Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
|
phonological or semantical parallelism in any serious manner; rather, it will focus on the syntactic component which is presently being discussed in Hebrew poetics. A crude form of semantics will be used, not in an attempt to model the proverbs semantically, but to heighten the syntactic equivalences and diversities. This paper is calling for one who understands modern semantic research to re-examine the problem of semantic parallelism in a scientifically sophisticated manner. To the knowledge of this writer, this has never been done--for the necessary semantic models have been developed only within the last decade and often have been restricted to technically jargonized linguistic circles. The rationale for cursorily presenting the semantic and phonetic components of poetic equivalence has been to gain deictically an intuitive sensitivity of these features even though they will not be scientifically catalogued. The beneficial character of such sensitivities has resulted in one of the significant contributions of this study, that is, the discovery of principles of composition by which the proverbial sentences were compiled and linked into the present canonical order. In short, contra most scholars who view the proverbial sentence literature as un-ordered atomistic sentences, this writer will suggest that Jakobson's, and consequently O'Connor's, principle of equivalences will reveal the principles by which the sage shaped the collection of proverbial sentences. This study will focus on modeling the syntactic component of the sentences, using O'Connor's and Collins' for comparative purposes. The employment of the powerful, descriptive linguistic system of tagmemics will aid in monitoring syntactic equivalences more closely. The next chapter will explore various linguistic models and explain the tagmemic approach adopted in this study. Tagmemics is perhaps the most sophisticated and descriptively meticulous linguistic system in existence. CHAPTER VII A LINGUISTIC APPROACH
of language which syntagmatically maps various types of equivalences--whether phonologic, syntactic, lexical, semantic, or pragmatic--onto the poetic line. Since language itself is the instrument which poets use to create the kalogentic effect of poetry, it seems apparent that there must be an acute sensitivity to forms of language if one is going to be able to participate in the poetic moment. Language may be said to be a complex, cultural system which the mind employs to mediate the universe of meaning into a linearized stream of signs (spoken, written, or merely thought).1 Thus, the study of language should involve studies of culture, anthropology, psychology, the past and present situation of the ____________________
pp. 5, 15. Cf. Walter A. Cook, Case Grammar: Development of the Matrix Model (1900-78) (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1979), p. 124; Leech, Semantics, pp. 178, 191; Bruce L. Liles, An Introduction to Linguistics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 36; John Beekman, John Callow and Michael Kopesec, The Semantic
Institute of Linguistics, 1981), p. 6; and S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1939), pp. 26-27. individual and/or community utilizing this system, as well as attempting to monitor scientifically the actual sign string itself. While the functions of language are almost as numerous and unique as the utterances themselves,1 linguists have isolated six major functional rubrics of language: phatic, expressive, performative/directive, cognitive, informative, and aesthetic.2 These imbricating functions will also have an effect on how the meaning is to be understood. Leech has observed that language is not only an instrument of communication, "but it is far more than this--it is the means by which we interpret our environment, by which we classify or 'conceptualize' our experiences, by which we are able to impose structure on reality."3 The structuralists have correctly conceived of the sign as:
____________________ 1Ian Robinson, in his usual caustic manner, argues for the multiplicity of linguistic functions, in The New Grammarians' Funeral: A Critque of Noam Chomsky's Linguistics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 161.
2Leech, Semantics, pp. 47-49. Cf. G. B. Caird, The Langage and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), pp. 7-8; Josef Vachek, The Linguistic School of Prague: An Introduction to its Theory and Practice (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966), p. 96; and Bruce Liles, An Introduction to Linguistics (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), pp. 4-8.
3Leech, Semantics, p. 28. Signifier (sound, image) SIGN = --------- Signification (relationship) Signified (concept)1 The connection between the sign and meaning cannot be mechanically fossilized or mathematically prescribed on the basis of the signifier alone, in that speaker/writer and audience situation/relationship may often change the intent of that which is signified.2 For example, though one speaks within the context of a graduation from a rigorous academic program as "death by degrees," the same signifiers take on different meaning when placed in a biology class' discussion of a frog's reaction to slowly boiled water. Therefore, there can be no one-to-one locking of meaning and signifier via descriptive linguistic formulae alone; rather, various types/aspects of meaning will accrue, depending on the type of instrument being used in formulating the meaning.3 While the above would suggest that one form/signifier may have multiple meanings (e.g., my car, my brother, my foot, my book, my village, my train, my word), so, too, one meaning ____________________ 1Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), pp. 65-78. 2Arthur Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis, p. 91. 3The old debate on the "meaning of meaning" or the multitude of meanings of "meaning" may be seen in the classic work by C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning
may be expressed by multiple forms/signifiers ("Is this place taken?" "Is there anyone sitting here?" "Are you saving this seat for someone?" "May I sit here?").1 Poythress has provided a helpful matrix of the types of meanings which may occur. One may examine the history of a communication (source, synchronic, and transmission analysis) from three perspectives (speaker, discourse, and audience analysis), each giving a different aspect or type of meaning.2 Recent pragmalinguistics has provided a model for lingistic meaning which is helping cut the Gordian knot of the structuralists, who have myopically fixated on an exclusive text-analytic approach. This chart isolates, in a somewhat helpful way, the various aspects of meaning. Personal Meaning Situational Meaning (Contextual) Social Meaning Meaning aspects of
an utterance Textual Meaning Co-textual Meaning Lexical Meaning3 ____________________
Some Important Linguistic Distinctions," SJT, 32 (1979):133.
