Главная страница
Дипломные работы
Английский язык
The relations of language units
The relations of language units
Загружено в:
26.09.2019
Скачано:
0
Размер:
131.50390625 KB
Скачать
Похожие
The influence of society to the vocabulary system of the language
Pragmatic aspects of the spatial prepositions for learners of English language as a second language
The role of a teacher in task-based language teaching
Translation problems of compound nouns with the structure “Man”
The comparative analysis of the typological categories of gender
![1.1. Phonemic level and the notion of phoneme A phoneme is one of the units of sound that distinguish one word from another in a particular language. The difference in meaning between the English words kill and kiss is a result of the exchange of the phoneme /l/ for the phoneme /s/ . Two words that differ in meaning through a contrast of a single phoneme form a minimal pair . In linguistics , phonemes (established by the use of minimal pairs, such as kill vs kiss or pat vs bat ) are written between slashes like this: /p/ , whereas when it is desired to show the more exact pronunciation of any sound, linguists use square brackets, for example [p] (indicating an aspirated p). Within linguistics there are differing views as to exactly what phonemes are and how a given language should be analyzed in phonemic (or phonematic ) terms. However, a phoneme is generally regarded as an abstraction of a set (or equivalence class ) of speech sounds ( phones ) which are perceived as equivalent to each other in a given language. For example, in English, the "k" sounds in the words kit and skill are not identical (as described below ), but they are distributional variants of a single phoneme /k/ . Different speech sounds that are realizations of the same phoneme are known as allophones . Allophonic variation may be conditioned, in which case a certain phoneme is realized as a certain allophone in particular phonological environments, or it may be free in which case it may vary randomly. In this way, phonemes are often considered to constitute an abstract underlying representation for segments of words, while speech sounds make up the corresponding phonetic realization, or surface form. Phonemes are conventionally placed between slashes in transcription, whereas speech sounds (phones) are placed between square brackets . Thus /p/ represents a](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-6.png)
![sequence of three phonemes /p/ , /ʊ/ , /ʃ/ (the word push in standard English), while [pʰʊʃ] represents the phonetic sequence of sounds [pʰ] ( aspirated "p"), [ʊ] , [ʃ] (the usual pronunciation of push ). (Another similar convention is the use of angle brackets to enclose the units of orthography , namely graphemes ; for example, <f> represents the written letter (grapheme) f .) The symbols used for particular phonemes are often taken from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), the same set of symbols that are most commonly used for phones. (For computer typing purposes, systems such as X- SAMPA and Kirshenbaum exist to represent IPA symbols in plain text .) However, descriptions of particular languages may use different conventional symbols to represent the phonemes of those languages. For languages whose writing systems employ the phonemic principle , ordinary letters may be used to denote phonemes, although this approach is often hampered by the complexity of the relationship between orthography and pronunciation (see Correspondence between letters and phonemes below). Assignment of speech sounds to phonemes A simplified procedure for determining whether two sounds represent the same or different phonemes](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-7.png)
![A phoneme is a sound or a group of different sounds perceived to have the same function by speakers of the language or dialect in question. An example is the English phoneme /k/ , which occurs in words such as c at , k it , s c at , s k it . Although most native speakers do not notice this, in most English dialects the "c/k" sounds in these words are not identical: in c at and k it the sound is aspirated , while in s c at and s k it it is unaspirated. The words therefore contain different speech sounds , or phones , transcribed for the aspirated form, for the unaspirated one. These different sounds are nonetheless considered to belong to the same phoneme, because if a speaker used one instead of the other, the meaning of the word would not change: using the aspirated form in skill might sound odd, but the word would still be recognized. By contrast, some other sounds would cause a change in meaning if substituted: for example, substitution of the sound [t] would produce the different word s t ill , and that sound must therefore be considered to represent a different phoneme (the phoneme /t/ ). The above shows that in English, and are allophones of a single phoneme. In some languages, however, and are perceived by native speakers as different sounds, and substituting one for the other can change the meaning of a word; this means that in those languages, the two sounds represent different phonemes. For example, in Icelandic , is the first sound of kátur meaning "cheerful", while is the first sound of gátur meaning "riddles". Icelandic therefore has two separate phonemes and . Minimal pairs A pair of words like kátur and gátur (above) that differ only in one phone is called a minimal pair for the two alternative phones in question in this case, and . The existence of minimal pairs is a common test to decide whether two phones represent different phonemes or are allophones of the same phoneme. To take](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-8.png)
