Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
111 Seiten, Note: 1,7
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1.1 Statement of Purpose
1.2 Work Already Done
1.4 Objective(s) of Study
1.6 Research Question(s)
1.6.1 Major Question.
1.7 Significance of the Study
1.8 Theoretical Framework
1.9 Chapter Summaries and Divisions
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK/LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Universal Grammar
2.1.1 Chomsky’s Theory
2.1.2 Generative Grammar
2.1.3 X-bar Theory
2.1.4 Government and Binding Theory
2.1.5 Principles and Parameters
2.1.6 Headedness Concept
2.2 Literature Review
2.2.1 Noun Phrase in ‘The Great Tradition’
2.2.2 Noun Phrase in Perspective of Structural Grammar
2.2.3 The Noun Phrase in the Perspective of Generative Grammar
2.3 Describing the English Noun Phrase (NP)
2.3.1 Corpus Linguistics
2.3.2 Variations in Word Order
2.4 English Descriptive Linguistics
2.4.1 English Linguistics and NP
2.4.2 The NP in The Great Tradition
2.4.3 The NP in Structural Grammar
2.5 The NP and Generative Grammar
2.6 The NP and the Latest Approaches to Descriptive Linguistics
2.7 Discussion of the Different Perspectives
2.8 The NP Structure
2.8.1 The Limiter
2.8.2 The Determiner
2.8.3 The Head (nucleus)
2.8.4 The Modifier
2.8.5 The Postmodifier
2.9 Variant Noun Phrases
3.1 A Multi-Method Approach to Descriptive Linguistics
3.2 Combining Corpus Data with Intuitive Data
3.3 The Corpus Study
3.3.1 Design of the Corpus
3.3.2 Annotation and Exploration
4.1 Constituency-Based Parse Tree at Sentential Level
4.2 The Analysis of Syntactic Structure of NP in PE
4.3 Results for X-bar Framework
4.4 Variation of Word Order in the Functional Approach
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion of the Results
5.2 Limitations of the Multi-Method Approach
5.2.1 Future Recommendations/Suggestions
Appendix A: A Small Sample from Corpus
Thesis Title: A Study of the Patterns of Noun Phrase in Pakistani English Journalese:
A Syntactic Perspective
The present research pioneering a new trend would espouse the contemporary theories of Generative Grammar i.e. a study of noun phrase in the Pakistani English (PE) journalese applying universal and generative theories of grammar, especially X-bar theory. The analysis of the study will also have another specific advantage by moving the focus from sentential level to phrasal and constituent’s level in generative perspective. The sentential/phrasal explanation in PE is unquestionably in accordance with the concept that movement in constituents are arranged as ongoing series of lexical items. However, movement in constituents is espoused i.e. the changes in positions are observed, and order of their occurrence are discussed in reference to peculiarities in occurrence of constituents in NP according to ‘parameters’ to suit a communicative purpose. Therefore, data analysis is being done quantitatively through measurement of frequencies in respect of occurrence of NPs by using an adapted multi-method approach especially for the study of descriptive linguistics is preferred from de Mönnink (2000). To date, movement in phrasal constituents has been investigated using self-made examples by many linguists (see de Mönnink, 2000) in case of Standard English. Adopting the formal approach, the researcher has investigated movement and discussed it through analyses in the generative framework. Thus a completely transformational approach in the direction of a more surface-structure perspective has originated and the number of movement rules to one broad movement principle (move a) are shrunk, and the directionality of ‘move a’ to leftward movement has restricted in the framework by this study. The study shows that weight and information value are the basic principles that explain movement in a functional perspective. When discussing how to treat NP movement, the most popular constructions are focused on, in the formal and functional approach (i.e. discontinuous AJPs, FDPM, and [floating] deferred determiners). In addition, fronted pre-modification is analyzed, because that is the only NP structure that involves movement to the left of an IC. The findings of the study fully conform to the view that with a clear understanding of constituents a language learner would better learn and teach a language.