and Conditions for Production," in Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice, ed. Jacob L. Mey (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979), p. 47. Authorial intent is seen to be a complex phenomenon involving situational (contextual) as well as co-textual (a text's relationship to the rest of the text) meaning and cannot be locked into an exacting linguistic analysis of exoteric textual data alone. Because intent involves happenings of the mind, a psychological and sociological starting place may render certain advantages to a textual analysis.1 It should be clear that meaning is more involute than the semiotic system which represents it. Furthermore, in written texts, many of the metalinguistic signals (stress, pitch, juncture, and gestures [hands, face, eyes, etc.])2 are not present--thereby compounding the difficulty of approximating authorial intent. These complexities should provide a philosophical raison d'etre for the first part of this study, which attempted, in a rather discursive manner, to give account of the sociological and ideational settings, as well as, the explicit literary forms, ____________________
Linguistics," in The First LACUS Forum 1974, ed. Adam and Valerie Makkai (Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press, Inc., 1975), pp. 1, 10. In this same volume M. A. K. Halliday presents a very comprehensive "Schematic representation of language as social semiotic" in a "simple" chart ("Language as Social Semiotic: Towards a General Sociolinguistic Theory," p. 41). Cf. also Michael E. Bennett, "Sociolinguistics and Stratificational Theory: A Discussion and an Example," Rice University Studies 66 (Spring 1980):185-205; and Eugene Nida, Exploring Semantic
University Press, 1981), p. 39. employed by wisdom. As one component reflecting the author's intention, the proverbial language (rather than meaning) will be the object of this study. Authorial intent, then, will be revealed at the intersection of the various levels of meanings--which must be derived from sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, pragmalinguistic, textual linguistic, and meta-linguistic data. This complex must include the intra-personal and interpersonal situations of the writer, his text, and his audience. Thus, the focus of this study will be on one small component of the text-meaning-network (phonetic, morphemic, syntactic, lexic, semantic, and pragmatic)--that is, an analysis of syntactic bi-colonic relationships. It is necessary, however, to see the forest before examining one particular tree in order to allow for a more realistic appreciation of the individual tree and a cognition of what unique contribution that tree makes to the forest. From the textual point of view, which will be adopted in the remainder of this study, a language unit is a "form-meaning composite." Consequently, if one is going to approximate the meaning of the text, one must observe the form as carefully as possible--for it is the form which mediates meaning.1 It is at this juncture that ____________________
linguistics will provide an exacting methodological tool, since it provides for the meticulous and scientific description of syntactic form. Introduction to Linguistics There is presently a plethora of linguistic models and each model highlights a different set of features. The central, underlying theme of all such analytic systems is summed up by Kent, when he observes that linguistics allows one to establish his research "not upon the shifting sands of superficial resemblance and sporadic analogies, but upon the firm rock of scientific method."1 Linguistics calls for a study of language which is empirical, exacting, objective, deictic, and, possibly, generative.2 Structural linguistics is empirical in that it has sought to describe existing texts in meticulous detail, breaking language down into smaller and smaller form units. It then carefully monitors shifts in the form and meaning of each unit. Its quasi-mathematical, ____________________ Linguistics, 1982), p. 4. Cooper is not wrong when he observes that in literature form is meaningful; that is, "In literature the meaning exists in and through the form," (Cooper, "Biblical Poetics: A Linguistic Approach," pp. 58, 78). 1Roland G. Kent, "Linguistic Science and the Orientalist," JAOS 55 (1935):137. 2Robinson, The New Grammarians' Funeral, p. 2. However, Robinson objects to the usual approaches to objectivity as "linguistic atomism." meta-linguistic formalization has been an impediment to many as it attempts to describe unambiguously the various features of the text. This leaves the neophyte stranded in an impenetrable labyrinth of abbreviations and mathematical formulae.1 Recently there seems to be a substantial movement coalescing logic and linguistics.2 This formalization of language is an attempt to move language away from subjective, intuitive, and impressionistic insights to a more objective foundation. The fact remains, however, as Sapir well expresses, that "all grammars 'leak.'" It is impossible to force language ____________________
(The Hague: Mouton, 1973), pp. 99; and Kenneth Pike, "On Describing Languages," in The Scope of American
Ridder Press, 1975), p. 33. Hudson notes that in the attempt to formalize language, linguists are not able to cope with the 'messiness' of language, which human beings so readily accommodate (R. A. Hudson, English Complex
[Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1971], p. 5). 2James McCawley, What Every Linguist Should Know About Logic (Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 1981). Also recent works in Montague grammar have baffled this writer, such as: David R. Dowty, Word Meaning and Montague
Publishing Co., 1979); and Barbara Partee, "Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar," Lingusitc Inquiry 6.2 (Spring 1975):203-300. Also vid. R. E. Longacre, An Anatomy of Speech Notions, pp. 98-163; and D. Lee Ballard, R. J. Conrad, and R. E. Longacre "The Deep and Surface Grammar of Interclausal Relations," in Advances in
Publishing Co., 1974), pp. 307-56. into tidy little boxes.1 Thus, this writer agrees with Freeman that impressionistic approaches should not be eschewed by linguists, but should be respected as another method of human inquiry which may provide the bucket for catching the leaks of formal grammatical analysis.2 The deictic function of linguistics is its ability to point out what factors of language are significant and which are only marginal. Finally, an adequate linguistic theory should have generative capacities, meaning that "it correctly predicts which sentences are (and are not) syntactically, semantically and phonologically well-formed."3 In short, not only must it be formally accurate but it also must have explanatory power. In order to accomplish these purposes, linguistics uses a divide-and-conquer methodology. Generally, texts ____________________ 1Jeanne H. Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), p. 119. 2Donald Freeman, ed., Linguistics and Literary Style (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970), p. 81. In the reverse direction, this writer also rejects the viewing of linguists as mere technicians.
