Lectures+in+Theoretical+Grammar+(Syntax)

== LECTURE 7: SYNTAX. BASIC SYNTACTIC NOTIONS ==

1.General characteristics of syntax. The grammatical structure of language comprises two major parts – morphology and syntax. The two areas are obviously interdependent and together they constitute the study of grammar. Morphology deals with paradigmatic and syntagmatic properties of morphological units – morphemes and words. It is concerned with the internal structure of words and their relationship to other words and word forms within the paradigm. It studies morphological categories and their realization. Syntax, on the other hand, deals with the way words are combined. It is concerned with the external functions of words and their relationship to other words within the linearly ordered units – word-groups, sentences and texts. Syntax studies the way in which the units and their meanings are combined. It also deals with peculiarities of syntactic units, their behavior in different contexts. Syntactic units may be analyzed from different points of view, and accordingly, different syntactic theories exist. 2. Kinds of syntactic theories. Transformational-Generative Grammar. The Transformational grammar was first suggested by American scholar Zelling Harris as a method of analyzing sentences and was later elaborated by another American scholar Noam Chomsky as a synthetic method of ‘generating’ (constructing) sentences. The main point of the Transformational-Generative Grammar is that the endless variety of sentences in a language can be reduced to a finite number of kernels by means of transformations. These kernels serve the basis for generating sentences by means of syntactic processes. Different language analysts recognize the existence of different number of kernels (from 3 to 39). The following 6 kernels are commonly associated with the English language: (1) NV – John sings. (2) NVAdj. – John is happy. (3) NVN – John is a man. (4) NVN – John hit the man. (5) NVNN – John gave the man a book. (6) NVPrep.N – The book is on the table. It should be noted that (3) differs from (4) because the former admits no passive transformation. Transformational method proves useful for analysing sentences from the point of their deep structure: Flying planes can be dangerous. This sentence is ambiguous, two senses can be distinguished: a) the action of flying planes can be dangerous, b) the planes that fly can be dangerous. Therefore it can be reduced to the following kernels: a) Planes can be dangerous b) Planes can be dangerous X (people) fly planes Planes fly Constructional Syntax. Constructional analysis of syntactic units was initiated by Prof. G.Pocheptsov in his book published in Kyiv in 1971. This analysis deals with the constructional significance/insignificance of a part of the sentence for the whole syntactic unit. The theory is based on the obligatory or optional environment of syntactic elements. For example, the element him in the sentence I saw him there yesterday is constructionally significant because it is impossible to omit it. At the same time the elements there and yesterday are constructionally insignificant – they can be omitted without destroying the whole structure. Communicative Syntax. It is primarily concerned with the analysis of utterances from the point of their communicative value and informative structure. It deals with the actual division of the utterance – the theme and rheme analysis. Both the theme and the rheme constitute the informative structure of utterances. The theme is something that is known already while the rheme represents some new information. Depending on the contextual informative value any sentence element can act as the theme or the rheme: Who is at home? - John is at home. Where is John? – John is at home. Pragmatic approach to the study of syntactic units can briefly be described as the study of the way language is used in particular contexts to achieve particular goals. Speech Act Theory was first introduced by John Austin. The notion of a speech act presupposes that an utterance can be said with different intentions or purposes and therefore can influence the speaker and situation in different ways: I just state the fact; I want you to do something about it (close the window); It’s cold here I’m threatening you; I’m seeking for an excuse for not doing something; I want you to feel guilty of it; Etc. Accordingly, we can distinguish different speech acts. Of special interest here is the problem of indirect speech acts: Are you leaving already? In our everyday activities we use indirect speech acts rather willingly because it is the best way to influence people, to get what we want and to be polite at the same time. Textlinguistics studies the text as a syntactic unit, its main features and peculiarities, different ways of its analysis. Discourse analysis focuses on the study of language use with reference to the social and psychological factors that influence communication. 3. Basic syntactic notions. The syntactic language level can be described with the help of special linguistic terms and notions: syntactic unit, syntactic form, syntactic meaning, syntactic function, syntactic position, and syntactic relations. Syntactic unit is always a combination that has at least two constituents. The basic syntactic units are a word-group, a clause, a sentence, and a text. Their main features are: a) they are hierarchical units – the units of a lower level serve the building material for the units of a higher level; b) as all language units the syntactic units are of two-fold nature: content side syntactic meaning Syntactic unit = = expression side syntactic form c) they are of communicative and non-communicative nature – word-groups and clauses are of non-communicative nature while sentences and texts are of communicative nature. Syntactic meaning is the way in which separate word meanings are combined to produce meaningful word-groups and sentences. Green ideas sleep furiously. This sentence is quite correct grammatically. However it makes no sense as it lacks syntactic meaning. Syntactic form may be described as the distributional formula of the unit (pattern). John hits the ball – N1 + V + N2. Syntactic function is the function of a unit on the basis of which it is included to a larger unit: in the word-group a smart student the word ‘smart’ is in subordinate attributive relations to the head element. In traditional terms it is used to denote syntactic function of a unit within the sentence (subject, predicate, etc.). Syntactic position is the position of an element. The order of constituents in syntactic units is of principal importance in analytical languages. The syntactic position of an element may determine its relationship with the other elements of the same unit: his broad back, a back district, to go back, to back sm. Syntactic relations are syntagmatic relations observed between syntactic units. They can be of three types – coordination, subordination and predication. 1. Syntactic relations. The syntactic units can go into three types of syntactic relations. 1. Coordination (SR1) – syntagmatic relations of independence. SR1 can be observed on the phrase, sentence and text levels. Coordination may be symmetric and asymmetric. Symmetric coordination is characterized by complete interchangeability of its elements – pens and pencils. Asymmetric coordination occurs when the position of elements is fixed: ladies and gentlemen. Forms of connection within SR1 may be copulative (you and me), disjunctive (you or me), adversative (strict but just) and causative-consecutive (sentence and text level only). 2. Subordination (SR2) – syntagmatic relations of dependence. SR2 are established between the constituents of different linguistic rank. They are observed on the phrase and sentence level. Subordination may be of three different kinds – adverbial (to speak slowly), objective (to see a house) and attributive (a beautiful flower). Forms of subordination may also be different – agreement (this book – these books), government (help us), adjournment (the use of modifying particles just, only, even, etc.) and enclosure (the use of modal words and their equivalents really, after all, etc.). 3. Predication (SR3) – syntagmatic relations of interdependence. Predication may be of two kinds – primary (sentence level) and secondary (phrase level). Primary predication is observed between the subject and the predicate of the sentence while secondary predication is observed between non-finite forms of the verb and nominal elements within the sentence. Secondary predication serves the basis for gerundial, infinitive and participial word-groups (predicative complexes).

