The method of "mixed syntax" in linguistic analysis

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushinsky

Department of Germanic philology and methods of teaching foreign languages

Teaching international humanitarian university

Department of Romance-Germanic philology and foreign languages

The method of “mixed syntax” in linguistic analysis

Zhaboruke O.A., Professor (1949-2019)

Zhaboruke I.A., PhD, Ass. Professor

Talanova L.G., PhD, Ass. Professor

Summary

In the process of linguistic investigation there may happen a situation, when neither of the systems chosen for analysis works, so, a scholar, has to involve in his analysis not one particular theory but a few of them at a time.

We must admit that the practice of combining several theoretical systems in one research becomes more and more notable in linguistics and gives efficient results. This method even received a specific term of a “mixed syntax”.

The best known in modern linguistics and the most optimal way to achieve reliable and trustworthy results is a mix of the traditional syntactic platform with well proven methods of structural linguistics as the method of descriptive analysis and distribution.

However, taking the positions of the “mixed syntax”, the investigator gets into a real “swirl” of viewpoints, definitions, classifications, extremely difficult for operating with, due to their contradictory character and, sometimes, even, their inconsistency. It is one's own intuition that one has to rely on, in the cases of solving the “problem of choice” of a particular standpoint, when blindly moving along the path of his research. Unfortunately, intuition is not always a reliable guide.

O.A. Zhaboryuk worked out certain principles, basing on which a linguist can come out of a difficult situation. According to the first principle the scholar agrees that any point of view possesses a certain degree of objectivity, Another dominant principle in modern linguistics is that of leveled volumetric analysis. It is very important to keep to the principle of the most possible neutrality when choosing a point of view. The other important principles to be taken into account in course of linguistic analysis are the principle of keeping to the chosen standpoint and the principle of “relative value” of the components of a syntactic structure.

Key words: syntax, linguistic analysis, structural grammar, distribution, volumetric analysis.

Анотація

Жаборюк О., Жаборюк І., Таланова Л. Метод «змішаного синтаксису» у лінгвістичному аналізі

У процесі лінгвістичного дослідження може трапитись ситуація, коли жодна з теорій, обраних для аналізу, не працює, отже, дослідник змушений залучити не одну конкретну теорію, а одночасно кілька.

Треба визнати, що практика комбінування декількох теорій у одному дослідженні все частіше зустрічається у лінгвістиці і показує хороші результати. Цей метод навіть здобув спеціальний термін «змішаний синтаксис».

Найбільш відомим у сучасній лінгвістиці і найбільш оптимальним способом досягти надійних результатів - це комбінування традиційної синтаксичної платформи з добре перевіреними методами дескриптивного аналізу та дистрибуції.

Одначе, ступаючи на позиції «змішаного синтаксису», дослідник поринає у справжній «вир» точок зору, визначень, класифікацій, якими надзвичайно важко оперувати через їхній суперечливий характер, а часом навіть невідповідність. У таких випадках, щоб вирішити «проблему вибору» конкретної точки зору, можна покладатися на власну інтуїцію, сліпо просуваючись по дорозі дослідження. На жаль, інтуїція не завжди є надійним поводирем.

Професор О.А. Жаборюк виробила певні принципи, базуючись на яких, лінгвіст може вийти з важкої ситуації. Згідно з першим принципом, вчений-лінгвіст приймає положення про те, що кожна точка зору має певний ступінь об'єктивності. В той же час, беручи до уваги фактор відносності, ми віддаємо перевагу одній певній думці перед іншою. Зрозуміло, що вибір мусить бути обґрунтованим. Інший важливий принцип у сучасній лінгвістиці - це принцип рівневого об'ємного аналізу. Потрібно теж дотримуватись принципу найбільшої нейтральності при виборі точок зору. Інші важливі принципи, які треба брати до уваги під час лінгвістичного аналізу - принцип дотримання вибраної точки зору і принцип «відносної вартості» компонентів синтаксичної структури. Згідно з цим принципом, дослідник повинен сфокусуватися на якійсь певній одиниці (структурі), тоді як решту брати до уваги, коли це потрібно для вирішення проблем, пов'язаних з «центром» дослідження. Таке розуміння дистрибуції є на нашу думку найбільш прийнятним, оскільки відкриває можливості для повного аналізу досліджуваного матеріалу.

Ключові слова: синтаксис, лінгвістичний аналіз, структурна граматика, дистрибуція, об'ємний аналіз.

Formulation of the problem

Being far from having the status of a complete scientific system, modern linguistics represents a “symbiosis” of many various ideas, theories, tendencies and schools, which, on the one hand compete with each other “for survival”, but on the other hand - they complement each other in the process of investigating various aspects of the language.

There may be a situation when, in the process of analyzing some rather abundant material, neither of the particular systems works, a scholar, regardless of whether he wishes or not, has to involve in his analysis not one particular theory but a few of them at a time, in view of his aim and object of investigation.

We must admit that the practice of combining several theoretical systems in one research becomes more and more notable in linguistics and gives efficient results. This method even received a specific term of a “mixed syntax” [1].