![another example, the minimal pair t ip and d ip illustrates that in English, [t] and [d] belong to separate phonemes, /t/ and /d/ ; since these two words have different meanings, English speakers must be conscious of the distinction between the two sounds. In other languages, though, including Korean , even though both sounds [t] and [d] occur, no such minimal pair exists. The lack of minimal pairs distinguishing [t] and [d] in Korean provides evidence that in this language they are allophones of a single phoneme /t/ . The word /tata/ is pronounced [tada] , for example. That is, when they hear this word, Korean speakers perceive the same sound in both the beginning and middle of the word, whereas an English speaker would perceive different sounds in these two locations. However, the absence of minimal pairs for a given pair of phones does not always mean that they belong to the same phoneme: they may be too dissimilar phonetically for it to be likely that speakers perceive them as the same sound. For example, English has no minimal pair for the sounds [h] (as in h at ) and [ŋ] (as in ba ng ), and the fact that they can be shown to be in complementary distribution could be used to argue for their being allophones of the same phoneme. However, they are so dissimilar phonetically that they are considered separate phonemes. [1] (page 192-239) Phonologists have sometimes had recourse to "near minimal pairs" to show that speakers of the language perceive two sounds as significantly different even if no exact minimal pair exists in the lexicon. It is virtually impossible to find a minimal pair to distinguish English /ʃ/ from /ʒ/ , yet it seems uncontroversial to claim that the two consonants are distinct phonemes. The two words 'pressure' /preʃə/ and 'pleasure' /pleʒə/ can serve as a near minimal pair. [2] (page18-69) Other features with phonemic status](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-9.png)
![When a phoneme has more than one allophone , the one actually heard at a given occurrence of that phoneme may be dependent on the phonetic environment (surrounding sounds) – allophones which normally cannot appear in the same environment are said to be in complementary distribution . In other cases the choice of allophone may be dependent on the individual speaker or other unpredictable factors – such allophones are said to be in free variation . The term phonème (from Ancient Greek φώνημα phōnēma , "sound made, utterance, thing spoken, speech, language" [3] (page 45-95 ) was reportedly first used by A. Dufriche-Desgenettes in 1873, but it referred only to a speech sound. The term phoneme as an abstraction was developed by the Polish linguist Jan NiecisławBaudouin de Courtenay and his student MikołajKruszewski during 1875–1895. [4] (page 400) The term used by these two was fonema , the basic unit of what they called psychophonetics . The concept of the phoneme was then elaborated in the works of Nikolai Trubetzkoi and others of the Prague School (during the years 1926–1935), and in those of structuralists like Ferdinand de Saussure , Edward Sapir , and Leonard Bloomfield . Some structuralists (though not Sapir) rejected the idea of a cognitive or psycholinguistic function for the phoneme [5] (page 20-59) [6] (p 253-277) Later, it was used and redefined in generative linguistics , most famously by Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle , [7] (p 115-120) and remains central to many accounts of the development of modern phonology . As a theoretical concept or model, though, it has been supplemented and even replaced by others. [8] (p 6-47) Some linguists (such as Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle ) proposed that phonemes may be further decomposable into features , such features being the true minimal constituents of language. [9] (p 58-72) Features overlap each other in time,](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-11.png)
![as do suprasegmental phonemes in oral language and many phonemes in sign languages. Features could be characterized in different ways: Jakobson and colleagues defined them in acoustic terms, [10] (p 38-55) Chomsky and Halle used a predominantly articulatory basis, though retaining some acoustic features, while Ladefoged 's system [11] (p 241-259) is a purely articulatory system apart from the use of the acoustic term 'sibilant'. In the description of some languages, the term chroneme has been used to indicate contrastive length or duration of phonemes. In languages in which tones are phonemic, the tone phonemes may be called tonemes . Not all scholars working on such languages use these terms, which may be considered obsolete. By analogy with the phoneme, linguists have proposed other sorts of underlying objects, giving them names with the suffix -eme , such as morpheme and grapheme . These are sometimes called emic units . The latter term was first used by Kenneth Pike , who also generalized the concepts of emic and etic description (from phonemic and phonetic respectively) to applications outside linguistics. [12] (p 78-79) Languages do not generally allow words or syllables to be built of any arbitrary sequences of phonemes; there are phonotactic restrictions on which sequences of phonemes are possible and in which environments certain phonemes can occur. Phonemes that are significantly limited by such restrictions may be called restricted phonemes . ExamplesofsuchrestrictionsinEnglishinclude: /ŋ/ , as in si ng , occurs only at the end of a syllable, never at the beginning (in many other languages, such as Māori , Swahili , Tagalog , and Thai , /ŋ/ can appear word-initially).](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-12.png)
![Phonemes that are contrastive in certain environments may not be contrastive in all environments. In the environments where they do not contrast, the contrast is said to be neutralized . In these positions it may become less clear which phoneme a given phone represents. Some phonologists prefer not to specify a unique phoneme in such cases, since to do so would mean providing redundant or even arbitrary information – instead they use the technique of underspecification . An archiphoneme is an object sometimes used to represent an underspecified phoneme. An example of neutralization is provided by the Russian vowels /a/ and /o/ . These phonemes are contrasting in stressed syllables, but in unstressed syllables the contrast is lost, since both are reduced to the same sound, usually [ə] (for details, see Vowel reduction in Russian ). In order to assign such an instance of [ə] to one of the phonemes /a/ and /o/ , it is necessary to consider morphological factors (such as which of the vowels occurs in other forms of