General principles of grammatical analisys - Английский язык - Рефераты

General principles of grammatical analisys

Загружено в:

20.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

71 KB

General principles of grammatical analisys Problems to be discussed: 1. Pragmatics. Speech act theory 2. Discourse analysis

Man is not well defined as "Homo sapiens" ("man with wisdom"). For what do we mean by wisdom? It has not been proved so far that animals do not possess it. Those of you who have pets can easily prove the contrary. Most recently anthropologists have started defining human beings as "man the toolmaker". However, apes can also make primitive tools. What sets man apart from the rest of animal kingdom is his ability to speak: he is "can easily object by saying that animals can also speak Homo loquens" - "man the speaking animal". And again, you, naturally, in their own way. But their sounds are meaningless, and there is no link between sound and meaning (or if there is, it is of a very primitive kind) and the link for man is grammar. Only with the help of grammar we can combine words to form sentences and texts. Man is not merely Homo loquens, he is Homo Grammaticus. The term "grammar" goes back to a Greek word that may be translated as the "art of writing". But later this word acquired a much wider sense and came to embrace the whole study of language. Now it is often used as the synonym of linguistics. A question comes immediately to mind: what does this study involve? Grammar may be practical and theoretical. The aim of practical grammar is the description of grammar rules that are necessary to understand and formulate sentences. The aim of theoretical grammar is to offer explanation for these rules. Generally speaking, theoretical grammar deals with the language as a functional system. According to the Bible: 'In the beginning was the Word'. In fact, the word is considered to be the central (but not the only) linguistic unit of language. Linguistic units (or in other words - signs) can go into three types of relations: a) The relation between a unit and an object in the world around us (objective reality). E.g. the word 'table' refers to a definite piece of furniture. It may be not only an object but a process, state, quality, etc. This type of meaning is called referential meaning of a unit. It is semantics that studies the referential meaning of units.

b) The relation between a unit and other units (inner relations between units). No unit can be used independently; it serves as an element in the system of other units. This kind of meaning is called syntactic. Formal relation of units to one another is studied by syntactics (or syntax). c) The relation between a unit and a person who uses it. As we know too well, when we are saying something, we usually have some purpose in mind. We use the language as an instrument for our purpose (e.g.). One and the same word or sentence may acquire different meanings in communication. This type of meaning is called pragmatic. The study of the relationship between linguistic units and the users of those units is done by pragmatics. Thus there are three models of linguistic description: semantic, syntactic and pragmatic. To illustrate the difference between these different ways of linguistic analysis, let us consider the following sentence: Students are students. The first part of the XXth century can be characterized by a formal approach to the language study. Only inner (syntactic) relations between linguistic units served the basis for linguistic analysis while the reference of words to the objective reality and language users were actually not considered. Later, semantic language analysis came into use. However, it was surely not enough for a detailed language study. Language certainly figures centrally in our lives. We discover our identity as individuals and social beings when we acquire it during childhood. It serves as a means of cognition and communication: it enables us to think for ourselves and to cooperate with other people in our community. Therefore, the pragmatic side of the language should not be ignored either. Functional approach in language analysis deals with the language 'in action'. Naturally, in order to get a broad description of the language, all the three approaches must be combined. Any human language has two main functions: the communicative function and the expressive or representative function - human language is the living form of thought. These two functions are closely interrelated as the expressive function of language is realized in the process of speech communication.

The expressive function of language is performed by means of linguistic signs and that is why we say that language is a semiotic system. It means that linguistic signs are of semiotic nature: they are informative and meaningful. There are other examples of semiotic systems but all of them are no doubt much simpler. For instance, traffic lights use a system of colours to instruct drivers and people to go or to stop. Some more examples: Code Morse, Brighton Alphabet, computer languages, etc. What is the difference between language as a semiotic system and other semiotic systems? Language is universal, natural, it is used by all members of society while any other sign systems are artificial and depend on the sphere of usage. Language is regarded as a system of elements (or: signs, units) such as sounds, words, etc. These elements have no value without each other, they depend on each other, they exist only in a system, and they are nothing without a system. System implies the characterization of a complex object as made up of separate parts (e.g. the system of sounds). Language is a structural system. Structure means hierarchical layering of parts in constituting the whole. In the structure of language there are four main structural levels: phonological, morphological, syntactical and supersyntatical. The levels are represented by the corresponding level units: The phonological level is the lowest level. The phonological level unit is the phoneme. It is a distinctive unit (bag - back). The morphological level has two level units: a) the 'morpheme - the lowest meaningful unit (teach - teacher); b) the word - the main naming ('nominative) unit of language. The syntactical level has two level units as well: a) the word-group - the dependent syntactic unit; b) the sentence - the main communicative unit. The supersyntactical level has the text as its level unit. All structural levels are subject matters of different levels of linguistic analysis. At different levels of analysis we focus attention on different features of language.