== LECTURE 8: THE WORD-GROUP THEORY ==

1. Definition and general characteristics of the word-group. There are a lot of definitions concerning the word-group. The most adequate one seems to be the following: the word-group is a combination of at least two notional words which do not constitute the sentence but are syntactically connected. According to some other scholars (the majority of Western scholars and professors B.Ilyish and V.Burlakova – in Russia), a combination of a notional word with a function word (on the table) may be treated as a word-group as well. The problem is disputable as the role of function words is to show some abstract relations and they are devoid of nominative power. On the other hand, such combinations are syntactically bound and they should belong somewhere. General characteristics of the word-group are: 1) As a naming unit it differs from a compound word because the number of constituents in a word-group corresponds to the number of different denotates: a black bird – чорний птах (2), a blackbird – дрізд (1); a loud speaker (2), a loudspeaker (1). 2) Each component of the word-group can undergo grammatical changes without destroying the identity of the whole unit: to see a house - to see houses. 3) A word-group is a dependent syntactic unit, it is not a communicative unit and has no intonation of its own. 2. Classification of word-groups. Word-groups can be classified on the basis of several principles: a) According to the type of syntagmatic relations: coordinate (you and me), subordinate (to see a house, a nice dress), predicative (him coming, for him to come), b) According to the structure: simple (all elements are obligatory), expanded (to read and translate the text – expanded elements are equal in rank), extended (a word takes a dependent element and this dependent element becomes the head for another word: a beautiful flower – a very beautiful flower). 3. Subordinate word-groups. Subordinate word-groups are based on the relations of dependence between the constituents. This presupposes the existence of a governing Element which is called the head and the dependent element which is called the adjunct (in noun-phrases) or the complement (in verb-phrases). According to the nature of their heads, subordinate word-groups fall into noun-phrases (NP) – a cup of tea, verb-phrases (VP) – to run fast, to see a house, adjective phrases (AP) – good for you, adverbial phrases (DP) – so quickly, pronoun phrases (IP) – something strange, nothing to do. The formation of the subordinate word-group depends on the valency of its constituents. Valency is a potential ability of words to combine. Actual realization of valency in speech is called combinability. 4. The noun-phrase (NP). Noun word-groups are widely spread in English. This may be explained by a potential ability of the noun to go into combinations with practically all parts of speech. The NP consists of a noun-head and an adjunct or adjuncts with relations of modification between them. Three types of modification are distinguished here: a) Premodification that comprises all the units placed before the head: two smart hard-working students. Adjuncts used in pre-head position are called pre-posed adjuncts. b) Postmodification that comprises all the units all the units placed after the head: students from Boston. Adjuncts used in post-head position are called post-posed adjuncts. c) Mixed modification that comprises all the units in both pre-head and post-head position: two smart hard-working students from Boston. Pre-posed adjuncts Post-posed adjuncts

