survey other linguistic models for the following reasons:
(1) salient features of other systems may be able to be
incorporated into the analysis of an eclectic tagmemic
approach; (2) it will highlight the sophistication and
unique beauty of the tagmemic model; and (3) the
introduction of other models may suggest directions which
could complement the approach taken in this study. The
survey will proceed somewhat historically from classical
diagrammatical analysis to structural (one of which is
tagmemics), transformational, relational
____________________
1Eugene Nida, Componential Analysis of Meaning,
p. 62. Cf. Barnwell, Introduction to Semantics and
Translation, p. 43.
2Chapman, Linguistics and Literature: An
Introduction to Literary Stylistics, p. 61.
(stratificational, daughter dependency), formal, and
pragmatic approaches. The purpose will not be to
scrutinize the details of these systems, but to appreciate
the contribution each approach has had to a general theory
of language.
Traditional Grammar
The traditional approach sees language in terms of
series of grammatical categories called the "parts of
speech" (noun, verb, adverb, etc.). These categories were
developed by the Greeks (Plato, Aristotle, and canonized
by Dionysius Thrax of the Alexandrian school in his work
The Art of Grammar, ca. 125 B.C.). Later, Apollonius
Dyscolus (second century A.D.) and the Romans, who largely
reapplied Greek grammatical techniques to Latin, developed
the syntactical categories of the sentence (subject, verb,
object). The grammars of Donatus (ca. A.D. 400) and
Priscian (ca. A.D. 500), based on classical corpora
prescribed correct usage throughout the medieval period.1
The various parts of speech are usually analyzed
morphologically via a parsing scheme--classifying the
parts according to gender, number, and case or person,
____________________
1John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 4-15;
and Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars, pp. 10-14. For a
strong argument against prescriptivism, vid. H. A. Gleason,
Linguistics and English Grammar (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1965), pp. 8-14.
gender, number, stem (qal, piel, hiphil, etc.), tense, and
mood. Part of this system has been given graphic
representation via diagrammatical analysis, in which
sentence parts are separated and classified by the type of
vertical dividing line present or the slant of the line
upon which the word sits. 1 This system has been helpful
in graphically portraying sentence relationships. It does
not well coordinate the parts of speech with function in
the sentence; nor are cohesive, morphological agreements
(e.g., gender of the subject and gender of the verb) well
explicated in the diagram itself. Several other problems
with this system are: (1) it lacks a specific means for
describing the exact types of relationships between words
(e.g., the diagrams of "his house," "red house," and "dog
house" are all the same); (2) because of the fixity of the
graphic method employed, the actual word order of the text
is often shuffled to "fit" the diagram, rather than vice
versa (This violates the natural word order which is often
____________________
1This approach is reflected in the following works:
D. W. Emery and R. W. Pence, A Grammar of Present-Day
English (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947); Homer
C. House and Susan E. Harman, Descriptive English Grammar
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1931); Lee L.
Kantenwein, Diagrammatical Analysis (Warsaw, IN: Lee
Kantenwein, 1979); John D. Grassmick, Principles and
Practice of Greek Exegesis (Dallas: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1974); and Donald W. Emery, Sentence Analysis
(New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1961). Although
Gleason does not hold this approach presently, being a
stratificationalist, his book, Linguistics and English
Grammar, reflects a modified form of this approach.
significant for the theme, semantic, aesthetic, and
syntactic functions of the text.); (3) it ignores deep
structural differences (Thus, the diagrams of "Natanya hit
the ball" and "The ball was hit by Natanya" are different
and have no explicit means of relating these two
"synonymous" sentences. Nor does this model account for
the deep structure difference between "Dave hit balls" and
"Balls hit Dave."); (4) it observes only the grammar of
the sentence and ignores paragraph and discourse
relationships which are often determinative for sentential
meaning; (5) it provides no way of quantifying data (e.g.,
if 300 clauses are analyzed, this system provides no
formulaic method for comparing and contrasting the data);
(6) it does not treat idioms well; and (7) it gives a
false sense of security resulting from a mechanically
sterile treatment of the literary texts (Thus there is a
danger of going from the diagram to a structural sermonic
outline). The diagrammatical model, however, is helpful
in specifying some grammatical relationships and allows
the student to begin to consider and specify pictorially
intra-sentential relationships. Recent reactions against
this approach in the direction of an insipid discourse
analysis--which specifies clausal relations of
coordination and subordination merely via an indentational
system--seems to be two steps forward and one backward.1
Structural Linguistics
In the early twentieth century, another linguistic
paradigm began to be developed: the structuralist model.