Generally speaking, the larger the units we deal with, the closer we get to the actuality of people's experience of language. To sum it up, each level has its own system. Therefore, language is regarded as a system of systems. The level units are built up in the same way and that is why the units of a lower level serve the building material for the units of a higher level. This similarity and likeness of organization of linguistic units is called isomorphism. This is how language works - a small number of elements at one level can enter into thousands of different combinations to form units at the other level. We have arrived at the conclusion that the notions of system and structure are not synonyms - any system has its own structure (compare: the system of Uzbek education vs. the structure of Uzbek education; army organization). Any linguistic unit is a double entity. It unites a concept and a sound image. The two elements are intimately united and each recalls the other. Accordingly, we distinguish the content side and the expression side. The forms of linguistic units bear no natural resemblance to their meaning. The link between them is a matter of convention, and conventions differ radically across languages. Thus, the English word 'dog' happens to denote a particular four-footed domesticated creature, the same creature that is denoted in Uzbek or Russian languages by the completely different form. Neither form looks like a dog, or sounds like one. PRAGMATICS. SPEECH ACT THEORY. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS The term 'pragmatics' was first introduced by Charles Morris, a philosopher. He contrasts pragmatics with semantics and syntax. He claims that syntax is the study of the grammatical relations of linguistic units to one another and the grammatical structures of phrases and sentences that result from these grammatical relation, semantics is the study of the relation of linguistic units to the objects they denote, and pragmatics is the study of the relation of linguistic units to people who communicate. This view of pragmatics is too broad because according to it, pragmatics may have as its domain any human activity involving language, and this includes

almost all human activities, from baseball to the stock market. We will proceed from the statement that linguistic pragmatics is the study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with the context in which they would be appropriate. What do we mean by 'appropriate context'? In our everyday life we as a rule perform or play quite a lot of different roles - a student, a friend, a daughter, a son, a client, etc. When playing different roles our language means are not the same - we choose different words and expressions suitable and appropriate for the situation. We use the language as an instrument for our purposes. For instance, (a) What are you doing here? We're talking (b) What the hell are you doing here? We're chewing the rag have the same referential meaning but their pragmatic meaning is different, they are used in different contexts. Similarly, each utterance combines a propositional base (objective part) with the pragmatic component (subjective part). It follows that an utterance with the same propositional content may have different pragmatic components: just mentioning of the fact explanation It's hot excuse inducement to do something about it menace To put it in other words, they are different speech acts . That is, speech acts are simply things people do through language - for example, apologizing, instructing, menacing, explaining something, etc. The term 'speech act' was coined by the philosopher John Austin and developed by another philosopher John Searle. John Austin is the person who is usually credited with generating interest in what has since come to be known as pragmatics and speech act theory. His ideas of language were set out in a series of lectures which he gave at Oxford University. These lectures were later published under the title "How to do things with words". His first step was to show that some utterances are not statements or questions but actions . He reached this conclusion through an analysis of what he termed 'performative verbs' . Let us consider the following sentences:

