Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
|
empirical approach muddled in an infinitude of messy details.2 His approach, which revolutionized the linguistic world, was to isolate a few, simple, syntactic ____________________
interesting that Philip Pettit has attempted to show the dependence of Chomsky on Saussure (The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977], pp. 1-28). Lockwood, Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics, p. 263. Some easy beginner texts which introduce the concepts of TG (transformational grammar) are: Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars; Brown and Miller, Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure; and Liles, An Introductory Transformational Grammar (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971). Radford's work (Transformational Syntax [1981]) is more advanced and up to date.
is why it is called "generative grammar" rather than a "descriptive grammar."1 His system, like the structuralist's, still focused on the syntactic component of language as foundational.2 Others have more recently opted for a semantic base and consequently called it "generative-semantics."3 Chomsky's system attempts to explain: syntactically "synonymous" sentences which have different meanings ("John is easy to please"; "John is eager to please"); sentences which are syntactically ambiguous ("Visiting relatives can be tiresome," or "Flying planes can be dangerous"); and sentences which are syntactically different yet "synonymous" ("Brent painted the picture"; or "The picture was painted by Brent").4 Two sets of distinctions are important in transformational grammar. First, a distinction is made ____________________
1970), p. 9; Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars, pp. 118-20; Liles, An Introductory Transformational Grammar p. 133; and Radford, Transformational Syntax, pp. 19-20. 2Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague: Mouton, 1957), pp. 11-17; also, later, his Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (The Hague: Mouton, 1972), pp. 11-14. 3Chafe, Meaning and the Structure of Language; and Ray S. Jackendoff, Semantic Interpertation in Generative Grammar (Cambridge, MS: The MIT Press, 1972). Also vid. the works of George Lakoff and James McCawley. 4Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars, p. 121; and Liles, An Introduction to Linguistics, p. 133. between competence (fluent native speaker's knowledge of his language) and performance (that which he actually speaks).1 Transformationalists argue that those linguists who have analyzed a corpus are merely studying performance, rather than speaker competence, which should be the object of language study.2 Chomsky then attempts to describe competence through a series of syntactic rules by which the mind generates sentences. Second, the distinction between deep and surface structure, with transformations mediating between these two levels, has been a major contribution of transformational grammar. "Deep structure refers to the basic syntactic pattern in which a meaning is expressed, while surface structure refers to the particular form in which a meaning is expressed in a text."3 This was another clear move away from empiricism. Thus, two sentences, such as "Joy was hit by the ball" and "The ball hit Joy," were now able to be compared for the deep grammar similarity, even though their surface level is syntactically discordant. The deep grammar is described by a series of phrase structure rules which are the same for both of these sentences. Next a ____________________ 1Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1965), p. 4; cf. also Radford, Transformational Syntax, p. 2.
p. 79.
3Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek, p. 73.
structure onto the different surface structures (one active, one passive). A series of phonological rules takes the results of the transformations and projects them into exact speech sounds. Therefore, there are three levels of rules to which a fourth must be added: deep phrase structure rules, transformations, lexical rules (which plug in the appropriate words choices), and phonological rules.1 An example may prove beneficial at this point. One type of sentence may have the deep phrase structure generating rules: S --- NP + VP (Sentence consists of a NP and VP)2 NP--- N (Noun Phrase consists of a Noun) VP--- V + NP (Verb Phrase consists of a V + NP) NP--- Art. + N (NP consists of an article + N)
following sentences and many more (any of the type N + V + Art. + N): Dawn cut the flowers. Dogs ate the fish. Children threw the ball. Firemen extinguished the blaze.
____________________ 1Liles, An Introduction to Linguistics, pp. 72, 168, has helpful charts of this process. Cf. also Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars, p. 125; and Radford, Transformational Syntax, pp. 15-16. 2The arrow means "consists of" or "has the constituents of." phrase structure, one arrives at a different surface structure, but one which is derived from the same deep phrase structure. The passive transformation does the following to the initial phrase structure: N1 + V + Art. + N2 === Art. + N2 + Aux. + V + by + N1 (where aux. = verbal auxiliary). Thus, this transformation accounts for all surface structures which are "synonymous" with the original sentences in a deep structure sense, but very different in the surface structure. This transformation results in: Dawn cut the flowers ===> The flowers were cut by Dawn. Dogs ate the fish ===> The fish were eaten by dogs. Children threw the ball ===> The ball was thrown by children. Firemen extinguished the blaze ===> The blaze was extinguished by firemen. Other transformations explicitly explain the relationship between statements and questions ("He is tall" and "Is he tall?"); indirect object transformations ("Kathy gave him a shot" becomes "Kathy gave a shot to him"); adverbial movement transformations ("Yesterday I saw Rik" becomes "I saw Rik yesterday"); compounding, deletion and pro forms ("Skip was eager and Skip was industrious" becomes "Skip was eager and industrious" or "Skip was eager and he was industrious"); as well as relative constructions ("He is building a boat" and "The boat is large" become "The boat that he is building is large").1 It is clear, because of our native competence (fluency) in English, that these sentences are related and many of them would be considered "synonymous" in normal speech. The exegetical ramifications are astounding, but will not be pursued in this study other than to say that these examples demonstrate that one must be extremely careful about making eisogetical remarks on the basis of surface grammar variations with deep structure "synonymity." It is possible that the writer was not attempting to make any crucial point by his choice of a passive rather than an active mode. Furthermore, the transformational idea holds rich possibilities for Hebrew syntactic parallelism. This writer has observed bi-cola which are syntactically non-matching, according to O'Connor's system, but which, with a simple transformation, match perfectly (viz. Prov 10:1).2 ____________________ 1Herndon, A Survey of Modern Grammars, pp. 207-43; and Liles, An Introductory Transformational Grammar, pp. 43-101.