Pronoun Adj. Adj. Ven N2 Ving N’s prep.N2 Ven prepVing Ving D Num Num D wh-clause, that-clause 5. Noun-phrases with pre-posed adjuncts. In noun-phrases with pre-posed modifiers we generally find adjectives, pronouns, numerals, participles, gerunds, nouns, nouns in the genitive case (see the table). According to their position all pre-posed adjuncts may be divided into pre-adjectivals and adjectiavals. The position of adjectivals is usually right before the noun-head. Pre-adjectivals occupy the position before adjectivals. They fall into two groups: a) limiters (to this group belong mostly particles): just, only, even, etc. and b) determiners (articles, possessive pronouns, quantifiers – the first, the last). Premodification of nouns by nouns (N+N) is one of the most striking features about the grammatical organization of English. It is one of devices to make our speech both laconic and expressive at the same time. Noun-adjunct groups result from different kinds of transformational shifts. NPs with pre-posed adjuncts can signal a striking variety of meanings: world peace – peace all over the world silver box – a box made of silver table lamp – lamp for tables table legs – the legs of the table river sand – sand from the river school child – a child who goes to school The grammatical relations observed in NPs with pre-posed adjuncts may convey the following meanings: 1) subject-predicate relations: weather change; 2) object relations: health service, women hater; 3) adverbial relations: a) of time: morning star, b) place: world peace, country house, c) comparison: button eyes, d) purpose: tooth brush. It is important to remember that the noun-adjunct is usually marked by a stronger stress than the head. Of special interest is a kind of ‘grammatical idiom’ where the modifier is reinterpreted into the head: a devil of a man, an angel of a girl. 6. Noun-phrases with post-posed adjuncts. NPs with post-posed may be classified according to the way of connection into prepositionless and prepositional. The basic prepositionless NPs with post-posed adjuncts are: Nadj. – tea strong, NVen – the shape unknown, NVing – the girl smiling, ND – the man downstairs, NVinf – a book to read, NNum – room ten. The pattern of basic prepositional NPs is N1 prep. N2. The most common preposition here is ‘of’ – a cup of tea, a man of courage. It may have quite different meanings: qualitative - a woman of sense, predicative – the pleasure of the company, objective – the reading of the newspaper, partitive – the roof of the house. 7. The verb-phrase. The VP is a definite kind of the subordinate phrase with the verb as the head. The verb is considered to be the semantic and structural centre not only of the VP but of the whole sentence as the verb plays an important role in making up primary predication that serves the basis for the sentence. VPs are more complex than NPs as there are a lot of ways in which verbs may be combined in actual usage. Valent properties of different verbs and their semantics make it possible to divide all the verbs into several groups depending on the nature of their complements (see the table ‘Syntagmatic properties of verbs’, Lecture 6). 8. Classification of verb-phrases. VPs can be classified according to the nature of their complements – verb complements may be nominal (to see a house) and adverbial (to behave well). Consequently, we distinguish nominal, adverbial and mixed complementation. Nominal complementation takes place when one or more nominal complements (nouns or pronouns) are obligatory for the realization of potential valency of the verb: to give smth. to smb., to phone smb., to hear smth.(smb.), etc. Adverbial complementation occurs when the verb takes one or more adverbial elements obligatory for the realization of its potential valency: He behaved well, I live …in Kyiv (here). Mixed complementation – both nominal and adverbial elements are obligatory: He put his hat on he table (nominal-adverbial). According to the structure VPs may be basic or simple (to take a book) – all elements are obligatory; expanded (to read and translate the text, to read books and newspapers) and extended (to read an English book). 9. Predicative word-groups. Predicative word combinations are distinguished on the basis of secondary predication. Like sentences, predicative word-groups are binary in their structure but actually differ essentially in their organization. The sentence is an independent communicative unit based on primary predication while the predicative word-group is a dependent syntactic unit that makes up a part of the sentence. The predicative word-group consists of a nominal element (noun, pronoun) and a non-finite form of the verb: N + Vnon-fin. There are Gerundial, Infinitive and Participial word-groups (complexes) in the English language: his reading, for me to know, the boy running, etc.)