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 25. Also note Radford's chapter on linguistic goals (pp. 1-31). Functionally, a grammar must be able to disambiguate similar sentences and to account for dissimilar sentences which are "synonymous." Liles cites the example of the following "synonymous" sentences: "She gave the cake to the bachelor" and "She gave the bachelor the cake" (An Introduction to Linguistics, p. 169). Cf. also Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars, p. 121. are analyzed in separate, rather autonomous language categories: phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicology, semantics (reference), and pragmatics.1 Several reasons may be given for the separation of syntax and semantics.2 The classes of analysis of the two are quite distinct. Semantics, deals with referential meaning, while syntactic categories describe grammatical units (nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.) and relationships (subject, object, etc.).3 Louw is correct when he states that a semantic theory must always be presented with a syntactic backdrop (e.g., ____________________ 1Leech, Semantics, p. 13; or Radford, Transformational Syntax, p. 12. Some keep "lexis" as distinct from semantics, such as: Hudson, English Complex Sentences, p. 11 and Lockwood, Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics, p. 26 (has an interesting diagram on this subject). Still others of a more empirical nature replace what many call semantics with the term "reference," such as: Linda K. Jones, Theme in Expository Discourse p. 4; and Pike & Pike, Grammatical Analysis, pp. 321ff. Finally, those of the pragmalinguistic school have helpfully added pragmatics, such as: Franz Guenther and Christian Rohrer, "Introduction: Formal semantics, Logic and Linguistics," in Studies in Formal Semantics:
and Christian Rohrer (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1978), p. 1; Carl E. Lindberg, "Is the Sentence a Unit of Speech Production and Perception?" in Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice, ed. Jacob Mey (The Hague: Mouton, 1979), p. 59; and Herman Parret, "Introduction," in Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics, ed. Herman Parret (Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V., 1981), p. 2. 2Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague: Mouton, 1957), pp. 92-105. 3Irene Lawrence, Linguistics and Theology: The Significance of Noam Chomsky for Theological Constructions (Meutchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1980), p. 23; Barnwell, Introduction to Semantics and Translation, p. 43; and Leech, Semantics, pp. 181, 340. "metal old several buckets rusty" comes to meaning with the syntactic ordering--"several old rusty metal buckets").1 Also calling for a separation is the fact that it is possible to have a sentence which is syntactically well-formed sentence, but semantically ill-formed: "The fast split-level house ate the chirping four-wheel drive banana."2 Syntax does affect meaning (semantics). From the hackneyed illustrations of "flying planes can be dangerous" and "the very old men and women," one sees how syntactic ambiguity results in an ambiguity in lexical meaning, in the first, and a change in the referential meaning in the second.3 It has been correctly suggested that "flying planes can be dangerous" reflects two deep structure meanings, which is the reason why this syntactic surface structure is ambiguous. So, too, Nida's pattern shows how syntax can change meaning: "Even Terry kissed Karen," "Terry even kissed Karen," and "Terry kissed even ____________________
pp. 58, 67. 2Cf. Chafe, Meaning and the Structure of Language, p. 68. Semantically, such a sentence may be well-formed if one allows for some putative world of Lewis Carroll, C. S. Lewis or J. R. R. Tolkien. 3Radford, Transformational Syntax, p. 55; Pike and Pike, Grammatical Analysis, pp. 304-11; and Noam Chomsky, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (New York: Plenum Press, 1975), pp. 77. Karen."1 Thus, semantics and syntactics are interactive and are separated for the purpose of analysis; but, ultimately, both types of analysis must be integrated. Indeed, recent experiments with case grammar have sought to monitor semantic relationships. One reason for choosing to model the proverbs syntactically is that syntactic categories are fewer, more manageable, and more definable than semantic categories.2 Linguistic Models While a tagmemic model will be employed in the analysis of the proverbial corpus, it is important to Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|