the words, or which inflectional pattern is followed). In some cases even this may not provide an unambiguous answer. A description using the approach of underspecification would not attempt to assign [ə] to a specific phoneme in some or all of these cases, although it might be assigned to an archiphoneme, written something like |A|, which reflects the two neutralized phonemes in this position. A somewhat different example is found in English, with the three nasal phonemes / m, n, ŋ/ . In word-final position these all contrast, as shown by the minimal triplet sum . However, before a stop such as /p, t, k/ (provided there is no morpheme boundary between them), only one of the nasals is possible in any given position: /m/ before /p/ , /n/ before /t/ or /d/ , and /ŋ/ before /k/ , as in limp, lint, link ( /lɪmp/ , /lɪnt/ , /lɪŋk/ ). The nasals are therefore not contrastive in these](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-14.png)
![as cats and dogs can be considered to consist of a single morphophoneme, which might be written (for example) //z// or |z|, and which is pronounced as [s] after most voiceless consonants (as in cat s ) and [z] in most other cases (as in dog s ). A given language will use only a small subset of the many possible sounds that the human speech organs can produce, and (because of allophony ) the number of distinct phonemes will generally be smaller than the number of identifiably different sounds. Different languages vary considerably in the number of phonemes they have in their systems (although apparent variation may sometimes result from the different approaches taken by the linguists doing the analysis). The total phonemic inventory in languages varies from as few as 11 in Rotokas and Pirahã to as many as 141 in !Xũ . [13] ( p 132-145) The number of phonemically distinct vowels can be as low as two, as in Ubykh and Arrernte . At the other extreme, the Bantu language Ngwe has 14 vowel qualities, 12 of which may occur long or short, making 26 oral vowels, plus 6 nasalized vowels, long and short, making a total of 38 vowels; while ! Xóõ achieves 31 pure vowels, not counting its additional variation by vowel length, by varying the phonation . As regards consonant phonemes, Puinave has just seven, and Rotokas has only six. !Xóõ, on the other hand, has somewhere around 77, and Ubykh 81. The English language uses a rather large set of 13 to 21 vowel phonemes, including diphthongs, although its 22 to 26 consonants are close to average. Some languages, such as French , have no phonemic tone or stress , while several of the Kam–Sui languages have nine tones, and one of the Krulanguages , Wobe , has been claimed to have 14, though this is disputed.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-16.png)
![1.2. Morphemic level and the definition to the term morpheme In linguistics , a morpheme is the smallest grammatical unit in a language. In other words, it is the smallest meaningful unit of a language. The field of study dedicated to morphemes is called morphology . A morpheme is not identical to a word , and the principal difference between the two is that a morpheme may or may not stand alone, whereas a word, by definition, is freestanding. When it stands by itself, it is considered a root because it has a meaning of its own (e.g. the morpheme cat ) and when it depends on another morpheme to express an idea, it is an affix because it has a grammatical function (e.g. the –s in cats to indicate that it is plural). [1] ( p 192- 239) Every word comprises one or more morphemes. The more combinations a morpheme is found in, the more productive it is said to be. [2] ( p 18-69) Free and bound morphemes Every morpheme can be classified as either free or bound. [3] ( p 45-92) These categories are mutually exclusive, and as such, a given morpheme will belong to exactly one of them. Free morphemes can function independently as words (e.g. town , dog ) and can appear with other lexemes (e.g. town hall , doghouse ). Bound morphemes appear only as parts of words, always in conjunction with a root and sometimes with other bound morphemes. For example, un- appears only accompanied by other morphemes to form a word. Most bound morphemes in English are affixes , particularly prefixes and suffixes . Examples of suffixes are -tion , -ation , -ible , - ing , etc. Bound morphemes that are not affixes are called cranberry morphemes . Classification of bound morphemes Bound morphemes can be further classified as derivational or inflectional.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-19.png)
![Content vs. function Content morphemes express a concrete meaning or content , while function morphemes have more of a grammatical role. For example, the morphemes fast and sad can be considered content morphemes. On the other hand, the suffix –ed belongs to the function morphemes given that it has the grammatical function of indicating past tense. Although these categories seem very clear and intuitive, the idea behind it can be harder to grasp given that they overlap with each other. [4] ( p 400) Examples of an ambiguous situation are the preposition over and the determiner your , which seem to have a concrete meaning, but are considered function morphemes because their role is to connect ideas grammatically. [5] A general rule to follow to determine the category of a morpheme is: Content morphemes include free morphemes that are nouns, adverbs , adjective , and verbs. It also includes bound morphemes that are bound roots and derivational affixes. [5] ( p 20-58) Function morphemes can be free morphemes that are prepositions, pronouns , determiners, and conjunctions . Additionally, they can be bound morphemes that are inflectional affixes. [5] ( p 20-58) Roots are composed of only one morpheme, while stems can be composed of more than one morpheme. Any additional affixes are considered morphemes. An example of this is the word quirkiness . The root is quirk , but the stem is quirky which has two morphemes. Moreover, there exist pairs of affixes that have the same phonological form, but have different meaning. For example, the suffix –er can be derivative (e.g. sell ⇒ seller ) or inflectional (e.g. small ⇒ smaller ). These types of morphemes are called homophonous . [5] ( p 20-58)](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-21.png)