The goal of this school was not to prescribe correct
grammar, but to empirically discover the patterns of
symbols which men use to communicate. Ferdinand de
Saussure (1857-1913) is considered to be the initial spark
of diverse phenomena practiced under the banner of
structuralism.2 Fundamentally, structuralism is a
strictly empirical description which observes five helpful
distinctions. First, Saussure has observed that language
is a mere convention with no necessary connection between
sign and significance. He would reject any statements
which attempt to tie types of signs to types of thought
(cf. Hebrew versus Greek types of thought).3
____________________
1Walter Kaiser, Towards an Exegetical Theology:
Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1981). Contrast with Gillian Brown &
Yule, Discourse Analysis (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press,
1983)
2Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General
Linguistics, trans. W. Baskin (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1959). A helpful survey of structuralism is Ju. D.
Apresjan, Principles and Methods of Contemporary Structural
Linguistics, trans. Dina Crockett (The Hague: Mouton,
1973).
3Eugene Nida, "The Implications of Contemporary
Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship," p. 83; cf. Barr, The
Semantics of Biblical Languages, p. 35; Anthony C.
Thiselton, "Semantics and New Testament Interpretation," in
Structuralists restrict their analyses to empirical signs
and sign patterns, without trying to trace them into the
labyrinth of the mind or meaning. Thus, it is largely a
descriptional endeavor.
Second, he distinguishes between langue (language)
and parole (speaking). Langue is the system of signs and
conventions which a culture uses in order to speak.
Parole, on the other hand, is the specific sign system
used in the actual speech act of an individual. This
distinction is similar to Chomsky's competence/
performance, although Chomsky's competence emphasizes more
specific generative rules, while Saussures' langue treats
more sociological aspects.1 Structuralism concentrates on
describing the features of parole (language as it is
actually used).2
Third, the distinction between diachronic and
synchronic has been of immense help both to linguistics
and biblical studies. Structuralists correctly suggest
____________________
New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and
Methods, ed. I. H. Marshall (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 87-88; and Liles, An
Introduction to Linguistics, p. 167.
1Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics, pp. 42-43. Cf.
Thiselton, "Semantics and New Testament Interpretation,"
pp. 88-89; and Palmer, Semantics, p. 7.
2This can be seen in Charles Fries' classic work:
The Structure of English (New York: The Ronald Press Co.,
1958), based on 250,000 words of spoken language from
recorded telephone conversations. Cf. Herndon, A Survey of
Modern Grammars, p. 22.
that language must be studied synchronically (language-
state from one time period), establishing first what the
langugage-state is at one particular time, before one can
ask how the language evolved through time (diachronic).
This is a demurring of an historical approach which
attempts to understand a language solely through
etymologies. Saussure suggests that synchronics is a more
sure foundation than a hypothetical and overwhelmingly
complex diachronic/etymological approach.1 Poythress
correctly notes that in Hebrew, for example, because of
incomplete synchronic evidence, one may be forced to
depend more heavily on diachronic data.2 From a stylistic
point of view, both Chapman and Enkvist argue for a
panchronic view-point which is synthesized from both
synchronic and diachronic studies.3 This study in
Proverbs will be a synchronic analysis.
____________________
1Barr has obviously picked up on this point in his
critque of etymological approaches (The Semantics of
Biblical Language, p. 109). Thiselton has an interesting
discussion on Barr's dependence on Saussure in "Semantics
and New Testament Interpretation." Thiselton illustrates
the problem of using etymology to establish meaning (pp.
80-81): one does not mean "God be with you" when he says
"Good-bye"; nor does he mean "housewife" when he calls a
young lady a "hussy." When he complements someone by
saying they are "cute," he does not mean they are
"bow-legged." "Nice" does not mean "ignorant."
2Vern Poythress, "Analysing a Biblical Text: Some
Important Linguistic Distinctions," SJT 32 (1979):118.
3Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics, p. 66 and Chapman,
Linguistics and Literature: An Introduction to Literary
Stylistics, p. 25.