Table 2.1 Quirk et al. (1972) Word Order Table
Table 4.1 Corpus Quantitative Results
Table 4.2 Results for NPs
Table 4.3 Results for NPs with Determiners
Table 4.4 Results for NPs with Adjective (or AdjP)
Table 4.5 Results for NPs with Compliment
Table 4.6 Results for NPs with Specifier, Compliment and Adjunct
Table 4.7 Combined Results for Noun Phrases
Figure 1.1 Comparison between Constituency Relation & Dependency Relation
Figure 2.1 Noun Phrase Structure Following Quirk et al. (1972, 1985)
Figure 2.2 NP structure according to X-bar theory
Figure 2.3 Noun Phrase Structure Following Quirk et al. (1972, 1985)
Figure 2.4 Determiner Phrase Structure Following Oostdijk (1993)
Figure 2.5 NP Analysis Following Nida (1966)
Figure 2.6 NP Structure Following X-bar theory
Figure 2.7 DP Structure
Figure 2.8 Prototypical NP Structure
Figure 3.1 Data cycle for descriptive linguistics
Figure 3.2 Process of Grammar Construction (adapted from de Monnik, 2000)
Figure 3.3 Process of Grammar Construction Adapted to Multi-Method Approach
Figure 4.1 Parse Tree (adapted from Wikimedia)
Figure 4.2 Illustration via Phrase Markers
Figure 4.3 A Rough Parse Tree
Figure 4.4 A Node-Based Parse Tree
Figure 4.5 Example of Constituency-Based Parse Trees at Sentential Level
Figure 4.6 Example of X-Bar at Sentential Level
Figure 4.7 Example of Deep Structure and Surface Structure
Figure 4.8 Example of Head-Final Noun Phrase Tree
Figure 4.81 Example of Head-Final Noun Phrase Tree
Figure 4.9 Example of Head-Initial Noun Phrase Tree
Figure 4.9.1 Example of Head-Initial Noun Phrase Tree
Figure 4.9.2 Example of Head-Initial Noun Phrase Tree
Figure S4.10 Example of Left Dislocation (From corpus)
Figure S4.10.1 Example of Right Dislocation (From corpus)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The completion of M. Phil. (Linguistics) would not have the same spirit without invaluable, academic, educational, psychological, and humane belief in me as a writer and researcher provided by Dr. Masroor Sibtain and Dr. Zafar Iqbal, I am highly grateful to you for your support and patronage that enthused me with a spirit to carry out my research satisfactorily. I undertook a relatively difficult area and experienced the bearable weight of academic being, paraphrasing Chomsky’s theoretical frameworks. My teachers very tenderly led me out to the beauty of English, to the delicate philosophical wisdom of being in its environment with all their thoughtfulness, discretion, and sincerity. My mentors patiently and laboriously corrected my mistakes and directed me whenever I was baffled with intricate issues of syntax. My sincere thanks is due on them since their care, encouragement and consistent belief in me helped me accomplish the onerous task.
My appreciation also extends to Ms. Saima Umer and Ms. Sundus Javaid. Their mentoring and encouragement have been especially valuable, and their invaluable insights were very instrumental in my research in Masters in Linguistics, Literature and Philosophy.
I feel greatly indebted to my parents; Muhammad Aslam and Ghazala Shaheen Aslam, my superheroes; Talha Aslam and Usman Aslam and sisters (who often call it ‘thinkies’ instead of thesis), whose value to me only grows with my age. And finally, I acknowledge my beloved wife as well as my children; Maryam Zammad, Hajra Zammad, Abdul Momin Zammad and Huzaifa Zammad Aslam, who are my champions and who have always stood by me to bless me with a life of joy in the hours apart from the degrees hours.
This dissertation is devoted to my FATHER, who trained me that the best type of understanding to have is the one which is oriented towards the benefit of the holder. It is also devoted to my MOTHER, who trained me that even the biggest aim can be achieved if it is planned and executed in the given timeframe.
“Especially to those who love my love, and my love- the ALMIGHTY.”
Noun phrase occupies a pivotal value in the discussion pertaining to syntax and meaning. The application of Chomskian description of grammar as generative in almost all the languages or varieties of English calls for investigation in relation to the world English/es like Pakistani English (Baumgardner as cited in Rehman, 2014, p. 22). The standing exploration A Study of the Patterns of Noun Phrase in Pakistani English Journalese: A Syntactic Perspective will of course investigate noun phrase in the Pakistani English language in newspapers and is thus far attaining in its effect because it will further seek to elaborate syntactic features pertaining to various researchable contexts in Pakistani English. It would offer new designs/models in the subdivision of analysis on syntactic terminology for the Pakistani English language. Among non-native English (es), the Pakistani English is emerging as a consistent variety. This variety as such has been institutionalized and is a recognized medium of communication in official as well as educational domains in Pakistan. The study of noun phrase further calls for elaboration in the light of linguistic theories as detailed below.
Moreover, language, as a means of communication, is concerned with conveying meaning and this transfer of meaning takes place when both the interlocutors share a good deal of knowledge of the systems involved in language i.e. phonological, grammatical and semantic. The grammatical system has been studied in various perspectives, structural to functional, by many linguists and philologists. The most recent view about grammar has been put forward by Chomsky (1957) who has in fact done a fundamental job in identifying the core grammatical structures most languages have in common. The grammatical theory put forward by Chomsky (1970) thus calls for elaboration and extrapolation so that its wide range application could be confirmed or challenged. The Noun Phrase (NP) and Verb Phrase (VP) model describe the way human brain orders propositions at syntactic level and further how decoding of text is subservient to the understanding of such order. It is however pertinent to keep into view various approaches a linguist follows to study any linguistic system. The following will take a brief view of one such approach namely, descriptivism.