== LECTURE 9: THE SENTENCE AND THE UTTERANCE ==

The sentence. It is rather difficult to define the sentence as it is connected with many lingual and extra lingual aspects – logical, psychological and philosophical. We will just stick to one of them - according to academician G.Pocheptsov, the sentence is the central syntactic construction used as the minimal communicative unit that has its primary predication, actualises a definite structural scheme and possesses definite intonation characteristics. This definition works only in case we do not take into account the difference between the sentence and the utterance. The distinction between the sentence and the utterance is of fundamental importance because the sentence is an abstract theoretical entity defined within the theory of grammar while the utterance is the actual use of the sentence. In other words, the sentence is a unit of language while the utterance is a unit of speech. The most essential features of the sentence as a linguistic unit are a) its structural characteristics – subject-predicate relations (primary predication), and b) its semantic characteristics – it refers to some fact in the objective reality. It is represented in the language through a conceptual reality: conceptual reality proposition

objective reality lingual representation objective situation predicative unit We may define the proposition as the main predicative form of thought. Basic predicative meanings of the typical English sentence are expressed by the finite verb that is immediately connected with the subject of the sentence (primary predication). To sum it up, the sentence is a syntactic level unit, it is a predicative language unit which is a lingual representation of predicative thought (proposition). 3. Different approaches to the study of the sentence. a) Principal and secondary parts of the sentence. b) Immediate constituents of the sentence. IC analysis. To grasp the real structure of the English sentence, one must understand not only words that occur but also the principles of their arrangement. Each language has its own way of structural grouping. English has dichotomous phrase structure, which means that the phrase in English can always be divided into two elements (constituents) until we get down to the single word. All groups of words are arranged in levels. The name given by linguists to these different levels of relationship is immediate constituents. Thus, one way of analyzing a sentence is to cut it to its immediate constituents, that is, to single out different levels of meaning: The old man saw a black dog there S NP VP Det NP VP D A N V NP Det NP NP VP A N It is obvious that dividing a sentence into ICs does not provide much information. Nevertheless, it can sometimes prove useful if we want to account for the ambiguity of certain constructions. A classic example is the phrase old men and women which can be interpreted in two different ways. Ambiguity of this kind is referred to as syntactic ambiguity. By providing IC analysis we can make the two meanings clear: old men and women old men and women