book on Proverbs proposes a similar idea--only somewhat non-scientifically specified--using semantic transformations to allow for a better fit between the bi-cola (Walking in Wisdom: Studying in the Proverbs of
35-52). One must be extremely cautious, however, of this approach, as it may force the proverbs to fit equivalence patterns without seeing the variety and differences in meaning intended. Thus this methodology, while having Several objections have been raised to transformational grammar.1 Robinson is correct when he critiques TG for treating only sentences, which are only a single level of language.2 He further objects that language is more than a series of rules and that such a rule-oriented approach chases meaning out of language.3 Chafe accuses Chomsky of "syntacticism."4 How does one handle sentences which are ungrammatical, but are spoken nevertheless? Is not TG a return to prescriptivism? How does TG handle the metaphors, irony, and perlocutionary acts (the effect on the hearer) of language?5 It is ironic that Robinson correctly accuses the "rationalistic" approach of Chomsky as empiricism revisited.6 Though ____________________ possibilities, needs further development along scientifically semantic lines.
perhaps the most acrid, written from an intuitive/ impressionistic approach. More linguistically satisfying is R. A. Hudson, Arguments for a Non-transformational Grammar (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976). 2Robinson, The New Grammarians' Funeral, pp. 36, 45.
3Ibid., pp. 21, 87. 4Chafe, Meaning and the Structure of Language, p. 60.
5Robinson, The New Grammarians' Funeral, pp. 10, 40, 47. 6Ibid., p. 104. It seems Chomsky desires to project empirical evidence back into the mind via his rules. How can one validate or falsify such mentalistic suggestions? "Sincerity admires Rebekah" may be semantically ill-formed by the "rules"--because "admires" needs an animate human subject--yet, in poetry, such a sentence may be well-formed.1 The problem is not with grammar per se, but with attempting to reduce language to mere grammar.2 While the idea of transformations is very helpful in relating sentences, problems arise if one views transformations as producing equivalent or exactly synonymous sentences. Such an approach would deny the passive a reason for existence, portray repetitions as jejune redundancies, and tend to de-emphasize the importance of surface structure selectional options.3 Hence, transformations may result in a leveling of the meaning of the text via a syntactic reductionism which manifests an "X is really Y syndrome."4 It should be noted that tagmemics clearly distinguishes surface ____________________
182-83.
2Robinson, The New Grammarians' Funeral, p. 60.
3Ibid., pp. 119, 125; M. K. Brame, Essays Toward Realistic Syntax (Seattle: Noit Amrofer, 1979), p. 14; Daniel Gulstad, "Are Transformations Really Necessary?" in Papers from the 1977 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. Donald Lance and Daniel Gulstad (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 1978), p. 203; and Rolv Blakar, "Language as a Means of Social Power: Theoretical- Empirical Explorations of Language and Language Use as Embedded in a Social Matrix," in Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice, ed. Jacob Mey (The Hague: Mouton, 1979), p. 152.
4Chafe, Meaning and Structure of Language, p. 86.
case grammar--accounts for deep structure regularities. Robinson champions Occam's razor. He misses the point, however, that Chomsky's categories do have value if left on a grammatical level.1 Thus, TG must remain a grammar rather than a total theory of language. Its formulae will bear some correspondence to the filler box of the tagmemic formulae. Tagmemics remedies many of the above problems and will, therefore, be adopted in this study, although some will obviously disparage the use of a non-main-stream grammar. However, the advantages of tagmemics out-weigh this criticism and the similarity of tagmemics to TG makes it easily learned by those familiar with TG. Other Recent Grammars For several reasons, it is desirable to survey, in a very brief fashion other approaches to linguistics: (1) to suggest other directions which this study may have taken; (2) to allow for a comparison with the tagmemic system adopted here; (3) to help sensitize the reader to aspects of language which tagmemics has ignored; and (4) in the spirit of eclecticism, to suggest factors which may be beneficially incorporated into a tagmemic analysis. Two grammars (stratificational and daughter-dependency) will be mentioned. Lastly, and with great promise, the ____________________
x, 165.