Studies in descriptive linguistics have a well-established tradition and occupied place in general and in case of the English language in particular. Prescriptivism gave way to descriptivism at the start of the last century with the publication of The Great Tradition later called reference grammars. The shift in the focus of the former could be seen from the initiation of interest on the description of the language i.e. common core of the language; it can further be seen in the authentic texts of the linguists. They left an important influence on the descriptive analysis, through their text for exemplification, on the descriptive analysis. De Mönnink (2000) described the descriptive analysis as:
The nature of the data (literary citations) explains the orientation toward written, literary language, which makes up only part of the actual use of language. The degree of variation in structure which they came across was bound to be small. To obtain a fairly complete description, large bodies of text should be studied which contain a great many different varieties of the language, both written and spoken. Secondly, the often dated nature of the texts resulted in descriptions of rather obsolete use. In the third place, traditional grammarians did not (have an adequate method to) study the texts in a systematic manner. (p. 1)
Some uncommon and basic patterns and structures were only described by the descriptivists and some important features were missed out that caused an explicit dearth of grammatical explanations in their grammars. With some little traces of prescriptivism, predominant descriptive grammarians have focused on proper usage of language but not on actual usage of language. For the reference, two more recent reference grammars, A Grammar of Contemporary English (Quirk et al., 1972) and A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language (Quirk et al., 1985), will be discussed in Chapter 2 for descriptive linguistics perspective under the same heading.
The concept of Phrase Structure Grammar also known as constituency grammar was originally introduced by Chomsky (1980). The distinct features of constituency grammar or phrase structure grammar is their adherence to the constituency relation as opposed to the dependency relation of dependency grammars.
Phrase Structure Grammars are all those grammars that are based on the constituency relation, as opposed to the dependency relation associated with dependency grammars; hence phrase structure grammars are also known as constituency grammars. The main theories about the parsing of natural language are characterized as constituency grammars and most of them have been developed from Chomsky's work, for instance
- Government and Binding Theory,
- Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar,
- Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar,
- The Minimalist Program, and
Further grammar frameworks and formalisms also qualify as constituency-based, although they may not think of themselves as having spawned from Chomsky's work, for instance
- Arc Pair Grammar and
- Categorial Grammar.
The essential aspect commonly shared by the above mentioned frameworks is that they view sentence structure in terms of the constituency relation. The constituency relation derives from the subject-predicate division of Latin and Greek grammars that is based on term logic and reaches back to Aristotle in antiquity. Basic clause structure is understood in terms of a binary division of the clause into subject (noun phrase NP) and predicate (verb phrase VP), for instance
- Head possibilities
- Notion of Empty Categories (Slots)
The binary division of the clause results in a one-to-one-or-more correspondence. For each element in a sentence, there are one or more nodes in the tree structure that one assumes for that sentence. A two word sentence such as Luke laughed necessarily implies three (or more) nodes in the syntactic structure: one for the noun Luke (subject NP), one for the verb laughed (predicate VP), and one for the entirety Luke laughed (sentence S). The constituency grammars listed above view sentence structure in terms of this one-to-one-or-more correspondence, this notion of one-to-or-more correspondence is known as Projection Principle.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 1.1 Comparison between Constituency Relation & Dependency Relation (Wikimedia)
As Chomsky is of view that lexical structure must be represented categorically at each syntactic level. “Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., L.F., and D- and S-structure) are projected from the lexicon, in that observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items.” (Chomsky, 1981, p. 29). Therefore projection principle can be defined as agreement which is used for derivation of phrase under the influence of the Principle & Parameter theory.
A particular means of understanding a language with its particular systems that formulate syntax is called its Generative Grammar (GG). Generative Grammar actually shoulders the responsibility of formation of sentences in any language around the globe and its regulations laid down by the theory of Generative Grammar actually decides the sequence and types of words used to join and make a sentence to convey a specific meaning. The syntax of a sentence becomes a representative of a hierarchy in which constituents become a part of the larger pattern, language thus is a manifestation of Generative Grammar itself. Chomsky is said to be the greatest linguist on this aspect of grammar with his research beginning in late 1950’s. Chomsky (1965, 1976), while elaborating transformation, states that the Generative Grammar was pioneered by Panini. Chomsky (1965, 1976) relates his contemporary Generative Grammar back to Panini’s work on the Sanskrit grammar. The other antecedents of this field traced back by Chomsky (1965, 1976) have also been mentioned in his researches.
When Chomsky (1957) relates Generative Grammar to the “innate universal grammar”, the concepts of nativism and “blank slate” are automatically recalled, and it re-kindles the debate on the topic of “nature vs nurture”. Proceeding to the next point, the Generative Grammar till now has become a great theory as the debates of nativism and “blank slate” are involved in the argument; the “poverty of stimulus” argument automatically makes its space in the criticism of the theory. This thoughtfully explains that Generative Grammar is a wider, wiser and unique argument in comparison to the others like Cognitive Grammar, functional and behaviourist theories.
