the ab- stract or logical structure of a language by constructing a trans- formational grammar which generates the set of sentences identi- fied with that language. However, this attempt should not be con- fused with an attempt to understand the cognitive structures and processes involved in knowing or using a language. It is a cogni- tive theory of language within the field of psycholinguistics rather than a theory of linguistic description which should underlie lan- guage teaching materials. A great deal of effort has been expended in the attempt to demonstrate the potential contributions of the field of descriptive linguistics to the teaching of second languages and, since the theory of transformational grammar has become the dominant theory in the field of linguistics, it is not surprising that applied linguists have sought to apply transformational grammar to gain new in- sights into the teaching of second languages. It will be claimed in this paper that it is a mistake to look to transformational grammar or any other theory of linguistic description to provide the theoretical basis for either second language pedagogy or a theory of language acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuralism 1. the Nature of Meaning Or Understanding
    Structuralism 1. The nature of meaning or understanding. A. The role of structure as the system of relationships Something can only be understood (i.e., a meaning can be constructed) within a certain system of relationships (or structure). For example, a word which is a linguistic sign (something that stands for something else) can only be understood within a certain conventional system of signs, which is language, and not by itself (cf. the word / sound and “shark” in English and Arabic). A particular relationship within a شرق combination society (e.g., between a male offspring and his maternal uncle) can only be understood in the context of the whole system of kinship (e.g., matrilineal or patrilineal). Structuralism holds that, according to the human way of understanding things, particular elements have no absolute meaning or value: their meaning or value is relative to other elements. Everything makes sense only in relation to something else. An element cannot be perceived by itself. In order to understand a particular element we need to study the whole system of relationships or structure (this approach is also exactly the same as Malinowski’s: one cannot understand particular elements of culture out of the context of that culture). A particular element can only be studied as part of a greater structure. In fact, the only thing that can be studied is not particular elements or objects but relationships within a system. Our human world, so to speak, is made up of relationships, which make up permanent structures of the human mind. B. The role of oppositions / pairs of binary oppositions Structuralism holds that understanding can only happen if clearly defined or “significant” (= essential) differences are present which are called oppositions (or binary oppositions since they come in pairs).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Linguistics As a Science of Structure Ryan M
    Chapter 7 Linguistics as a science of structure Ryan M. Nefdt University of the Western Cape Generative linguistics has rapidly changed during the course of a relatively short period. This has caused many to question its scientific status as a realist scientific theory (Stokhof & van Lambalgen 2011; Lappin et al. 2000). In this chapter, I argue against this conclusion. Specifically, I claim that the mathematical foundations of the science present a different story below the surface. I agree with critics that due to the major shifts in theory over the past 80 years, linguistics is indeed opened up to the problem of pessimistic meta-induction or radical theory change. However, I further argue that a structural realist approach (Ladyman 1998; French 2006) can save the field from this problem and at the same time capture its structural nature. I discuss particular historical instances of theory change in generative grammar as evidence for this interpretation and finally attempt to extend it beyond the gener- ative tradition to encompass previous frameworks in linguistics. 1 Introduction The generativist revolution in linguistics started in the mid-1950s, inspired in large part by insights from mathematical logic and in particular proof theory. Since then, generative linguistics has become a dominant paradigm, with many connections to both the formal and natural sciences. At the centre of the newly established discipline was the syntactic or formal engine, the structures of which were revealed through modelling grammatical form. The generativist paradigm in linguistics initially relied heavily upon the proof-theoretic techniques intro- duced by Emil Post and other formal logicians to model the form language takes (Tomalin 2006; Pullum 2011; 2013).1 Yet despite these aforementioned formal be- ginnings, the generative theory of linguistics has changed its commitments quite 1Here my focus will largely be on the formal history of generative syntax but I will make some comments on other aspects of linguistics along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • A Logical Reconstruction of Leonard Bloomfield's Linguistic Theory