![Some words might seem to be composed of multiple morphemes, but in fact they are not. This is why one has to consider form and meaning when identifying morphemes. For example, the word relate might seem to be composed of two morphemes, re- (prefix) and the word late , but this is not correct. These morphemes have no relationship with the definitions relevant to the word like “feel sympathy”, “narrate”, or “being connected by blood or marriage”. Furthermore, the length of the words does not determine if it has multiple morphemes or not. To demonstrate, the word Madagascar is long and it might seem to have morphemes like mad , gas , and car , but it does not. Conversely, small words can have multiple morphemes (e.g. dogs ). [5] ( p 20-58) In natural language processing for Korean , Japanese , Chinese and other languages, morphological analysis is the process of segmenting a sentence into a row of morphemes. Morphological analysis is closely related to part-of-speech tagging , but word segmentation is required for these languages because word boundaries are not indicated by blank spaces. The purpose of morphological analysis is to determine the minimal units of meaning in a language or morphemes by using comparisons of similar forms—for example, comparing forms such as “She is walking” and “They are walking” rather than comparing either of these with something completely different like “You are reading”. Thus, we can effectively break down the forms in parts and distinguish the different morphemes. Similarly, the meaning and the form are equally important during the identification of morphemes. For instance, agent and comparative morphemes illustrate this point. An agent morpheme is an affix like - er that transforms a verb into a noun (e.g. teach ⇒ teacher ). On the other hand, – er can also be a comparative morpheme that changes an adjective into another](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-22.png)
![degree of the same adjective (e.g. small ⇒ smaller ). In this case, the form is the same, but the meaning of both morphemes is different. Also, the opposite can occur in which the meaning is the same but the form is different. [5] ( p 20-58) In generative grammar , the definition of a morpheme depends heavily on whether syntactic trees have morphemes as leaves or features as leaves. Direct surface to syntax mapping LFG – leaves are words Directsyntaxtosemanticsmapping Leaves in syntactic trees spell out morphemes: Distributed morphology – leaves are morphemes Branches in syntactic trees spell out morphemes: Radical Minimalism and Nanosyntax – leaves are "nano" morpho-syntactic features Given the definition of morpheme as "the smallest meaningful unit" Nanosyntax aims to account for idioms where it is often an entire syntactic tree which contributes "the smallest meaningful unit." An example idiom is "Don't let the cat out of the bag" where the idiom is composed of "let the cat out of the bag" and that might be considered a semantic morpheme, which is composed of many syntactic morphemes. Other cases where the "smallest meaningful unit" is larger than a word include some collocations such as "in view of" and "business intelligence" where the words together have a specific meaning. The definition of morphemes also plays a significant role in the interfaces of generative grammar in the following theoretical constructs; Event semantics : the idea that each productive morpheme must have a compositional semantic meaning (a denotation ), and if the meaning is there, there must be a morpheme ( null or overt).](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-23.png)
![1.3. Lexemic level and lexemes A lexeme is a unit of lexical meaning that exists regardless of the number of inflectional endings it may have or the number of words it may contain. It is a basic unit of meaning, and the headwords of a dictionary are all lexemes. [1] ( p 192- 239) Put more technically, a lexeme is an abstract unit of morphological analysis in linguistics , that roughly corresponds to a set of forms taken by a single word . For example, in the English language , run , runs , ran and running are forms of the same lexeme, conventionally written as RUN . [2] ( p 18-69) A related concept is the lemma (or citation form), which is a particular form of a lexeme that is chosen by convention to represent a canonical form of a lexeme. Lemmas , being a subset of lexemes, are likewise used in dictionaries as the headwords , and other forms of a lexeme are often listed later in the entry if they are not common conjugations of that word. A lexeme belongs to a particular syntactic category , has a certain meaning ( semantic value ), and in inflecting languages, has a corresponding inflectional paradigm ; that is, a lexeme in many languages will have many different forms. For example, the lexeme RUN has a present third person singular form runs , a present non-third-person singular form run (which also functions as the past participle and non-finite form), a past form ran , and a present participle running . (It does not include runner, runners, runnable, etc.) The use of the forms of a lexeme is governed by rules of grammar ; in the case of English verbs such as RUN , these include subject- verb agreement and compound tense rules, which determine which form of a verb can be used in a given sentence . A lexicon consists of lexemes.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-25.png)