Generative Grammar also identifies the authenticity of a sentence and verifies that the sentence is syntactically right or wrong (well-formed or not). The ethics of Generative Grammar works as it functions through the algorithmic formulas, and gives us details only limited to one such formula – “Boolean”; either the sentence is right or wrong (see van Melkebeek, 2000 for details), yet the further details and the corrections of sentences does not lie within the boundaries of Generative Grammar. The further developed concept which gained much attention on the part of Chomsky (1970) and remained a focus of his work for years is X-bar Theory.
Contemporary syntactical issues regarding NP in the Pakistani English (PE) will be expounded in the present study through an investigation into the Pakistani English journalese. Sadly, the study or research in the perspective of Generative Grammar in Pakistani English is less explored as only Mahmood (2009) carried out study of NP in general perspective. Much is required to be explored in respect of PE which is one of the varieties of English in the world. Although, the study as such is a contribution to traditional research yet in a contemporary scenario it seeks to apply contemporary generative theory(ies) to advance the tradition of research in the Pakistani English (PE) as its major purpose.
Mehmood (2009) carried out a study on Lexico-grammatical Features of Noun Phrase in the Pakistani English, Rehman (2014) carried out a research on Morphological, Syntactic, Lexical and Semantic Features of Pakistani English yet both the studies were in formalistic perspective. Several other linguists also contributed to the study of Pakistani English yet specific significance is attached with i.e. Kachru (1982) on Teaching Some Aspects of Syntax as he describes, “The intelligibility of the institutionalized non-native varieties of English forms as ‘cline’” ( p. 49). He further espouses the concept of the cline of bilingualism which in turn can be related to Halliday et al. (1964, p. 77). The interference of L1 and culture-bound lexico-semantic features, is the central point on this ‘relation’ (Kachru, 1969, p. 26). Furthermore, this study includes the great number of civil officers or teachers in Pakistan, India, Srilanka and Bangladesh who are using typically the South Asian varieties of English in their respective areas of operations. Baumgardner (1987, 1990 & 1995), in his first article, discussing Pakistani English (PE), interpreted that Pakistani English newspapers can be used while teaching English, and some aspects of syntax can also be utilized mainly “complementation of verbs and adjective” (as cited in Rehman, 2014, p. 22-23). In his second article on lexico-semantic features, after getting more experience, Kachru believes “we cannot use PE further into some more varieties and cannot distinguish between mesolectal and acrolectal usage” (as cited in Rehman, 2014, p. 22-23).
Although, they above mentioned studies have investigated some important aspects of Pakistani English to utilize it properly for institutionalized scenarios yet in formalistic perspective. Hence the present study as such is a contribution to traditional research as it seeks to apply contemporary generative theory(ies) to advance the tradition of research in the Pakistani English (PE) for more advancement of institutionalized varieties.
As an entity of central position in Generative Grammar, Noun Phrase in the Pakistani English will be focused for analyses of i) The structural makeup of the NP, ii) Nominal Projections and iii) The positions of determiners, pre-head and post-modifications. Such an analysis would be carried out through a selection of 100 well-formed sentences and their constituents’ analysis through the Principles and Parameters theory by drawing tree diagrams as expounded by de Mönnink (2000). NPs used in Pakistani English journalese will be analyzed specifically.
The major objective of present research is to espouse the Pakistani English (PE) of journalese applying universal and generative theories of grammar, especially X-bar Theory by moving the focus from sentential level to phrasal and constituent’s level in generative perspective. For this purpose, movement in constituents is espoused i.e. the changes in positions (Determiner/enumerator, Pre-head & Post-head) are observed, and their occurrence are recorder as well as discussed in reference to peculiarities in occurrence of constituents in NP according to ‘parameters’ to suit a communicative purpose. The said objectives would be achieved through illustrations of NP in PE in reference to its structural components (determiners/enumerator, pre-heads and post-heads modifications) with a view to highlighting the patterns specific to this variety of English.
a. Syntactical projection of NP in PE is in conformity with the theory of Generative Grammar yet with some peculiarities.
(i) How are NP projections realized at different levels i.e. Maximal & Intermediate level?
(ii) What types of patterns do English Pakistani Journalese follow at the level of Noun Phrase?
(i) What are the frequencies of filling D-slot (determiners/enumerators) in NP?
(ii) What is the general tendency towards filling ‘Pre-head modification’ in NP?
(iii) What tendency is found to fill the slot of Post-head modification in NP?
Although, some researches have already been carried out on Pakistani English newspapers i.e. discourse analysis perspective yet the present research pioneering a new trend as it would espouse the contemporary theories of grammar i.e. a study of the Pakistani English noun phrase applying universal and generative theories of grammar. The proposed analysis will also have another specific advantage by moving the focus from sentential level to phrasal level in generative perspective. The sentential/phrasal explanation in PE is unquestionably in accordance with the concept that constituents are arranged as ongoing series of lexical items. However, movement in constituents is espoused i.e. the changes in positions would be observed, and order of their occurrence would be discussed in reference to peculiarities in occurrence of constituents in NP according to Parameters to suit a communicative purpose. To date, movement in phrasal constituents has been investigated/known using self-made examples by many linguists (see de Mönnink, 2000) in case of Standard English. Movement of immediate constituents and syntactic positioning of the NP phrases of the Pakistani English language is being investigated by the researcher in the present study for a better understanding (translations and comparative studies etc.) with other languages/varieties. The findings would support the view that with a clear understanding of constituents a person would be better able to learn and teach a language.