    A logical Reconstruction of Leonard Bloomfield’s Linguistic Theory Thomas Meier Draft, October 2012 Abstract In this work we present a logical reconstruction of Leonard Bloom- field’s theory of structural linguistics. First, the central notions of this theory are analyzed and discussed. In the following section, a recon- struction with the so-called structuralist approach in the philosophy of science is presented. After defining the general framework of Bloom- field’s theory, questions of lawlikeness and theoretical terms will be discussed. In a further step, this work aims to contribute to the dis- cussion of theory change and scientific realism, applied to linguistic theory. After the reconstruction of further theories of linguistics, it can be studied whether certain inter theoretical relations hold. It aims to be a contribution to the discussion on the foundations of linguistics. structural linguistics - structuralist approach - lawlikeness - theoretical terms - theory change 1 1 Introduction The aim of this work is to provide a logical reconstruction of Leonard Bloom- field’s linguistic theory. Only few work has been done so far in the philosophy of linguistics, concerning logical reconstructions of linguistic theories. By the application of the methodological framework of the so-called structural- ist approach (see Balzer, et.al. 1987), we reconstruct Bloomfield’s theory. The reconstruction will provide new insights as it shows how the notions of Bloomfield’s theory are interrelated. Furthermore, the issues of lawlikeness and theoretical terms in Bloomfield’s theory will be addressed. A logical reconstruction of Bloomfield’s theory also opens a way for future work on intertheoretical relations between linguistic theories and, in a broader philo- sophical sense, can be seen as an important fundamental contribution that can be used in the discussion on theory change and scientific realism, applied to linguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Linguistics and Formal Semantics
    Structural Linguistics And Formal Semantics Jaroslav Peregrin [Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague I, Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1995; original pagination] Introduction The beginning of this century hailed a new paradigm in linguistics, the paradigm brought about by de Saussure's Cours de Linguistique Genérále and subsequently elaborated by Jakobson, Hjelmslev and other linguists. It seemed that the linguistics of this century was destined to be structuralistic. However, half of the century later a brand new paradigm was introduced by Chomsky's Syntactic Structures followed by Montague's formalization of semantics. This new turn has brought linguistics surprisingly close to mathematics and logic, and has facilitated a direct practical exploitation of linguistic theory by computer science. One of the claims of this paper is that the post-Saussurian structuralism, both in linguistics and in philosophy, is partly based on ideas quite alien to de Saussure. The main aim then is to explain the ideas driving the formalistic turn of linguistics and to investigate the problem of the extent to which they can be accommodated within the framework of the Saussurian paradigm. The main thesis advocated is that the point of using formalisms in linguistics is more methodological than substantial and that it can be well accommodated within the conceptual framework posited by de Saussure. 1 De Saussure vs. Structuralism Before beginning to discuss structuralism, let us stress the distinction between the genuine views of Ferdinand de Saussure and the teachings of his various avowed followers, be they linguists or philosophers. In fact, de Saussure's theory, as presented in his Course, is an austere and utterly rational scientific theory articulated with a rigour commonly associated with linguistic theories of the 'post-Chomskian' period, though differing from them by the absence of -$526/$9 3(5(*5,1 formalisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Sapir, Harris and Chomsky in the Twentieth Century William L
    VOLUME 7 29 Cognitive Critique SAPIR, HARRIS AND CHOMSKY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY WILLIAM L. ABLER Department of Geology The Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois 60605, USA E-MAIL: [email protected] KEYWORDS algebra, Chomsky, discrete, evolution, language, mind, numbers, sentence ABSTRACT The concept of linguistics has isolated language from other natural systems, and linguistics has remained overwhelmingly a descrip- tive, rather than a theoretical science. The idea of language uni- versals has thus been a matter of finding shared properties among the highest levels in the organization of language, rather than an attempt to understand the connections of language to other natural systems at all levels of its organization. Language basics such as discreteness have been treated as axiomatic or refractory. The ori- gin of language has been treated as an exercise in continuity, rather than an attempt to understand the organization of language. These trends have been driven by the personalities of Edward Sapir, Zellig Harris and Noam Chomsky, more than by scientific considerations. Sapir’s eagerness, Harris’s indecision, and Chomsky’s magnetism have generated a perfect scientific storm. 30 SAPIR, HARRIS AND CHOMSKY IN THE 20TH CENTURY INTRODUCTION In the 1960s, the gossip was still current that linguist Edward Sapir (1921), in the 1920s, had promoted the study of his favorite subject as an independent science, in reaction to the meteoric rise of physics that followed the Eddington eclipse expedition of 1919. Whatever his real motivations, it is possible to watch Sapir (1921, p. 58) aban- don the image of speech-sounds as “atoms” (from chemistry) or (1925/1957, p.