The best known in modern linguistics and the most optimal way to achieve reliable and trustworthy results is a mix of the traditional syntactic platform (in a broad sense of this notion) with well proven methods of structural linguistics as the method of descriptive analysis and distribution (R. Quirk, R. Close, M.M. Egreshy, O.A. Zhaboryuk and oth.)

Purpose of the Investigation. In our view it can be explained by the fact that the traditional syntax, as one of the oldest and what is more time-tested linguistic traditions is, though not perfect, but still a specific foundation for modern linguistics. It is within the boundaries of the traditional syntax certain linguistic phenomena are debated, it is with the traditional syntax, with its “conceptual apparatus” the theoretic fundamentals of most syntactic theories are checked. As regards structuralism, one of its major advantages is high scientific objectivity. Being of the general semiotic nature, these methods can be easily superimposed on other syntactic systems, and, in particular, on the traditional syntax.

However, taking the positions of the “mixed syntax”, even in the form described above, the investigator gets into a real “swirl” of viewpoints, definitions, classifications, extremely difficult for operating with, due to their contradictory character and, sometimes, even, their inconsistency. It is one's own intuition that one has to rely on, in the cases of solving the “problem of choice” of a particular standpoint, when blindly moving along the path of his research. Unfortunately, intuition is not always a reliable guide. Following this way it is easy to make a mistake which depreciates the effectiveness of the analysis and the veracity of the results.

In a number of her investigations, in which she analyzed scientific material from the standpoint of the so called “mixed” syntax, O.A. Zhaboryuk worked out certain principles, basing on which a linguist can come out of a difficult situation. Let us look at these principles.

First of all, it is important to accept that any point of view possesses a certain degree of objectivity. At the same time, taking into consideration the factor of relativity, we may give preference to one of the opinions over the others. The choice should be grounded, of course.

Theoretical Framework. The dominant principle in modern linguistics, particularly in structuralism, is that of leveled volumetric analysis. Lately, the amount of supporters of this method has been increasing also among “traditionalists”, who turn to enhance its effectiveness in order to considerably extend the capabilities of syntactic analysis. However, the implementation of this principle is not always conclusive and productive. Inter alia, the conception of level analysis by N. O. Kobrina and the like-minded people does not seem consistent enough to us. According to this approach it is relevant to single out only two levels of syntactic analysis - the plane of the sentence and the plane of the phrase [2, 28].

What are the flaws of this systematic, at first sight, theory? First of all, it is the number of levels which the authors see in the hierarchy of the construction of syntactic structures. Actually, these levels are much more. A “dependency tree”, as is clearly demonstrated by the scheme of analysis of separate utterances, may go much “deeper” and achieve much more levels than it was stated by the above-mentioned authors. Let us consider a few concrete examples to see whether the principle of level analysis works on the ground. For instance, let us take an utterance: She was quick to learn. The element to learn is problematic in this case. According to a viewpoint, rather popular in traditional syntax, this element is classified as an object. Structuralists and supporters of the so called “mixed syntax” believe it to be a part of the predicate, a complement to the predicative [3]. The true point of the divergence, as we can see, is in the question: on what plane should we consider this problematic element - on the plane of the sentence or on the plane of the phrase? syntactic descriptive neutrality mixed syntax

Trying to reconcile these contradictory truths and still keeping to the traditional course leads to a logical mistake. This mistake lies in the assumption that on the plane of the sentence, secondary parts of the sentence can modify or complement not only the subject and the predicate as a whole, but also their components. Thus, it identifies a part with the whole. In other words, here we observe the violation of one of the main laws of logic - the law of identity.

Therefore, this position is vulnerable in terms of logic, as the principle of level analysis (on which it is grounded) does not recreate the real hierarchal relations between syntactic elements of an utterance, but is artificially “injected” into it.

Bearing this in mind, we give preference to the first position, according to which the element understand is a complement of the predicative, and which does not assume any parallel status of a direct object for this element on the sentence level. In this hypothesis, the logic of hierarchal relationship is sustained consistently. We can illustrate it graphically on the scheme according to the method of Chinese boxes, which the adherents of structuralism widely used in practice of analyzing of linguistic material [4; 56-57]. The first division, as we can see, is between the subject and the predicate (He // was ready to..., respectively), the second - between the main components of the predicate - the link-verb and the predicative (was // to speak), and only on the third level of syntactic analysis the element to speak is singled out as a complement of the predicative.

Statement of material

Thus, when choosing a certain point of view, we took into consideration whether it is based on the principles of the level analysis, and how consistently the author of this point of view keeps to it.