Noun Phrase occupies a pivotal position in Universal Grammar (UG). This grammar model was given by Chomsky (1957, 1981, and 1995) which is further illustrated by him in various ways. Chomsky’s Standard Theory (1957) was followed by Government and Binding (1981) which further culminated into the Minimalist Program (1995) in which Principles and Parameters framework attracted a deal of attention to understand language. (See for instance, Haegeman 1994; Radford 1988). Theoretical proposals are drawn from recent work in syntax including (i) the X-Bar Theory (Chomsky, 1970 and 1994; Jackendoff, 1977), Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995; Radford; 1997, 2000; Adger 2003; Lasnik, Uriagereka, Boeckx, 2005). All natural languages/varieties have common syntactic rules and they are structure-dependent according the Generative Grammar which states that variations at surface level occur due to the change of position of head in phrase.
Chapter 1 states the objectives, significance, and purpose of the study, key terms and research hypothesis (es). As such it provides an overview of the research as well as research prospects for the application of syntactic in respect of Pakistani English.
Chapter 2 states the most relevant books, research papers and some important published articles on the topic A Study of the Patterns of Noun Phrase in Pakistani English Journalese: A Syntactic Perspective. Furthermore, comparison of different views, similar conclusions of different authors/researchers, critical appreciations through exemplary studies is being done. Relation of the present study with previous studies in particular and with linguistics in general is being elaborated in conclusion of the chapter.
Furthermore, theoretical framework of the research, states the theory(ies) related to the topic i.e. adopting the elaborated Principles and Parameters framework Government and Binding (1980s) model and theoretical proposals drawn from recent work in syntax including (i) the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995; Radford 1997, 2000; Adger 2003; Lasnik, Uriagereka and Boeckx, 2005) and de Mönnink’s (2000) various theoretical frameworks are also adapted. Furthermore, the co-relation of the mentioned theory(ies) are expounded to espouse the researcher’s findings on the topic.
Chapter 3 states the strategy of the present research. A rationale for constructive framework of the research and a general methodology is explained in this chapter yet any adapted theoretical prospects are explained further with appropriate existing situations if required. Mönnink’s (2000) theoretical approaches/frameworks , suitable with the situations, were also adapted to study.
Chapter 4 deals with the analysis of the data by showing sentences, their parsing and tagging. The emergent trends are calculated and discussed extensively.
Chapter 5 provides in detail the overall findings, conclusions and recommendations of the present study.
Noun Phrase occupies a pivotal position in Universal Grammar. This grammar model was given by Chomsky (1957, 1981, and 1995) which is further illustrated by him in various ways. Chomsky’s Standard Theory (1957) was followed by Government and Binding (1981) which further culminated into the Minimalist Program (1995) in which Principles and Parameters framework attracted a deal of attention to understand language. (See for instance, Haegeman 1994; Radford 1988). Theoretical proposals are drawn from recent work in syntax including (i) the X-Bar Theory (Chomsky, 1970 and 1994; Jackendoff, 1977), Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995; Radford; 1997, 2000; Adger 2003; Lasnik, Uriagereka, Boeckx, 2005). All natural languages/varieties have common syntactic rules and they are structure-dependent according the Generative Grammar which states that variations at surface level occur due to the change of position of head in phrase.
Chomsky (1957, 1981, and 1995) holds the most privileged and honored place, and is thus most-referred for illustrative work on the theory of UG. The theory as such is a proportional division of ideas like the poverty of stimulus argument as Chomsky (1971) states that “it is quite possible for a person to go through life without having heard any of the relevant examples that would choose between the two principles” (as cited in Perfors, et al., 2006, p. 1) and the concept that every language in the world is somehow related to the other languages in respect to syntax it is derived in i.e. every language has lexical and phrasal categories (Pinker & Bloom, 1990). The concept of blank-slate has tremendously been opposed, experience (of one’s culture, language, etc.) does not fill a blank-slate, but instead interacts with innate properties to form competence in these different systems of knowledge (Stark, 1998), that it results in the formation of a major component of UG Theory. The conclusion of the theory which reflects the importance of whole Chomsky’s (1957) work on this aspect of grammar is that the observational factors and acquisition-al differences are the main discriminators in viewing the relationship of language with nativism of an individual.