Fourth, a distinction is made between syntagmatic
and paradigmatic. Paradigmatic relationships are units
which are mutually substitutable in a given slot or
context. Hence they are more vertical, concentrating on
the possible choices and selectional options. Syntagmatic
relationships are more horizontal between contiguous units
in the sentence or string. In short, the difference is
between chain (syntagmatic) and choice (paradigmatic).1
[teacher who delights in ancient history]
[boy]
The [man] went to Wrigley Field.
[family]
[whole class]
The relationships between "teacher who delights in ancient
history," "man," "boy," "family," and "whole class" are
paradigmatic (mutually substitutable), while the
relationships between the contiguous constituents of the
sentence, "The man went to Wrigley Field," are syntagmatic
(combinatory relationships). Since this study will be of
a syntactic nature the paradigmatic choices will be stated
in terms of grammatical categories and poetic parallelism
will help show which constituents are mutually
substitutable. Because of the tagmemic notation,
____________________
1E. K. Brown and J. E. Miller, Syntax: A
Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure (London:
Hutchinson & Co., 1980), p. 253. Cf. also Silva, Biblical
Words and their Meanings, pp. 119-20; Nida, Componential
Analysis of Meaning, p. 152; Palmer, Semantics, pp. 67-68;
Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, pp. 74-78;
and Leech, Semantics, p. 12.
questions such as, "What types of grammatical units fill
the subject slot?" and "What types of constituents fill
modifier slots?" will be able to be given concrete
answers. Syntactic relations naturally will reveal
syntagmatic relations, which will be made specific in the
cohesion and case boxes of the tagmeme.
Fifth, the analytic units of structuralism are the
empirical constituents or units which are formed by the
repeated breaking down of larger units into smaller parts.
Thus it is hierarchical in nature--moving from the
smallest atomic parts which signal meaning (i.e., the
morpheme), to the word, phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph, section, and, finally, to the discourse.1
These various levels may be related to one another in a
normal descending relationship (e.g., a phrase will be
composed of words [NP = his mother]), or one may find
recursive patterns (a clause may be composed of a word and
another clause), level-skipping (a word may act on a
paragraph level linking two paragraphs together), or
backlooping (a word and a clause may form a phrase).2
Hudson correctly observes that structuralists describe
basically two types of relationships: part-whole (which
____________________
1Pike and Pike, Grammatical Analysis, p. 3. Each
aspect of language (syntax, reference, and phonology) has
its own hierarchy.
2Longacre, Anatomy of Speech Notions, p. 267. Cf.
also Pike and Pike, Grammatical Analysis, p. 128.
have received by far the most attention in tagmemics and
transformational grammar), and dependency relations
between parts (relational and dependency grammars).1
These constituent type grammars may be contrasted to
functional grammars, such as case grammar.2 Tagmemics has
recently found it helpful to embed case grammar into one
of its boxes, thereby gaining benefits from both
hierarchical-constituent and functional approaches. The
cohesion box of tagmemics will reflect dependency and
relational grammar sensitivities.
Linguistic structuralism has its origins in
Saussure's distinctions and was adopted and particularized
by the father of American linguistics, Leonard
Bloomfield.3 Bloomfield's influence may be seen in the
works of A. A. Hill, W. N. Francis, N. C. Stageberg, C. C.
Fries, and K. Pike.4 There is a very diversified
____________________
1Richard Hudson, Arguments for a
Non-transformational Grammar (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 197-99.
2Brown and Miller, Syntax, p. 383.
3Leonard Bloomfield, Language (New York: Henry
Holt, 1933).
4W. Nelson Francis, The Structure of American
English (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1958); Charles C.
Fries, The Structure of English (New York: Harcourt, Brace
and Co., 1952); Archibald A. Hill, An Introduction to
Linguistic Structures (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.,
Inc., 1958); and Norman C. Stageberg, An Introductory
English Grammar (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1965). Poythress has an interesting chart showing
how structural linguistics has developed, in "Structuralism
tumescent growth in biblical structuralism. While many of
the distinctions made are equivalent to Saussure's,
biblical structuralism should be separated from the types
of things structural linguists are doing. Biblical
structuralism usually focuses on the discourse level,
showing how larger units are structured--with attention
given to lower constituents only as they contribute to the
macro-structure which the analysis is proposing.1
Structural linguistics is much more scientific; it begins
with stable, lower level units and methodically builds one
level at a time, classifying and fastidiously describing
relationships before it moves on to the next level.