![In many formal theories of language , lexemes have subcategorization frames to account for the number and types of complements. They occur within sentences and other syntactic structures . The notion of a lexeme is very central to morphology , and thus, many other notions can be defined in terms of it. For example, the difference between inflection and derivation can be stated in terms of lexemes: Inflectional rules relate a lexeme to its forms. Derivational rules relate a lexeme to another lexeme. The lexemes of a language are often composed of smaller units with individual meaning called morphemes , according to root morpheme + derivational morphemes + desinence (not necessarily in this order), where: The root morpheme is the primary lexical unit of a word, which carries the most significant aspects of semantic content and cannot be reduced to smaller constituents. [3] ( p 45-92) The derivational morphemes carry only derivational information. [4] ( p 400) The desinence is composed of all inflectional morphemes, and carries only inflectional information. [5] ( p 20-58) The compound root morpheme + derivational morphemes is often called the stem . [6] ( p 253-277) The decomposition stem + desinence can then be used to study inflection. Word – the basic unit of language, directly corresponds to the object of thought (referent) – which is a generalized reverberation of a certain 'slice', 'piece' of objective reality – and by immediately referring to it names the thing meant. Typology of words: Morphologically we distinguish between: - monomorphemic w. (root w.);](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-26.png)
![Chapter II The relations of language units The five main components of language are phonemes , morphemes , lexemes , syntax, and context. Along with grammar , semantics , and pragmatics, these components work together to create meaningful communication among individuals. A phoneme is the smallest unit of sound that may cause a change of meaning within a language but that doesn't have meaning by itself. A morpheme is the smallest unit of a word that provides a specific meaning to a string of letters (which is called a phoneme). There are two main types of morpheme: free morphemes and bound morphemes. A lexeme is the set of all the inflected forms of a single word. Syntax is the set of rules by which a person constructs full sentences. Context is how everything within language works together to convey a particular meaning. TERMS phoneme An indivisible unit of sound in a given language. morpheme The smallest linguistic unit within a word that can carry a meaning, such as "un-", "break", and "-able" in the word "unbreakable." lexeme The set of inflected forms taken by a single word. Every language is different. In English, an adjective comes before a noun ("red house"), whereas in Spanish, the adjective comes after ("casa [house] roja [red].") In German, you can put noun after noun together to form giant compound words;](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-33.png)
![2.1. Paradigmatic relation of language units Structural linguistics is an approach to linguistics originating from the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and is part of the overall approach of structuralism . De Saussure's Course in General Linguistics , published posthumously in 1916, stressed examining language as a static system of interconnected units. He is thus known as a father of modern linguistics for bringing about the shift from diachronic (historical) to synchronic (non-historical) analysis, as well as for introducing several basic dimensions of semiotic analysis that are still important today, such as syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis (or 'associations' as Saussure was still calling them). [1] ( p 192-238) Structural linguistics involves collecting a corpus of utterances and then attempting to classify all of the elements of the corpus at their different linguistic levels: the phonemes , morphemes , lexical categories , noun phrases , verb phrases , and sentence types. [2] ( p 18-69) Two of Saussure's key methods were syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis , which define units syntactically and lexically , respectively, according to their contrast with the other units in the system. Structural linguistics begins with the posthumous publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics in 1916, which was compiled from lectures by his students. The book proved to be highly influential, providing the foundation for both modern linguistics and semiotics . Structuralist linguistics is normally seen as giving rise to independent European and American traditions. European Structuralism In Europe , Saussure influenced the Prague School of Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy , whose work would prove hugely influential, particularly](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-35.png)
![contrasting the syntagma je dois ("I should") and dois je? ("Should I?") allows us to realize that in French we only have to invert the units to turn a statement into a question. We thus take syntagmatic evidence (difference in structural configurations) as indicators of paradigmatic relations (e.g., in the present case: questions vs. assertions). The most detailed account of the relationship between a paradigmatic organisation of language as a motivator and classifier for syntagmatic configurations is that set out in the systemic-network organization of systemic functional grammar , where paradigmatic relations and syntagmatic configurations each have their own separate formalisation, related by realization constraints. Modern linguistic formalisms that work in terms of lattices of linguistic signs, such as head-driven phrase structure grammar , similarly begin to separate out an explicit level of paradigmatic organization. Saussure developed structural linguistics, with its idealized vision of language, partly because he was aware that it was impossible in his time to fully understand how the human brain and mind created and related to language: Saussure set out to model language in purely linguistic terms, free of psychology, sociology, or anthropology. That is, Saussure was trying precisely not to say what goes on in your or my mind when we understand a word or make up a sentence.Saussure was trying to de-psychologize linguistics. [3] ( p 45-92) Although consistent in his rejection of American Structuralism, Noam Chomsky has maintained contradictory positions on the continuity of his own views with those of de Saussure. In 1963 Chomsky identified his own view so closely with those of de Saussure that Mauro referred to his paper as "une veritable profession de foisaussurienne". [4] ( p 400) In 1972, Chomsky described](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-38.png)