Bacon (1214-94) was the first one to trace the roots of the UG, even though there are some variables in his theory yet he is believed to have discovered the common grammar in all the languages, making cognitive psychology a basis for the theory. Some accidental variations are found in the 13th century when almost all the languages underwent the stage of reformation and the grammars were paralleled a little. There are some gigantic names like Beattie (1735-1803), Blair (1718-1800), Burnett (1714-99), and Smith (1723-90) who joined hands to work under a single platform as they served under a same Scottish school of the 18th century. The school worked on the development of the concept of Universal Grammar and actually on the prosperity of UG itself too. Another trace back, which is significant in its own respect, is the mentioning of UG under the Grammar portion of an extensive and historical work, Encyclopedia Britannica (1771) explains:
We may think of UG as an intricately structured system, but one that is only partially ‘wired up’. The system is associated with a finite set of switches, each of which has a finite number of positions (perhaps two). Experience is required to set the switches. When they are set, the system functions (as cited in Masher and Groves, 1996, p. 106).
The Idea got a boost in its developmental perspective as it became the focus of the modern theorists like Chomsky (1965, 1976, and 1995) and Montague (1930-1971 as cited in Partee, 2006) and the concept thus got a promotion to its utmost awareness to the world after being a part of the Linguistic Battle and other major discussions.
Chomsky’s (1965) theory relates to biological psychology as it depends on the structure of the human brain. He argues that as the brain structure is designed on the same plan so the ability to adopt a language and learn its pros and cons is equal for every language speakers. He believes that there are built-in and limited set of rules for every language in the brain which are responsible for the organization and acquisition process of the language. The concept is well elaborated in Chomsky (1968) as “an abstract system underlying behaviour, a system constituted by rules that interact to determine the form and intrinsic meaning of a potentially infinite number of sentences” (as cited in Blunden, 1998). In other words, the concept can be elaborated by the fact that every language has its basic syntax common with other languages.
Chomsky (1957) opines “I think, yet the world thinks in me” and these words are key to understanding the whole theory as he wants to explain that the whole world has something which he also possesses and the way of acquiring language is same as it is in the traditional acquisition. It is a biological belief as the ability to learn is same in all the brains in the world, with a slight variation on individual basis, regardless of any culture or civilization.
The subconscious state of a proficient speaker of a language teaches one both the acceptable and non-acceptable utterances of the society as speakers naturally vary in their speech production despite the fact that the kernel sentences remain the same. The question that Chomsky (1968) pertains to the factor that teaches a person such a motive. And that if it is in the nature of a person then how the concept of the blank-slate could be recalled. These questions are too an extent logical and form a debate which gives a little priority to Chomsky’s (1968) theory and promote it. Skinner’s (1953) Behaviorist Perspective is also opposed by this theory when the researchers give a detail on the Poverty of Stimulus to justify their point.
The organizational cells stored in the brain biologically are active till the age of psychological development and they are later useless for the native speakers in accordance with the learning of a language. They occasionally become active when individuals tends to learn another language and finds it challenging to quit the grammatical features of their native language and instantaneously adopt the new syntax. The issue of Poverty of Stimulus is resolved by the theorists who worked on UG and later put some restrictions on the syntax of languages internationally, which help in acquisition/learning of the second language. Usually, language learners have their own view in this aspect and most of the learners do not follow the guidelines set by the theories and researchers. This concept is further subdivided into topics which also include Generative Grammar.
To carry out a syntactic study on a language, (as claimed in UG) especially in theoretical linguistics, a particularly approved and repeatedly used approach to investigate syntactic or morph-syntactic features is referred to as Generative Grammar. Especially in rule governed languages, Generative Grammar correctly predicts combinations of lexical items to generate well-formed grammatical as well as morphological structures of sentences.
The Generative Grammarian’s task is ideally not just to define the interrelation of elements in a particular language, but also to characterize Universal Grammar—that is, the set of rules and principles intrinsic to all natural languages, which are thought to be an innate endowment of the human intellect. (Online Merriam Webster Dictionary’s Concise Encyclopaedia)
Generative Grammar s as a broader term, many linguists practiced on several versions of Generative Grammar at theoretical basis in linguistic studies along with other prominent theories of Chomsky (1965, 1976, 1981, 1995, 2001) i.e. Government and Binding, Minimalist Program, Phrase Structure Grammar, Tree-adjoining Grammar and also by the proponents of other grammatical models like functional, behaviourist or cognitive.
X-Bar Theory directly relates to the linguistic theory and its main perspective is that there are not only some but many common syntactic structures in all the languages in the world. There is a complex root of presumed and presupposed substances in this theory when mentioned in 1965, which concludes Chomsky’s (1965, 1976 and 1981) thought in a comprehensive way. Kornai & Pullum (2007) explain that “One of the primary tasks of syntactic theory is to explain how sentences are built from words” (p. 2). This explanation is generally conceived of in terms of assigning syntactic structures to sentences.
The X-Bar Theory states that no matter which language it is, it has a thing in common, which is found in all languages. X-Bar is especially a necessary component in all naturally occurring languages. Chomsky (1970) not only propounded the theory and defended it well as well; the theory was later developed by Jackendoff (1977). The application and evaluation of the X-Bar Theory is not supported in case of dependency-based grammar rather it only works in the specific case of constituency-based grammar.