    [Show full text]
  • On Norms and Experience in Structural Linguistics
    On norms and experience in structural linguistics LANGUAGE AND REPRESENTATIONS IN LOUIS HJELMSLEV’S THEORY OF LANGUAGE LORENZO CIGANA F.R.S.- FNRS / UNIVERSITÉ DE LIÈGE CAVEAT: ENGLISH QUOTATIONS FROM FRENCH WORKS ARE PERSONAL TRANSLATIONS, SO THEY CANNOT BE QUOTED IN TURN Preglossematic phase: On norms and experience in 1928: Principes de grammaire structural générale linguistics Louis Hjelmslev’s 1935/1937: La Catégorie des Cas. theory of language Étude de grammaire générale Glossematic phase: 1936: Outline of Glossematics 1943: Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse 1. Linguistic “norm” On norms and experience in 2. The concept of “experience” and structural linguistics phenomenological description Louis Hjelmslev’s theory of language 1. Refusal of “universal and reasoned perspective” 1. Linguistic 2. No “hyperlanguage” norm 3. 1928: Language as means of Louis Hjelmslev’s communicating and sharing theory of language “conscience’s contents” 4. Grammar as “prelogical” and subconscious structure 5. Language’s proper contents = Anschauungen der Anschauungen (Steinthal) “Language is not just the expression of thought, but of the content of 1. Linguistic norm conscience in general, and thus not just of intellectual conscience, but also Louis Hjelmslev’s theory of language of affective conscience, of emotion and volition … Instead of saying that language expresses thought, we shall say that it expresses ideas – and more precisely: intellectual, emotional or volitive ideas” (PGG: 23-24, n. 1) Issues concerning “expression” 1. Linguistic Idea of synchrony norm Concept of “norm” Louis Hjelmslev’s theory of language Speaker’s sensibility or “sentiment linguistique” Principes’ problematic definition of “sign” (1928) 1. Linguistic norm Louis Hjelmslev’s theory of language Synchrony = proper reality for the mind of speakers 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter : E Role of Morphology in Transformational Grammar
    Chapter : e role of morphology in Transformational Grammar Stephen R. Anderson∗ Dept. of Linguistics, Yale University for e Cambridge Handbook of Morphology Introduction A common view of the history of morphological research within the tradition of Generative Gram- mar, and one that the present author has himself retailed on various occasions, goes as follows. As successors to the American Structuralists, early generative grammarians (especially Noam Chomsky, a student of Zellig Harris) inherited the structuralist theory of the morpheme as a basic component of linguistic expressions. On this picture, morphemes were seen as more or less Saussurean minimal signs: irreducible associations of (phonemic) form with grammatical or semantic content. Chom- sky’s own earlier work on the morphology of Hebrew (Chomsky []) had made it clear to him that in the general case, the relation between morphemes and phonological form was much more complex and abstract than generally assumed in structuralist work, but discrete morphemes were still taken to serve as the link between form and content. Words, and by extension phrases, were to be analyzed as exhaustively composed of these morphemes, organized hierarchically into progressively larger structures. Within Generative Grammar, the two substantive branches of morphological theory were both trivialized. On the one hand, the study of allomorphy, the variation in shape displayed by individual morphemes, was to be largely subsumed under the much broader conception of phonology held by generativists in comparison with their predecessors, leaving little residue beyond the listing of arbitrary, unsystematic and suppletive alternants. On the other hand morphotactics, the study of the combination of morphemes into larger units, was to be seen simply as syntax, with morphemes serving as the terminal nodes of phrase markers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics What Is A