c) Oppositional analysis. The oppositional method in syntax means correlating different sentence types: they possess common features and differential features. Differential features serve the basis for analysis. E.g. two member sentence :: one member sentence (John worked:: John! Work! Or: I speak English :: I don’t speak English. d) Constructional analysis. According to the constructional approach, not only the subject and the predicate but also all the necessary constituents of primary predication constitute the main parts because they are constructionally significant. Therefore, the secondary parts of the sentence are sometimes as necessary and important as the main ones. If we omit the object and the adverbial modifier in the following sentences they will become grammatically and semantically unmarked: Bill closed the door; She behaved well. The structural sentence types are formed on the basis of kernels (basic structures). Three main types of propositional kernels may be distinguished: N V, N is A, N is N. However, if we take into account the valent properties of the verbs (their obligatory valency) the group will become larger (8 kernels), e.g. N1 V N2 N3: John gave Ann the book, N1 V N2: I see a house. The kernel sentences form the basis for syntactic derivation. Syntactic derivation lies in producing more complex sentences Syntactic processes may be internal and external. Internal syntactic processes involve no changes in the structure of the parts of the sentence. They occur within one and the same part of the sentence (subject, etc.). External syntactic processes are those that cause new relations within a syntactic unit and lead to appearance of a new part of the sentence. The internal syntactic processes are: Expansion Compression The phone was ringing and ringing They were laughing and singing Complication Contamination (a synt. unit becomes complicated) (two parts of the sentence are joined I have seen it – I could have seen it together – e.g. double predicate) The moon rose red Replacement – the use of the words that have a generalized meaning: one, do, etc, I’d like to take this one. Representation – a part of the syntactic unit represents the whole syntactic unit: Would you like to come along? I’d love to. Ellipsis – Where are you going? To the movies. The external syntactic processes are: Extension - a nice dress – a nice cotton dress. Ajoinment - the use of specifying words, most often particles: He did it – Only he did it. Enclosure – inserting modal words and other discourse markers: after all, anyway, naturally, etc. 4. The utterance. Informative structure of the utterance. The utterance as opposed to the sentence is the unit of speech. The main categories of the utterance from the point of view of its informative structure are considered to be the theme and the rheme. They are the main components of the Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP) – actual division of the sentence (most language analysts stick to the term “sentence” but actually they mean “utterance”). In English, there is a “standard” word order of Subject + Verb + Object: The cat ate the rat – here we have a standard structure (N1 + V + N2). However, there are numerous other ways in which the semantic content of the sentence can be expressed: 1. The rat was eaten by the cat. 2. It was the cat that ate the rat. 3. It was the rat that the cat ate. 4. What the cat did was ate the rat. 5. The cat, it ate the rat. Which of these options is actually selected by the writer or the speaker will depend on the context in which the utterance occurs and the importance of the information. One important consideration is whether the information has already been introduced before or it is assumed to be known to the reader or listener. Such information is referred to as given information or the theme. It contrasts with information which is introduced for the first time and which is known as new information or the rheme. Informative structure of the utterance is one of the topics that still attract the attention of language analysts nowadays. It is well recognized that the rheme marking devices are: 1. Position in the sentence. As a rule new information in English generally comes last: The cat ate the rat. 2. Intonation. 3. The use of the indefinite article. However, sometimes it is impossible (as in 1): A gentleman is waiting for you. 4. The use of ‘there is’, ‘there are’. There is a cat in the room. 5. The use of special devices, like ‘as for’, ‘but for’, etc.: As for him, I don’t know. 6. Inverted word order: Here comes the sun. 7. The use of emphatic constructions: It was the cat that ate the rat. However, sometimes the most important information is not expressed formally: The cat ate the rat after all. The rheme here is ‘the rat’. At the same time there is very important information which is hidden or implicit: the cat was not supposed to do it, or – it was hard for the cat to catch the rat, or – the cat is a vegetarian (this hidden information will depend on the context or situation). In other words, we may say that this sentence contains two informative centres, or two rhemes – explicit and implicit. 5. Functional typology of utterances. Actional utterance: N + Vact. + Complement – actional predicate Performative utterance: I + Vperf./Vsay – performative predicate Characterizing utterance: N + Vbe + A/Q – characterizing predicate (See the book by E.Morokhovskaya ‘Fundamentals of Theoretical English Grammar’, pp.254-268)

LECTURE 10: THE TEXT, TEXTLINGUISTICS 1. Text as a syntactic unit. Text is the unit of the highest (supersyntactic) level. It can be defined as a sequence of sentences connected logically and semantically which convey a complete message. The text is a language unit and it manifests itself in speech as discourse. Textlinguistics is concerned with the analysis of formal and structural features of the text. Textual basic integrative properties can be described with the help of the notions of coherence (цілісність), cohesion (формальна складність) and deixis. 2. The notion of coherence. Coherence is a semantic or topical unity of the spoken or written text – that is, the sentences within the text are usually connected by the same general topic. Generally speaking, a coherent text is the text that ‘sticks together’ as a whole unit. Coherence is usually achieved by means of the theme and rheme progression. There exist various types of the theme and rheme progression, e.g. a) T1 R1 Once there lived an old man.  T2 R2 The old man lived in a hut.  T3 R3 The hut was near a wood.

b) T1 R1 Michael is a student. T1 R2 He lives in Boston.  T1 R3 He has a cheap car.  c) T The general topic is Ukraine. Subtopics are its climate, industry, population, etc.