![structural linguistics as an "impoverished and thoroughly inadequate conception of language". [5] ( p 20-58) According to Searle, Chomsky maintained that structural linguistics was efficient for phonology and morphology, because both have a finite number of units that the linguist can collect. However, he did not believe structural linguistics was sufficient for syntax, reasoning that an infinite number of sentences could be uttered, rendering a complete collection impossible. Instead, he proposed the job of the linguist was to create a small set of rules that could generate all the sentences of a language, and nothing but those sentences. [2] ( p 18-69) Searle paraphrases one of Chomsky's key objections to structural linguistics as its inadequacy in explaining complex and/or ambiguous sentences, writing: [2] ( p 18-69) John is easy to please" and "John is eager to please" look as if they had exactly the same grammatical structure. Each is a sequence of noun-copula-adjective- infinitive verb. But in spite of this surface similarity the grammar of the two is quite different. In the first sentence, though it is not apparent from the surface word order, "John" functions as the direct object of the verb to please ; the sentence means: it is easy for someone to please John . Whereas in the second "John" functions as the subject of the verb to please ; the sentence means: John is eager that he please someone . That this is a difference in the syntax of the sentences comes out clearly in the fact that English allows us to form the noun phrase "John's eagerness to please" out of the second, but not "John's easiness to please" out of the first. There is no easy or natural way to account for these facts within structuralist assumptions.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-39.png)
![Some linguists now regard Structuralist approaches as outdated and as superseded by newer developments. In 1984, Mitchell Marcus declared that structural linguistics was "fundamentally inadequate to process the full range of natural language [and furthermore was] held by no current researchers, to my knowledge." [6] ( p 253-277) Holland [3] ( p 45-92) writes that it was widely accepted that Chomsky had "decisively refuted Saussure.Much of Chomsky's work is not accepted by other linguists [and] I am not claiming that Chomsky is right, only that Chomsky has proven that Saussure is wrong. Linguists who reject Chomsky claim to be going beyond Chomsky, or they cling to phrase- structure grammars . They are not turning back to Saussure." Jan Koster states, "Saussure, considered the most important linguist of the century in Europe until the 1950s, hardly plays a role in current theoretical thinking about language," [7] ( p 115-120) while cognitive linguist Mark Turner [8] (p 6-47 believes that many of Saussure's concepts were "wrong on a grand scale" and Norman N. Holland [3] notes that "Saussure's views are not held, so far as I know, by modern linguists, only by literary critics , Lacanians , and the occasional philosopher;" others have made similar claims. [9] (p 58-72) [10] (38-55) Others however stress the continuing importance of Saussure's thought and Structuralist approaches. In 2012, Gilbert Lazard dismissed the Chomskyean approach as passé while applauding a return to Saussurrean structuralism as the only course by which linguistics can become more scientific. [11] (p241- 259) Matthews (2001) [12] (p78-79) notes the existence of many "linguists who are structuralists by many of the definitions that have been proposed, but who would themselves vigorously deny that they are anything of the kind", suggesting a persistence of the structuralist paradigm.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-40.png)
![In the 1950s Saussure's ideas were appropriated by several prominent figures in continental philosophy , anthropology , and from there were borrowed in literary theory , where they are used to interpret novels and other texts. However, several critics have charged that Saussure's ideas have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by continental philosophers and literary theorists and are certainly not directly applicable to the textual level, which Saussure himself would have firmly placed within parole and so not amenable to his theoretical constructs. [13] (p132-145) [14] (p2-55) References 1. Jump up ^ Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics , Open Court House.page 192-238. 2. ^ Jump up to: a b c John R. Searle, "Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics" , New York Review of Books , June 29, 1972.paeg 18-69. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c Holland, Norman N. (1992) The Critical I, Columbia University Press, page 45-92. 4. Jump up ^ De Mauro, Tullio, 1972. Edition critique du Cours de linguistique generale de Ferdinand de Saussure. Paris: Payot. p. 400 5. Jump up ^ Chomsky, Noam. (1972) Language and Mind. EnlargedEd. NewYork: HarcourtBraceJovanovich, p. 20 -58. 6. Jump up ^ Marcus, Mitchell, (198) "Some Inadequate Theories of Human Language Processing." Talking Minds: The Study of Language in Cognitive Science . Eds. Thomas G. Bever, John M. Carroll, and Lance A. Miller. Cambridge MA: MIT P, 1984. 253- 2 77. 7. Jump up ^ Koster, Jan. (1996) "Saussure meets the brain", in R. Jonkers, E. Kaan, J. K. Wiegel, eds., Language and Cognition 5. Yearbook 1992 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen, Groningen, pp. 115-120. 8. Jump up ^ Turner, Mark. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. UniversityofChicagoPress, p. 6 -47 . 9. Jump up ^ Fabb, Nigel. (1988) Saussure and literary theory: from the perspective of linguistics. Critical Quarterly, Volume 30, Issue 2, pages 58–72, June 1988. 10. Jump up ^ Evans, Dylan. (2005) "From Lacan to Darwin", in The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative, eds. Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2005, pp.38-55.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-41.png)
