Теоретическая грамматика английского языка = Theoretical Grammar of the English Language. Учебное пособие

13

THEORETICAL PART

MODULE 1

Grammar as a science. Relationship between normative and theoretical grammar. The connection of grammar with other sciences. Morphology and syntax.

Grammar in general is a branch of linguistics which deals with the grammatical structure of the language. Grammar rules organize a chain of words into a phrase and a sentence. Practical (normative, prescriptive) grammar prescribes, gives rules for practical use, teaches how to speak or write, but it doesn’t explain the rules theoretically and scientifically.

Theoretical grammar analyzes the facts of the language, tries to explain them without giving any prescriptions. Unlike practical grammar, theoretical grammar does not in all cases give a ready-made solution. It gives the analysis of the structure on the basis of general principles of linguistics. It outlines the main problems on which there are different opinions expressed by different linguists. In the language there are a number of phenomena interpreted differently by different linguists. To a large extent, these discrepancies are due to the fact that in linguistics there are different linguistic schools with their methods of analysis and approach to the material. But in a number of cases this is due to the fact that some facts of the language cause difficulties in analysis and then only a possible but not conclusively proven way of solving them is suggested. It is this circumstance that determines the existence of different theories on the same language phenomenon of language, whereas in practical grammar there are no such discrepancies. Thus, the tasks of theoretical grammar are to show the structure of the language as a system, to provide an adequate and systematic description of linguistic factors; to acquaint the students with various interpretations and theories on the same linguistic factors; The aim of theoretical grammar is not only to transfer certain knowledge, but also to try to teach how to critically treat different interpretations of the same problems, to evaluate the correctness and accuracy of existing theories.

Grammar is connected with other branches of linguistics: phonetics, as every word and sentence is a combination of phonemes; stylistics, which studies many problems treated in grammar: grammati-

14

cal synonymy, for example; lexicology (both lexicology and theoretical grammar study words, but from different aspects). For example, there are different opinions concerning word-building.The first states that word-building is a part of lexicology, the second states it’s partly a matter of grammar to study words; and the third one claims that word-building is a special sphere intermediate between lexicology and grammar.

Grammar consists of two parts: morphology and syntax. Morphology is a part of grammar which deals with the forms of words. Syntax deals with phrases and sentences and units which are higher than a sentence. These parts of grammar are connected with each other. The connection is shown in the fact that words don’t change when taken separately. They change only when they are connected in sentences.

The systemic nature of grammar. Language and speech. Synchrony and diachrony. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. Plane of content and plane of expression. Levels of language units.

Human language is a verbal means of communication; its function consists in forming, storing and exchanging ideas as reflections of reality. Being inseparably connected with the people who create and use it, language is social and psychological by nature (Blokh, 2000).

Language incorporates three constituent parts. They are the phonological system, the lexical system, and the grammatical system. The phonological system determines the material (phonetic) form of its significative units; the lexical system comprises the whole set of nominative means of language (words and stable word-groups); the grammatical system presents the whole set of regularities determining the combination of nominative units in the formation of utterances (Blokh, 2000).

Modern linguistics is essentially based on the systemic conception of language. System in general is defined as a structured set of elements related to one another by a common function.

The interpretation of language as a system develops a number of notions, namely: the notions of language levels and language units, paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, the notions of form and meaning (function), of synchrony and diachrony, of analysis and synthesis, and some others.

The discrimination of language and speech is the fundamental principle of linguistics. This principle has sustained throughout the

15

whole history of the study of language. With a special demonstrative force it was confirmed by I.A. Beaudoin de Courtenay (end of the XIX c.) and F. de Saussure (beginning of the XX c.) who analyzed the language-speech dichotomy in connection with the problem of identifying the subject of linguistics. The two great scholars emphatically pointed out the difference between synchrony and diachrony stressing the fact that at any stage of its historical evolution language is a synchronic system of meaningful elements, i.e. a system of special signs (Blokh, 2000).

Language vs Speech (verbal behaviour)

Saussure made what became a famous distinction between langue (language) and parole (speech, or verbal behaviour). Language, for Saussure, is the symbolic system through which we communicate. Speech refers to actual utterances. Since we can communicate an infinite number of utterances, it is the system behind them that is important, this is the primary object of study for the linguist. According to F. de Saussure, there is langue versus parole. Bylangue, best translated in its technical Saussurean sense as language system, is meant the totality of regularities and patterns of formation that underlie the utterances of a language; by parole, which can be translated as language behaviour, is meant the actual utterances themselves (URL: ht- tps://www.britannica.com/science/linguistics/The-20th-century).

The impact of Saussure's ideas on the development of linguistic theory in the first half of the twentieth century cannot be understated. Two currents of thought emerged independently of each other, one in Europe, and the other in America. The results of each incorporated the basic notions of Saussurian thought in forming the central tenets of structural linguistics.

The most important of the various schools of structural linguistics to be found in Europe in the first half of the 20th century included the Prague school, most notably represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich Trubetskoy and Roman Jakobson, both Russian émigrés, and the Copenhagen (or glossematic) school, centred around Louis Hjelmslev (URL: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ferdinand_de_Saussure).

Syntagmatic vs paradigmatic relations

Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are

16

immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence (string). One of the basic notions in the syntagmatic analysis is the notion of syntactic syntagma. A "syntactic syntagma" is the combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other. To syntagmatic relations are opposed paradigmatic relations. They exist between elements of the system outside the strings in which they co-occur. The function of a grammatical paradigm is to express a categorial meaning (Blokh, 2000).