    Elissa Asp In contrast, de Saussure (1986: 122) describes paradigmatic relations in terms of absence. What is present in a syntagm gets part of its value from its associates or ‘mnemonic group’, which may include not only morphosyntactic associates such as the inflectional paradigms for verbs or declensions of nouns, but also items related via semantic, lexical, phonological or phonetic features. Consider the following example. (1) Sam slept through an afternoon In example (1), the value of any particular item is partially determined by the absent items with which it is in contrast: the referent Sam versus relevant other participants; past not present tense; contrasts for semantic features of sleep versus, for instance, doze; and so on for the other selections. This value is partial since selection and interpretation may also be affected by items copresent in a syntagm. For example, simple past tense verbs may be ambiguous between habitual and single-instance interpretations. Features of an accompa- nying time adjunct can push interpretation towards one of these. So a partial paraphrase of example (1) with singular indefinite an is on some occasion Sam did this, but the in the same environment leaves the interpretation ambiguous. Thus the selection of items present in a syntagm can be seen as functionally motivated not only by contrast with their absent associ- ates, but also by the syntagmatic environments in which they appear. For de Saussure, these axes – the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic; the arbitrary and motivated – were the central linguistic relations to be accounted for. Curiously, although all linguistic models recognise paradigmatic contrasts to some extent, most frame grammars in terms of syntagmatic structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformational Grammar and Cognitive Psycholinguistics. PUB DATE Aug 73 NOTF 17P
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 100 168 FL 006 576 AUTHOR Lester, Mark TITLE Transformational Grammar and Cognitive Psycholinguistics. PUB DATE Aug 73 NOTF 17p. JOURNAL CIT Topics in Culture Learning; vl p61-74 Aug 1973 EDRS PRICE ME-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGE DEsePTPToRS Behavior Theories; Child Language; Classical Conditioning; Deep Structure; *Generative Phonology; Language Development; Yearning Theories; Linguistic competence; Linguistic Performance; *Linguistic Theory; *Psycholinguistics; Stimulus Behavior; Structural Linguistics; Surface Structure; Syntax; *Transformation Generative Grammar; Transformations (Language) ;*Transformation Theory (Language) ABSTRACT An overview of Roam Chomsky's theories about transformational grammar and phonology is given. Since Chomskywas interested in characterizing what it is to knowa language, the ways in which we demonstrate knowledge of our native languageare discussed in detail. Particular emphasis is placedon describing how the transformational approach actually works. The differences between transformational theory and structural linguisticsare also pointed out. In the second part of the present work, there is a brief discussion of the transformational grammarian's theory of psycholinguistics, called cognitive psycholinguistics. The discussion focuses on a comparison of cognitive psycholinguistics and classical behaviorist learning theory. (PMP) ) w BEST COPY WHALE TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR AND COGNITIVE PSYCHOLINGUISTICS. 1,104,41 NI Of HI At to.. I IVO(f ().4 4 Oof Awl N41101441 ,401,/,f 0111 ATKIN MARK
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Linguistics Citation for Published Version: Joseph, JE 2015, Structural Linguistics
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Structural linguistics Citation for published version: Joseph, JE 2015, Structural linguistics. in K Allan (ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics. Routledge, London & New York, pp. 431-446. <http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.droz.org/en/revues/%3Fcollection_id%3D 17&ei=pg5zT_uDNcrd8AOwleTdDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQ7gEwAA &prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcahiers%2Bferdinand%2Bde%2Bsaussure%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox- a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1264%26bih%3D815%26prmd%3Dimvns> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: The Routledge handbook of linguistics General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS John E. Joseph 1 Introduction The term ‘structural linguistics’ gained currency quite quickly starting in 1940, in both English and French. It was generally associated with the approach set out in the Cours de linguistique générale (Course in General Linguistics), published in 1916 and based on lectures given at the University of Geneva by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) between 1907 and 1911.
    [Show full text]