![2.2.1. The notion of synparadigm (syntactic paradigm) The development of linguistic science in the last decade is characterized by intensive development syntactic paradigmatic problems. In modern linguistics there is no single definition syntactic paradigm, it is not clear, it is allocated on the basis of which criteria, which structures are its members, what kind of relationship unite unity syntactic paradigm where its borders. It is unexplored question is paradigm proposals based on the English language. Since this is a syntactic paradigm, it MEMBER contact must be a unit of syntactic level: structure and phrase. According to some linguists [35, 76], the layer combination paradigms are not syntactic, and represents the sum of morphological paradigms. For example, the paradigm phrases:..a happy boy, cheerful boy, gay boy, etc. or this book, these books are based on the B-tem forms rod phrases of speech and its definition is given. Apparently, the issue of recognition / non-recognition of a paradigm phrases - a complicated and requires carefully studied. In our study, we proceed from the task descriptions of connections of words and phrases, allocated on the basis of pre-decomposition, so we do not consider the paradigm word combination isolation and offer a paradigm components sentence proliferation and spread. Linguists dealing with syntax problems, agree that the units are syntactic paradigm offers. several definitions syntactic paradigms have been put forward. Consider the two concepts. First of all, we focus on the question of how the syntactic paradigm is treated in the "Grammar of Contemporary Russian literal language" [366, 577]. In the "Paradigmatics simple sentence: NY Shvedova writes that the changes happen within a single structural framework proposal plans to express different](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-50.png)
![modalities and time values should be regarded as a paradigmatic change. Sentence with a verb in the indicative mood, present tense, like son is recognized as the original form of the paradigm. After the offer for all moods and times, we get the paradigm offers that present the following eight members: Son learns Son learned \ indicative three times. The son will learn to J Son would be studied - the subjunctive. Learn to be a son - conditional mood. He studied a son! –in the meaning of must inclination. If (if only) son was! - The desired inclination. Let son studies. Let's son will learn! Son will learn! That son was - motive inclination. Such an understanding of the syntactic paradigm caused dis-SSG in the linguistic literature [37, 9; 38, 83-85]. The main criticisms are as follows-present: 1. Paradigm proposal boils down to the morphological verb paradigm. 2. As the structural basis of the proposal is reduced to its component of the verb, as it contains AUC-The knowledge of grammar at the time and the inclination of the structural basis of the proposal is necessary to exclude preverbal dependent members and the subject (they do not play any role in the expression parsing time and inclination ). It is found that the subject is not involved in the construction of paradigms offer.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-51.png)
![3. Different structural models are not distinguished the totality-of modal-tense forms, ie. E. Receive the same paradigm for all structural models proposals 4. Proposals negative and interrogative are placed in the paradigm of the proposal, while exclamatory and incentive regarded as its members. 5. Do not resolved the question remains whether, including The chat should be in the same paradigm with appropriate proposals chap goals in the real and the passive voice. For example: house building and house construction. 6. In one paradigm includes various functional models: The night is dark, and the night is dark Be. ., T. E. Mapped independent and non-automatic suggestions. Now let us consider the problem of syntactic paradigm treated representatives of transformational grammar (TG). The concept of derivation of phrase is central to me-hundred in TG, it leads to the construction of paradigmatic series by transformational analysis. Just as in a number of forms of the noun is chosen as the main form of the nominative case, nuclear proposal, t. E. Behavior Obscure offer specific structural type, is considered the original. Along with all it forms transforms paradigm. This conclusion is implicit in the works contain 3. Harris and Chomsky, but was first clearly formulated by D. Worth [39], which suggests that there is full parallelism between paradigms on morphological and syntactic levels. It offers two types of syntax differs paradigms: 1) and inflected 2) derivational. Flexion paradigm offers similar, in its opinion, the inflection, and derivation –word forming. In inflected syntactic paradigms transformation relate only to the grammatical form of components, sentence structure does not change (linear paradigm) or change part (non-linear paradigm). Derivational paradigm as well as derivational forms a "nest" structures associated common source sentence and the same lexical morphemes. D. Worth illustrate these theoretical principles with examples from Slavic languages.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-52.png)
![3.1. Hierarchic relation A hierarchy (from the Greek [1] (p192-239) ἱεραρχία hierarchia , "rule of a high priest", from ἱεράρχης hierarkhes , "leader of sacred rites") is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another. A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly, and either vertically or diagonally. The only direct links in a hierarchy, insofar as they are hierarchical, are to one's immediate superior or to one of one's subordinates, although a system that is largely hierarchical can also incorporate alternative hierarchies. Indirect hierarchical links can extend "vertically" upwards or downwards via multiple links in the same direction, following a path . All parts of the hierarchy which are not linked vertically to one another nevertheless can be "horizontally" linked through a path by traveling up the hierarchy to find a common direct or indirect superior, and then down again. This is akin to two co-workers or colleagues ; each reports to a common superior, but they have the same relative amount of authority. Organizational forms exist that are both alternative and complementary to hierarchy. Heterarchy is one such form. Hierarchies have their own special vocabulary. These terms are easiest to understand when a hierarchy is diagrammed. In an organizational context, the following terms are often used related to hierarchies: [2] (p18-69) Object : one entity (e.g., a person, department or concept or element of arrangement or member of a set) System : the entire set of objects that are being arranged hierarchically (e.g., an administration) Dimension : another word for "system" from on-line analytical processing (e.g. cubes)](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-54.png)