The letter X plays a part of a true variable and it functions to work on lexical categories, and to occurrences in some specific cases, some specific constants are assigned to the variable. It may also be said that the variable X may change into other variables depending on the condition, for example; letters N, V, A, P respectively for Noun, Verb, Adjective and preposition. Three basic symmetrical rules join and become the base of X-Bar theory, which may be seen at work in immediate dominance rule for the native language, the NLP or Natural Language Processing for neutral language or visually as parse tree for generalization.
The X-Bar theory is preceded by Government and Binding theory to further develop it and give it a unique approach.
Chomsky (1981, 1986) maintains his principal position by working more and more on the Transformational Generative Grammar and by opposing the spectacular and popular of time, the Theory of Dependency Grammar, as he worked tirelessly on the GB theory and the Phrase Based grammar developing his grip over the use and debate of syntax. According to Chomsky (1981, 1986), there was no new idea added to his work and the theory went smoothly, clearing the older points, developing the concepts in them and defending them well against the criticism, which he also elaborated further in one of his most famous theories in the Minimalist Program (1995) and later being the guardian of the concept through the armors of Three Factors in Language Design (Chomsky, 2005). The GB Theory is mainly attached with Chomsky and is generalized by his name. There is a great deal of work carried out on this topic by different linguists later on.
The idea in GB theory is exactly like the way a governmental body is subdivided into two houses normally, the GB theory is also controlled in a count-down way as it splits attorney gradually into the government sub-theory, assuming it normally as upper house, and binding sub-theory, assuming it normally as lower house in a democratic state. The division of responsibility between nouns, pronouns, anaphors and other referential expressions is controlled by Government and Binding individually. The study on the GB infuses a great deal of interest among the researchers and that further enthuses them to work on the further details discussed by Chomsky in Principles and Parameters and the Minimalist Program.
Principles and Parameters is actually a way of modification of a natural language to change it a little to make it understandable generally and to determine the position of language to fit to the global grammar as envisioned in the theory. The Principles and Parameters relate to meaning and rules governing the communication - Principles being the societal regulations set for a language for which a language is bound and Parameters being the switches and kind of modes employed in a language which can vary for other languages however the rules of regulations may differ in other languages. Parameters determine the use of heads in phrases in a language which can be taken as an example to the functionality of the theory of Principles and Parameters.
Most languages and varieties of languages like PE conform to the theory and investigation in this respect. Universal Grammar seems to be a logical conclusion if majority of languages bear out this fact. Lasnik (2005) and Chomsky (1995) are the main proponents of the theory and the study of parameters in universal syntax. Apart from these two figures, the concept relates to other great researchers too who worked their best to contribute to development of international grammar. Some critics classify this theory in the perspective of the GB theory and relate it directly and so straight forwardly that a beginner is usually unable to feel any difference between both of them. The terms Principle and Parameters directly relate to the components of linguistic terminology, Government and Binding and they cannot be differentiated as they are both under the same branch of Generative Grammar which is Phrase Structure Grammar.
Principles and Parameters is premised upon the idea that a small number of innate principles are common to every human language (e.g. phrases are oriented around heads), and that these general principles are subject to parametric variation (e.g. the order of heads and other phrasal components may differ). In this theory, the dependency relation between heads, complements, specifiers, and adjuncts is regulated by X-bar theory, proposed by Jackendoff (1970s). The complement is sister to the head, and they can be ordered in one of two ways: A head-complement order is called a head-initial structure, while a complement-head order is called a head-final structure. These are special cases that Tesnière (1893-1954) referred as centripetal and centrifugal structures, since the model takes into account only complements are considered whereas Tesnière (1893-1954) considered all types of dependents.
In the PP theory, a head-directionality parameter is proposed as a way of classifying languages. A language which has head-initial structures is considered to be a head-initial language, and one which has head-final structures is considered to be a head-final language. It is however found that very few, if any, languages are entirely one direction of the other. Linguists have come up with a number of theories to explain the inconsistencies, sometimes positing a more consistent underlying order, with the phenomenon of phrasal movement being used to explain the surface deviations.
This section will take into considerations various approaches and methods employed by various theorists and researchers in this field of inquiry namely Universal Grammar. Various studies carried out in this field reflect discrete perspectives and titles exploring the phrase structure.