Plane of Content and Plane of Expression

This dichotomy was first studied by Louis Hjelmslev (18991965) – Danish linguist, the founder of the Copenhagen School of linguistics. Together with Hans Uldall he developed a structural theory of language which he called glossematics. The main interest of glosssematics was describing the formal characteristics of the language. L. Hjelmslev’s sign model is a development of F. de Saussure's sign model. Saussure considered a sign as having two sides, signifier and signified. Hjelmslev's famously renamed signifier and signified as respectively expression plane and content plane, and also distinguished between form and substance (URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Louis_Hjelmslev).

The plane of content comprises the semantic (meaningful) elements of the language; the plane of expression comprises the material (formal) units of the language. Each language sign has a form and a meaning. The two planes are inseparably connected. Grammatical elements of language present a unity of content and expression, a unity of form and meaning.

Levels of Language Units

Units of language are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental units consist of phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status. Suprasegmental units do not exist by themselves, but are realized with segmental units and express different modificational meanings reflected on the strings of segmental units (Blokh, 2000).

The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. Units of each higher level are formed of units of the immediately lower level.

Professor M.Ya.Blokh: the lowest level of lingual units is phonemic: it is formed by phonemes. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential. The second level, located above the phone-

17

mic level, is morphemic. The morpheme is the elementary meaningful part of the word built up by phonemes. The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative", meaning. The third level is lexemic. Its differential unit is the word. The word realizes the function of nomination. The fourth level is denotemic, its constituent unit is denoteme (notional part of the sentence). The fifth level is proposemic. It is built up by sentences. As a sign, the sentence simultaneously fulfils two functions – nominative and predicative. The sixth level is the level of topicalization, its constituent element is the "dicteme" ("utterance"). The function of the dicteme is to build up a topical stretch of some text. Being an elementary topical unit of text, the dicteme fulfils four main signemic functions: the functions of nomination, predication, topicalization, and stylization (Blokh, 2000).

The main units of language are considered to be the word and the sentence. Words are studied by morphology, sentences are studied by syntax.

Morphemic Structure of the Word

The word is the nominative unit of language built up by morphemes and indivisible into smaller segments as regards its nominative function (Blokh, 2000). The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic structure of words. So, it is but natural that one of the essential tasks of morphology is to study the morphemic structure of the word.

In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word is based upon two criteria – positional and semantic (functional). The positional criterion presupposes the analysis of the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones. The semantic criterion involves the study of the correlative contribution of the morpheme to the general meaning of the word. In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes at the upper level are divided into root morphemes and affixal morphemes (lexical and grammatical) (Blokh, 2000).

Synthetic and analytic languages

In linguistic typology, there are synthetic and analytic languages. Synthetic languages compose (synthesize) multiple concepts into each word, while analytic languages break up (analyze) concepts into separate words. The distinction is a matter of degree: the most ana-

18

lytic languages consistently have one morpheme per word while, at the other extreme, in polysynthetic languages, a single inflected verb may contain as much information as an entire English sentence (URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language).

The English language refers to the languages of the analytic type. The modern forms of the English verb (are doing, has been studying) are formed analytically, because they consist of a part devoid of lexical meaning and transmitting the required grammatical categories, and a part conveying a semantic meaning (root morphemes: do, run).

The categorial structure of the word. The notions of grammatical meaning, grammatical form, grammatical category. Oppositional theory. Oppositional reduction.

Notional words possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical meaning. These features determine the grammatical form of the word. Grammatical meanings are very abstract, general meanings, therefore, the grammatical form unites a whole class of words, so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning together with its individual concrete semantics. The most general meanings rendered by language units and expresses by systemic correlations of word forms, are interpreted in linguistics as categorial grammatical meanings. For example, previousness and simultaneousness of action is expressed by perfect and non-perfect forms, so they form the category of correlation (

), or retrospective coordination (Blokh, 2000).Some grammatical categories exist only in a certain class. They are closed within this word class. They are immanent categories (constant) – the verbal categories of tense, voice, mood. Other categories may transfer from one class to another and reflect in it. They are called reflective categories. They are: gender, number. The category of number of nouns is reflected in the verb: boy goes - boys go. In Russian the category of number is reflected in the verb and the adjective.

The grammatical category presents a unity of form and meaning. A set of grammatical forms expressing a categorial function constitutes a paradigm. The paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms in a category is exposed by the so-called grammatical opposition. See the

19

But sometimes a weak member of the opposition may turn onto a marked one. Example: He knocked, and knocked, and knocked. This is the stylistically marked member, as the idea of continuity is rendered, but by non-continuous forms.

The opposition may be defined as a generalized correlation of language forms, by means of which a certain function is expressed. The member of the opposition must possess two types of features: common features, and differentiating features. Because of common features they are included into one opposition. Example: in the category of aspect the common feature of the opposition of the continuous and non-continuous forms is to express the character of an action. One of the members of the opposition shows the action in progress; the other presents it as a fact - these are the differential features. They constitute the function of the whole opposition (as that of being able to distinguish between the character of an action).

The oppositional theory was originally formulated as a phonological theory by representatives of the Prague School. The method of oppositions has been successfully extended to grammar and semantics. Three main qualitative types of oppositions were established: priv-

1) binary, 2) more than binary. The most important for analysis is the binary privative type of opposition. The binary privitive opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterized by the presence of a certain differential feature (mark), while the other is characterized by the absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the marked, or the strong, positive member; the member in which the feature is absent, is called the unmarked, weak, negative member. Example 1: I study (weak member – non-past) – I studied (strong member – past). Example 2: a bird (weak member- non-plurality) – birds (strong member – plurality).

The gradual opposition exists only on semantic level. It’s formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not only by the presence or absence of a feature, but by the degrees of it. Example: the degrees of comparison in adjectives: strong-stronger-strongest.

The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features. Example: to be-forms: am - is - are – they are equal in value.

20