Stratificational Grammar Stratificational linguistics was developed in the late sixties by Sydney Lamb1 and H. A. Gleason.2 A work by David Lockwood provides a helpful introduction to this theory.3 Walter Bodine, at a recent colloquium, has alluded to some work which is presently taking place at Dallas Seminary applying this theory to Hebrew.4 Its diagrams specify relationships, treating units only as input or output items. Like tagmemics, stratificational linguistics allows for relationships on the various levels, developing a "tactic" system for each level (phonotactics, morphotactics [syntax], lexotactics, semotactics).5 Once the diagram is entered it is totally ____________________
A Stratificational View," Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, no. 17, ed. C. I. J. M. Stuart 17 (Washington, DC: University Institute of Languages and Linguistics, 1964).
Jovanovich, Inc., 1972); and a bibliograhy by Ilah Fleming, "Stratificational Theory: An Annotated Bibliograhy,"
Biblical Hebrew," in Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers 21 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982):31-37. 5Lockwood, Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics, p. 26. relational, as opposed to a more constituent oriented approach such as tagmemics or TG. Stratificational linguistics handles the following three types of relationships: (1) conjunction/disjunction; (2) ordered/ unordered; and (3) downward/upward. It uses a series of "and" and "or" gates which are similar to systems engineering models. The "and" gate calls for both items to be present and the "or" gate requires that a selection be made, with one item being chosen. Thus, for example the sentence "Perry/Elaine/Dave sees Donna" would be diagrammed as follows (the convex triangular shapes are "and gates" and the sideways parenthesis is an "or gate"): "Perry/Elaine/Dave sees Donna" [OUTPUT] 
 
 
 
    
Perry Dave see s Donna [INPUT] Elaine
sentence.1 One can see that this system is also, like tagmemics, hierarchical in nature, showing relationships ____________________ 1Ibid., p. 35. from the morpheme up to discourse level. While stratificationalists have noted the similarities with tagmemics,1 they have ignored at least two fundamental differences which are: (1) the fact that constituents or units are crucial to the theoretical underpinnings of tagmemics;2 and (2) tagmemics attempts not only to note the relationships between units, but also--and very important for this study--to specify the exact nature of what those relationships are.3 Thus, the stress on relationships is very beneficial, but the need for constituents at each level and the exact specification of relationship types (via case grammar) will make it desirable to pursue a tagmemic approach.
through relational, dependency and daughter-dependency grammars. These models develop the European dependency- ____________________ 1Ibid., pp. 255-57. 2Cf. Pike's comments in "On Describing Languages," in The Scope of American Linguistics, ed. Robert Austerlitz (Lisse: The Peter De Ridder Press, 1975), pp. 13, 24; and his discussions with S. Lamb in Report of the Twenty-Second Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. Richard J. O'Brien (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1971), p. 158. 3This writer is also aware of attempts to embed case grammar into this system. Lockwood, Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics, p. 142. type grammars of Heringer (1970), Vater (1975)1 and Werner (1975).2 Like stratificational and tagmemic grammars, dependency grammars separate semantic, syntactic and phonological levels. Like tagmemics, they are also constituent-oriented, as opposed to stratificational grammar.3 While they do diagram constituents heirarchically (i.e., Nouns and Verbs combining to form higher level clauses), they eliminate the NP and VP levels and go right to the V and N constituents.4 Dependency grammar also does away with the TG concept of deep structure and transformations.5 The diversity of this system may be seen in the fact that it monitors mother-daughter relations (i.e., the relation of higher level nodes [mothers] to lower level units [daughters]) as well as sister relations between units on the same level (cf. relational grammars). Dependency grammar employs four categories, which are: (1) feature-based rules (specifying one item as before another [article must ____________________
Grammar," Lingua 36 (1975):121-45; and Laurie Bauer, "Some Thoughts on Dependency Grammar," Linguistics 17 (1979):301-15. 2Richard A. Hudson, Arguments for a Non-transformational Grammar, p. 200. 3Ibid., p. 11. 4Ibid., p. 60. 5Ibid., pp. 1, 14, 131. precede the noun, for example] or which features come with a certain item); (2) function-based rules (which order the three functions, viz., subject, topic, relator); (3) peripherality-based rules (order the units according to their peripheral nature); and (4) dependency-based rules (which attempt to describe the relationship between sisters).µ1µ An illustration of this approach may help. From the following diagram one will be able to see that this system stresses horizontal relationships among sisters. +sentence +interrogative etc.
Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