It is very important to keep to the principle of the most possible neutrality when choosing a point of view. This principle is relative. O.A. Zhaboryuk used this principle when investigating the structure be + ed, in particular, its written formula. Thus, for instance, the formula be + ed, suggested by O.A. Zhaboryuk, features greater neutrality, than the conventional be + PII, because PII (Participle II) is a “hint” to the status of the structure in general. In syntactic formulas of patterns, subpatterns, etc., instead of be + ed, symbol x is used for more convenience. Thus, it is emphasized that be + ed, is “unknown quantity” whose status is to be determined. In this way, the pattern S + Px, is to be “read” as subject (S) + predicate (P), expressed by the structure be + ed. The elements whose status is in dependence from the status of be + ed are to be approached with the most neutrality. The nominal element (or the nominal phrase) in the postposition to the structure be + ed is meant. It is commonly accepted that in cases when be + ed is a form of the passive (that is a verb), this element functions as an object. If the structure be + ed is a compound nominal predicate, then the opinions on the status of the postpositional nominal element vary. Some scholars believe it to be an object [5, 63], the others - a component of the predicative, namely a complement of the predicative. [6, 310-311].

As we see, it is possible to determine the status of the nominal element in the postposition to the structure be + ed only on condition of complete clarity about the status of the structure itself. Since the status of the structure be + ed is the problem that is to be solved, after having preferred one of the traditional points of view, O. A. Zhaboruke indicated the postpositional nominal element of be + ed with the symbol O, which means object. In view of the conditional character of this symbol, it was quoted: “O”. So, before the status of the structure be + ed has been determined, the syntactic formula which contain a nominal element in postposition to the structure be + ed is to be marked with “O”.

Turning to Morphology helps to maintain the neutral character of the analysis to some extent. It is also one of the peculiarities of the “mixed” syntax. Thus, in certain cases, the discussion element (from the point of view of Syntax) is to be determined only morphologically. It took away the need to join a certain point of view and justify it. This position is quite popular, especially in foreign linguistics [7, 190-193].

It should be noted that one is to keep to the principle of neutrality mainly in cases which could influence the status of the investigated structures - the structures be + ed and (be + ed) o. In other cases, if there is no “danger” of such character one should hold the point of view which is more convenient for the analysis.

In the process of linguistic analysis, a scholar should keep to the chosen standpoint. This principle is important though simple. The point is that the chosen point of view should “thread” the whole investigation; otherwise, the theoretical value of the work is violated, and the objectivity of the results decreases.

Another important principle to be taken into account in course of linguistic analysis is the principle of “relative value” of the components of a syntactic structure. The relations of hypotaxis (subordination) and parataxis (co-ordination) are, as we know, the central ones in syntax. They are organically inherent to any syntactic formation. But along with these, so to say, “absolute relations”, we can also single out the type of subordination, which is conditioned by the aim of an investigation, and, is, in this regard, conventional. It was called the “principle of the relative value”. According to this principle, the investigator is to focus on a certain unit (or structure), all the rest are taken into consideration just as well as is needed for solving problems connected with the “center” of the investigation. This type of subordination may be “superimposed” on the “absolute” one, they may also not coincide, but, anyway, a serious research is impossible without considering both types of relations -subjective and objective.

The principle of the “relative value” was translated into the method of distribution, which includes obligatory singling out the “nucleus” of the structure and the elements of its immediate environment. The main idea of this method is establishing the distribution of the nucleus, i.e. the sum of all possible syntactic relations, into which it may enter with the elements of its immediate context. It is the distribution that determines the nature of a syntactic unit - something that conditions its difference from other syntactic units.

In the process of its development, the method of distributive analysis underwent certain changes. The classical definition of distribution became more capacious. More and more often linguists understand by the term distribution not only the totality of syntactic relations, in which the nucleus interacts with the elements of its environment, but the nucleus itself, as it is, its properties.

More than that, such notions as external and internal distribution are put into circulation. Under external distribution the totality of syntactic connections of the core is meant (that is the term “external distribution” is, in fact, the same as the classical definition of distribution), the term “internal distribution” implies the lexical content of the core [8, 30]. Yet, the term “external distribution” remained unchanged. As for the term “internal distribution”, it has expanded considerably - now it denotes the complex lexico-grammatical analysis of the properties of the core.

Such treatment of distribution seems the most reasonable, it includes the comprehensive analysis of a syntactic unit under consideration. It can be “taken into service” in the process of investigating any syntactic structure.

Bibliography

1. Жаборюк О.А. Категорія стану як лінгвістична універсалія. Іноземна філологія: український науковий збірник. Вип. ІІІ. Львів. Львівський національний університет. 1999. С. 13-17.

2. Жаборюк О.А. Принципи лінгвістичного дослідження з позицій «змішаного» синтаксису. Вісник Одеського державного університету (Філологія. Мовознавство. Літературознавство). Одеса, 1999 р. С. 27-31.

3. Close R.A. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman, 1975.342 pp.

4. Stuart A.H. Graphic Representation of Models in Linguistic Theory. Blooming and London: Indiana University Press. 1975. 160 pp.

5. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Swartwick J. A Comparative Grammar of the English Language. Ldn. N.Y. 1987. 390 pp.

6. Close R.A. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman, 1975. 342 pp.

7. Quirk R. A University Grammar of English. ABBYY. Fine Reader. 1975 360 pp.

8. Harris Z.S. Distributional Structure. Linguistics Today. WORD. 1954. P. 146-162.

Размещено на Allbest.Ru