I pronounce you man and wife I declare war on France I name this ship The Albatros I bet you 5 dollars it will rain I apologize The peculiar thing about these sentences, according to J. Austin, is that they are not used to say or describe things, but rather actively to do things. After you have declared war on France or pronounced somebody husband and wife the situation has changed. That is why J. Austin termed them as performatives and contrasted them to statements (he called them constatives). Thus by pronouncing a performative utterance the speaker is performing an action. The performative utterance, however, can really change things only under certain circumstances. J. Austin specified the circumstances required for their success as felicity conditions . In order to declare war you must be someone who has the right to do it. Only a priest (or a person with corresponding power) can make a couple a husband ad wife. Besides, it must be done before witnesses and the couple getting married must sign the register. Performatives may be explicit and implicit . Let us compare the sentences: I promise I will come tomorrow - I will come tomorrow; I swear I love you - I love you. On any occasion the action performed by producing an utterance will consist of three related acts (a three-fold distinction): 1) locutionary act - producing a meaningful linguistic expression, uttering a sentence. If you have difficulty with actually forming the sounds and words to create a meaningful utterance (because you are a foreigner or tongue-tied) then you might fail to produce a locutionary act: it often happens when we learn a foreign language. 2) illocutionary act - we form an utterance with some kind of function on mind, with a definite communicative intention or illocutionary force. The notion of illocutionary force is basic for pragmatics.

3) perlocutionary act - the effect the utterance has on the hearer. Perlocutionary effect may be verbal or non-verbal. E.g. I've bought a car - Great! It's cold here - and you close the window. It was John Searle, who studied under J. Austin at Oxford, who proposed a detailed classification of speech acts. His speech act classification has had a great impact on linguistics. It includes five major classes of speech acts: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives and commissives: Speech act type Direction of fit s - speaker, x - - situation Declarations words change the world S causes X E.g. I pronounce you man and wife. You're fired Representatives make words fit the world S believes X E.g. It was a warm sunny day. John is a liar. Expressives make words fit the world S feels X E.g. I'm really sorry. Happy birthday! (statements of pleasure, joy, sorrow, etc.) Directives make the world fit words S wants X E.g. Don't touch that (commands, orders, suggestions) Commissives make the world fit words S intends X E.g. I'll be back (promises, threats, pledges - what we intend to do) J. Searle can also be merited for introducing a theory of indirect speech acts. Indirect speech acts are cases in which one speech act is performed indirectly, by way of performing another: Can you pass me the salt? Though the sentence is interrogative, it is conventionally used to mark a request - we cannot just answer "yes" or "no". According to modem point of view such utterances contain two illocutionary forces, with one of them dominating. Another classification of speech acts was introduced by G.Potcheptsov. It is

based on purely linguistic principles. The main criterion for pragmatic classification of utterances is the way of expressing communicative intention. This classification includes six basic speech acts: constatives, promissives, menacives, performatives, directives and questions. More details can be found in the book by И . П . Иванова , В . В . Бурлакова , Г . Г . Почепцов “ Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка ” , С . 267-281. Text as a unit of the highest level manifests itself as discourse in verbal communication. Therefore actual text in use may be defined as discourse. Discourses are formed by sequence of utterances. It is obvious that many utterances taken by themselves are ambiguous. They can become clear only within a discourse. Utterances interpretation, or discourse analysis , involves a variety of processes, grammatical and pragmatic. By pragmatic processes we mean the processes used to bridge up the gap between the semantic representations of sentences and the interpretation of utterances in context. Quite often, the sentence may be ambiguous: His soup is not hot enough The hearer must not only recover the semantic representation of the sentence uttered, but decide who the referential expression he refers to, whether the ambiguous word hot means very warm or spicy, whether the vague expression his food refers to the food he cooked, the food he brought, the food he served, the food he is eating, etc. Besides, utterances have not only propositional content but illocutionary force, and ambiguities may arise at this level: You're not leaving The hearer must not only recover its explicit propositional content, but also decide whether it is a statement, a question or an order. Furthermore, utterances have not only explicit content but also implicit import: A: Would you like some coffee? B: Coffee would keep me awake. The hearer (A) must recover the implication that B does not want any coffee (or,

in some circumstances, that he does). Understanding the meaning of a discourse requires knowing a lot of things. There are times when people say (or write) exactly what they mean, but generally they are not totally explicit. They manage to convey far more than their words mean, or even something quite different from the meaning of their words. It was Paul Grice who attempted to explain how, by means of shared rules or conventions, language users manage to understand one another. He introduced guidelines necessary for the efficient and effective conversation. He defined these guidelines as Cooperative Principle. Cooperative Principle presupposes that conversation is governed by four basic rules, Maxims of Conversation . There are four of them: 1. The Maxim of Quality Do not say what you believe to be false Do not say for what you lack adequate evidence 2. The Maxim of Quantity Make your contribution as informative as required Do not make your contribution more informative than is required 3. The Maxim of Relevance Be relevant 4. The Maxim of Manner Be clear Be orderly Communicative maxims make it possible to generate inferences which are defined as conversational implicatures and conventional implicatures . Conversational implicatures are such components of an utterance that are not expressed semantically but are understood by communicants in the process of communication: Was it you who broke the cup? This question presupposes: Someone has broken the cup. If you did not do that your normal reaction would be: What cup?, while the answer I didn't do that shows that you know about the fact. Conversational implicatures are universal, they do not depend on the language