Several caveats have been given against a
structural linguistic approach to literary texts. Because
____________________
and Biblical Studies," p. 228. Cf. also John White,
"Stratificational Grammar: A New Theory of Language,"
College Composition and Communication 20 (1969):192 who
notes that the Bloomfieldian tradition emphasizes
expressions while the Hjelmslevian tradition concetrates on
system--which is where he puts stratificational grammar.
1Jean Calloud, Structural Analysis of Narrative,
trans. Daniel Patte (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976);
S. Bar-Efrat, "Some Observations on the Analysis of
Structure in Biblical Narrative," VT 30 (1980):154-73;
Robert Culley, "Structural Analysis: Is it Done with
Mirrors?" Int 28.2 (1974):165-81; Daniel Patte, Structural
Exegesis: From Theory to Practice (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1978); Daniel Patte, What is Structural Exegesis?
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976); Robert Polzin,
Biblical Structuralism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977); Robert Scholes, Structuralism in Literature: An
Introduction (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974); and
especially the interesting journal Semeia is devoted to
this topic.
of its emphasis on segmentation and classification,
Robinson labels linguistic structuralism as "atomism"
which tries by its fissionary processes to objectify
language, but which succeeds merely in pulverizing and
vapourizing literature to the point where it is no longer
literature but isolated linguistic fragments.1 At its
inception structural linguistics may have been
fragmentational; however, the present emphasis on
discourse analysis has agglutinatively remedied this
problem by demonstrating how the atoms are related
hierarchically to molecular discourse structures. One
problem initially faced by structural linguistics was that
it virtually ignored deep structure and just described
surface structure relationships.2 This has been partially
rectified via the inclusion of case grammar into
structuralist models. Chafe has correctly objected to
early structuralists as having an exaggerated empirical
base which was more interested in little rules of grammar
than in meaning. Meaning was, in effect, chased out of
language.3 Indeed, there seems to have been an adversion
____________________
1Robinson, The New Grammarians' Funeral, p. 2.
Also from a different perspective is Arild Utaker,
"Semantics and the Relation between Language and
Non-Language," in Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice,
ed. Jacob Mey (The Hague: Mouton, 1979).
2Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics, p. 79.
3Chafe, Meaning and the Structure of Language, pp.
6-7. Robinson acridly quips, against all linguistics, "and
to semantic considerations in nascent structural
linguistics, but now, having treated syntax, many are
turning to semantic bases. Present attempts to objectify
the semantic component hold great promise. One final
objection may be seen in the neglect by structural
linguistics of the speech situation and what utterances
actually do to audiences.1 This area is presently being
studied under the heading of pragmalinguistics, which
scrutinizes both linguistic and non-linguistic contextual
and situational factors. Because such features are often
mentioned on the discourse level, recent studies on
discourse analysis are beginning to examine these
phenomena from a text-structural point of view.
Thus the distinctions of structural
linguistics--langue (language system)/parole (speech),
diachronic/synchronic, paradigmatic/syntagmatic,
sign/significance, and hierarchical relationships--have
been beneficial. This paper will apply a structuralist
model called "tagmemics" as it monitors the syntactical
features of the poetry of the proverbial text. It is
readily acknowledged that other approaches will reveal
other features which this study, because of its
____________________
isn't it a mark of the plight of linguistics that
'linguists' find things like 'a pretty little girls'
school' much more interesting than Macbeth" (The New
Grammarians' Funeral, p. xii).
1Robinson, The New Grammarians' Funeral, p.
47.
methodology, will often knowingly overlook.
Transformational Grammar
Noam Chomsky, a student of Zellig Harris, began to
react against the strict empiricism of the structuralists'
model, moving in the direction of a rationalistic or
mentalistic, syntactically based exemplar.1 Seeing the
weakness of a mere empirical, discovery procedure
approach, he desired to trace language back into the mind
to the decision procedures by which the sentence is
generated. Chomsky realized that pure descriptivism could
not account for the infinite creativity of the mind's use
of language, which could, in a moment, generate a sentence
which had never been spoken before--leaving a strict
Dostları ilə paylaş: |