T1 R1 T2 R2 T3 R3 Naturally, in the process of text development different types of theme and rheme progression are combined. 3. The notion of cohesion. Text connecting devices. Cohesion is a succession of spoken or written sentences. Sometimes the sentences may even not coincide topically. The connection we want to draw between various parts of the text may be achieved by textual and lexical cohesion. Textual cohesion may be achieved by formal markers which express conjunctive relations and serve as text connectors. Text connectors may be of four different types: a) additive – and, furthermore, similarly, in addition, etc. b) adversative – but, however, on the other hand, in fact, anyway, after all, nevertheless, etc. c) causal – so, consequently, for this reason, thus, etc. d) temporal – then, after that, finally, at last, in the long run, etc. The full list of text connectors is very long. Some of them do not possess direct equivalents in the Ukrainian language. At the same time it is impossible to speak and write English naturally without knowing for sure when and how to use text connectors of the English language. Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in the text are semantically related in the same way – in other words, they are related in terms of their meaning. Two major categories of lexical cohesion are reiteration and collocation. Reiteration includes repetition, synonym or near synonym use and the use of general words. E.g. (1) You could try driving the car up the slope. The incline isn’t at all that steep. (2) Pneumonia arrives with the cold and wet conditions. The illness can strike everyone from infants to the elderly. Collocation includes all those items in text that are semantically related. The items may be related in one text and not related in other. For instance, the words ‘neighbour’ and ‘scoundrel’ are not related at all. However, in the following text they are collocated: My neighbour has just let one of his trees fall into my garden. And the scoundrel refuses to pay for the damage he has caused. Cohesive ties within the text are also formed by endophoric relations. Endophoric relations are of two kinds – those that look back in the text for their interpretation are called anaphoric relations; those that look forward in the text are called cataphoric relations: Look at the sun. It is going down quickly. ‘It’ refers back to ‘the sun’. It is going down quickly, the sun. ‘It’ refers forwards to ‘the sun’. 4. Textual deictic markers.

As a linguistic term deixis means ‘identification by pointing’. Much of the textual meaning can be understood by looking at linguistic markers that have a pointing function in a given context. For example, consider the following note pinned on a professor’s door: “Sorry, I missed you. I’m in my other office. Back in an hour.” Without knowing who the addressee is, what time the note was written, or the location of the other office, it is really hard to make a precise information of the message. Those terms that we cannot interpret without an immediate context are called deixis. Deictic terms are used to refer to ourselves, to others, and to objects in our environment. They are also used to locate actions in a time frame relative to the present. Deictic terms can show social relationship – the social location of individuals in relation to others. They may be used to locate parts of a text in relation to other parts. Deictic expressions are typically pronouns, certain time and place adverbs (here, now, etc.), some verbs of motion (come/go), and even tenses. In fact all languages have expressions that link a sentence to a time and space context and that help to determine reference. We can identify five major types of deictic markers – person, place, time, textual and social. Person deixis refers to grammatical markers of communicant roles in a speech event. The first person is the speaker’s reference to self; the second person is the speaker’s reference to addressee(s) and the third person is reference to others who are neither speaker nor addressee. Place deixis refers to how languages show the relationship between space and the location of the participants in the text: this, that, here, there, in front of, at our place, etc. Temporal deixis refers to the time relative to the time of speaking: now, then, today, yesterday, tomorrow, etc. Textual deixis has to do with keeping track of reference in the unfolding text: in the following chapter, but, first, I’d like to discuss, etc. Most of the text connectors discussed above belong to this group. Social deixis is used to code social relationships between speakers and addressee or audience. Here belong honorifics, titles of addresses and pronouns. There are two kinds of social deixis: relational and absolute. Absolute deictic markers are forms attached to a social role: Your Honor, Mr.President, Your Grace, Madam, etc. Relational deictic markers locate persons in relation to the speaker rather than by their roles in the society: my cousin, you, her, etc. In English, social deixis is not heavily coded in the pronoun system. ‘You’ refers to both – singular and plural. As well as in the Ukrainian language, English possesses ‘a powerful we’: We are happy to inform…, In this article we…

LECTURE 11: PRAGMATICS. SPEECH ACT THEORY 1. Basic notions of pragmatic linguistics. 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. 2. Classifications of speech acts. Indirect speech acts.  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 modern 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. LECTURE 12: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 1. Discourse analysis – the study of language in use. 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). 2. Maxims of conversation. 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 3. Implicatures of discourse. 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). 4. Implicatures and indirectness. 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. by ass. prof. L.M.Volkova, National Linguistic University of Kiev