used. The second type of implicatures, conventional implicatures, are derived from a definite lexical or grammatical structure of an utterance: I saw only John (conventional implicature – I didn't see anyone else), Even Bill is smarter than you (Everybody is smarter than John, John is stupid). Both kinds of implicatures are of great interest for discourse analysis. When there is a mismatch between the expressed meaning and the implied meaning we deal with indirectness. Indirectness is a universal phenomenon: it occurs in all natural languages. Let us see how conversational implicatures arise from Maxims of Conversation and thus create indirectness. A). In the following example Polonius is talking to Hamlet: Polonius: What do you read, My Lord? Hamlet: Words, words, words. In this dialogue Hamlet deliberately gives less information than is required by the situation and so flouts the Maxim of Quantity. At the same time he deliberately fails to help Polonius to achieve his goals, thereby flouting the Maxim of Relevance. The Maxim of Quantity is also flouted when we say: Law is law, woman is woman, students are students. This makes us look for what these utterances really mean. B). In the utterance You're being too smart! the Maxim of Quality is flouted and the hearer is made to look for a covert sense. Similarly, the same maxim is flouted with metaphors. If I say: He is made of iron, I am either non-cooperative or I want to convey something different. C). The Maxim of Relevance can also be responsible for producing a wide range of standard implicatures: A: Can you tell me the time? B: The bell has gone. It is only on the basis of assuming the relevance of B's response that we can understand it as an answer to A's question. D). A number of different kinds of inference arise if we assume that the Maxim of Manner is being observed. The utterance The lone ranger rode into the sunset

and jumped on his horse violates our expectation that events are recounted in the order in which they happen because the Maxim of Manner is flouted. One more explanation of the fact why people are so often indirect in conveying what they mean was put forward by Geoffrey Leech in his book "Principles of Pragmatics". He introduces the Politeness Principle which runs as follows: Minimize the expression of impolite beliefs; Maximize the expression of polite beliefs. According to G. Leech, the Politeness Principle is as valid as Cooperative Principle because it helps to explain why people do not always observe Maxims of Conversation. Quite often we are indirect in what we say because we want to minimize the expression of impoliteness: A: Would you like to go to the theatre? B: I have an exam tomorrow. B is saying 'no', but indirectly, in order to be polite. Five major classes of speech acts Speech act type Direction of fit s - speaker, x - - situation Declarations words change the world S causes X E.g. I pronounce you man and wife. You're fired Representatives make words fit the world S believes X E.g. It was a warm sunny day. John is a liar. Expressives make words fit the world S feels X E.g. I'm really sorry. Happy birthday! (statements of pleasure, joy, sorrow, etc.) Directives make the world fit words S wants X E.g. Don't touch that (commands, orders, suggestions) Commissives make the world fit words S intends X E.g. I'll be back (promises, threats, pledges - what we intend to do) Five major classes of speech acts

Declarations Representatives Expressives Directives Commissives Exclamatory ImperativeFive major classes of speech acts

Literature 1. Ирискулов М., Кулдашев A. A course in theoiretical English Grammar. T., 2008 2. Л. Бархударов. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966 3. Л. Бархударов, Д. Штелинг. Грамматика английского языка. М. , 1994 4. М. Блох. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М. , 1994 5. М. Блох. Теоретические основы грамматики. М. , 2002 6. M. Blokh. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983 7. Дж. Буранов. Сравнительная типология английского и тюркских языков. М. , 1989 8. Ж. Б ў ронов. Инглиз ва ў зб ек тиллари қ иёсий грамматикаси. Т., 1973

Похожие

Grammatical problems of translation

The problem of grammatical categories

Linguistic Typology as a subject

Phraseological problems of translation

The analysis of the grammatical features of English and Uzbek adjectives used in different discourse