Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
|
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 ____________________
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.
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
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, ____________________
(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 ____________________
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
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
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 ____________________
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
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.
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.
1958), based on 250,000 words of spoken language from recorded telephone conversations. Cf. Herndon, A Survey of
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."
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
[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, ____________________
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.
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 ____________________
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
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,
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).
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.
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 Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|