![In a mathematical context (in graph theory ), the general terminology used is different. Most hierarchies use a more specific vocabulary pertaining to their subject, but the idea behind them is the same. For example, with data structures , objects are known as nodes , superiors are called parents and subordinates are called children . In a business setting, a superior is a supervisor/boss and a peer is a colleague . Degree of branching refers to the number of direct subordinates or children an object has (in graph theory, equivalent to the number of other vertices connected to via outgoing arcs, in a directed graph) a node has). Hierarchies can be categorized based on the "maximum degree", the highest degree present in the system as a whole. Categorization in this way yields two broad classes: linear and branching . In a linear hierarchy , the maximum degree is 1. [2] (p18-69) In other words, all of the objects can be visualized in a lineup, and each object (excluding the top and bottom ones) has exactly one direct subordinate and one direct superior. Note that this is referring to the objects and not the levels ; every hierarchy has this property with respect to levels, but normally each level can have an infinite number of objects. An example of a linear hierarchy is the hierarchy of life . In a ' branching hierarchy' , one or more objects has a degree of 2 or more (and therefore the maximum degree is 2 or higher). For many people, the word "hierarchy" automatically evokes an image of a branching hierarchy. [2] (p18- 69) Branching hierarchies are present within numerous systems, including organizations and classification schemes . The broad category of branching hierarchies can be further subdivided based on the degree. A ' flat hierarchy' is a branching hierarchy in which the maximum degree approaches infinity, i.e., that has a wide span. [3] (p45-92) Most often, systems intuitively regarded as hierarchical have at most a moderate span. Therefore, a flat hierarchy is often not viewed as a hierarchy at all. For example, diamonds and graphite are flat hierarchies of numerous carbon atoms which can be further decomposed into subatomic particles.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-56.png)
![An ' overlapping hierarchy' is a branching hierarchy in which at least one object has two parent objects. For example, a graduate student can have two co- supervisors to whom the student reports directly and equally, and who have the same level of authority within the university hierarchy (i.e., they have the same position or tenure status. Possibly the first use of the English word "hierarchy" cited by the Oxford English Dictionary was in 1880, when it was used in reference to the three orders of three angels as depicted by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th–6th centuries). Pseudo-Dionysius used the related Greek word ( hierarchia ) both in reference to the celestial hierarchy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy . [4] (p400) The Greek term " ἱεραρχία " means "rule by priests" (from " ἱεράρχης " – ierarches , meaning "president of sacred rites, high-priest" [5] (p20-58) and that from " ἱερεύς " – iereus , "priest" [6] (p253-277) + " ἀρχή " – arche , amongst others "first place or power, rule" [7] (p115-120 ), and Dionysius is credited with first use of it as an abstract noun. Since hierarchical churches, such as the Roman Catholic (see Catholic Church hierarchy ) and Eastern Orthodox churches, had tables of organization that were "hierarchical" in the modern sense of the word (traditionally with God as the pinnacle or head of the hierarchy), the term came to refer to similar organizational methods in secular settings. A hierarchy is typically depicted as a pyramid , where the height of a level represents that level's status and width of a level represents the quantity of items at that level relative to the whole. For example, the few Directors of a company could be at the apex , and the base could be thousands of people who have no subordinates. These pyramids are typically diagrammed with a tree or triangle diagram (but note that not all triangle/pyramid diagrams are hierarchical, for example, the 1992 USDA food guide pyramid ), both of which serve to emphasize the size differences between the levels. An example of a triangle diagram appears to the](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-57.png)
![1. No element is superior to itself, and 2. One element, the hierarch , is superior to all of the other elements in the set. The first requirement is also interpreted to mean that a hierarchy can have no circular relationships ; the association between two objects is always transitive . The second requirement asserts that a hierarchy must have a leader or root that is common to all of the objects. Hierarchy is a partially ordered set or poset . [8] (p6-47) The system in this case is the entire poset, which is constituted of elements. Within this system, each element shares a particular unambiguous property. Objects with the same property value are grouped together, and each of those resulting levels is referred to as a class . "Hierarchy" is particularly used to refer to a poset in which the classes are organized in terms of increasing complexity. Operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are often performed in a certain sequence or order. Usually, addition and subtraction are performed after multiplication and division has already been applied to a problem. The use of parenthesis is also a representation of hierarchy, for they show which operation is to be done prior to the following ones.](/data/documents/6f747e3a-58ea-4ff3-ba83-77d8eae0f9fd/page-59.png)