The contribution of different linguists and grammarians in traditional descriptive English’s syntax through different approaches is a remarkable work in the linguistic history. The impressive description of sentence structure gradually towards (complex) noun phrase has contributed well to the understanding of internally assembled (natural in GG) structure of sentence, and here, it will be discussed through some literary text or examples from the corpus of English (Jesperson, Poutsma and Kruisinga in The Great Tradition) and it will be elaborated in historical development) of NP and the way how they analyzed it informally and implicitly despite lacking in a descriptive model and were naturally found confused at larger patterns. Jesperson (1914) considered phrase as a string of words i.e. a phrase is a combination of words which together form a sense unit, though they need not always come in immediate juxtaposition (Jespersen, part II, 1914, p. 15 as cited in de Mönnink, 2000, p. 7). Quirk et al. (1972) may be considered in such in great tradition which clarifies sentence, elaborated them, and puts forward descriptive analyses. The great tradition is further explicated by Aarts & Aarts (1982) by describing noun phrase as “the noun phrase can be described as a headed phrase in which the head is the only obligatory constituent, while there are optional function slots for the determiner (Det.), the premodifier (PreM.), and the postmodifier (PoM.)” (de Mönnink, 2000, p. 8).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.1 Noun Phrase Structure Following Quirk et al. (1972, 1985)
The significant contribution of structural linguistics is an enforceable fragment and would not be passed over in the present study. Although Bloomfield (1933) focuses less on syntax yet his followers Nida (1966) and Fries (1952) systemizes his approach towards meaning philosophically “... class-meanings are not clearly-definable units which could serve as a basis for our work, but only vague situational features, indefinable in terms of our science” (p. 267). However, he was a recognizer and defender of phrases in his constituent analysis as he believes that the syntactic form-classes of phrases, therefore, can be derived from the syntactic form-classes of words: the form-classes of syntax are most easily described in terms of word-classes (p. 196). Fries (1952) applies structuralist approach on the descriptive of syntax (see The Structure of English, 1952), here modifiers are treated relative to their head (or nucleus) which can be realized by one of the form classes or function classes (as cited in de Mönnink, 2000, p. 12). In his ten step sentence analysis, at step eight, Fries (1952) analyses and describes Noun Phrase as: “Postmodifiers are cut off first, beginning with the last one. Word groups as modifiers are treated on the level as whole units in relation to the head to which they are attached” (p. 267-268). Furthermore, Immediate Constituent (IC) analysis of Nida (1966) in descriptive perspective and explanation of the all analysis of structuralists through examples would be included in detail in this chapter.
The arguments by the critics of phrase structure or generative grammar believe that it lacks in descriptive, observational or explanatory adequacy. The present study seeks to provide an independent view of this grammar through its application on the PE. So, bounding to generative framework that has many constant incarnations, agreeing on endocentricness of syntactic structure of headedness, the research will be defensive of X-bar theory (for any maximal projection in generative perspective (XP) must be enclosed with a head (X)) and syntactic analyses would be made in accordance with Chomsky’s (1995, 2001) IC analysis (parsing).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
[The] [boy] [in the classroom]
In the above tree, XP represents a phrasal maximal projection where X is the ‘head’ of constituent XP. At the level of Intermediate projection, X’ and YP (nodes) are further expedition of XP at lower level and ZP can represent another phrase (PP, CP) (derived from Alexiadou et al., 2007, p. 11). Likewise, some more parse trees of phrase will be drawn in Chapter 4 for further explanation in both source and target varieties of the English language as given below:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.2 NP Structure According to X-bar Theory
In this section, the noun phrase (NP) in the English language is described, as it can be found in the current descriptive custom, to get to an overall portrayal of the noun phrase (NP): the prototypical noun phrase structure. This NP portrayal is in accordance with the notion that constituents are developed out of a consistent succession of words. Nonetheless, even in strict word order language, for example English, constituents have the ability to move; they can appear in various positions from the one they normally take. Up to this point little is thought about the movement of phrasal constituents. Exploration into how versatile immediate constituents in the NP in contemporary British English will be made here. In the meantime, the investigation of movement of constituents in the NP is useful as a contextual analysis for a multi-method approach to deal with the information. It is contended that, from a methodological perspective, descriptive studies enhance impressively if they utilise such multi-method viewpoint to deal with the information. Most particularly, if they mix corpus and experimental information.
Corpus linguistics is a sub-category within (computational) linguistics about the investigation of real language use on the premise of (text) corpora. In the current scenario of corpus phonetics computers have made it conceivable to process a lot of information and to analyse the information productively and reliably so that it can be utilised by linguists for the investigation of (the structure of) language from any perspective, and it has its effect on the accepted philosophy. In any case, the corpus, the information accumulation, must be kept in a way that allows for proficient recovery for language research. This obliges corpora to be readable for the computer, as well as for corpora to be kept in a progressed and user-friendly system of database administration. Moreover, the raw data ought to be improved with linguistic data in a way that makes it conceivable to genuinely investigate the information. The linguistic data ought to be analysed in detail and should relate to those specific concepts and techniques that are typically recognized. The most ideal approach to fulfil the last necessity is to take after the portrayals found in English grammatical textbooks.
A corpus may be annotated in two ways: manually and automatically. A manual examination has the impediment of being tedious and conflicting even if the investigations follow one and the same descriptive model. An automatic examination is hence favoured. Using a grammar-based parser may analyse the corpus in an automatic way. To begin with, the linguist's theories, following their own particular insight and information of the language are contained in a formal language structure. Such grammar is then transformed into a parser that may be utilized for the corpus analysis. Along these lines, the formal syntax fills a two-fold need. Firstly, it is the spot where the linguist details their insight and after that, it is changed into a parser and secondly it may also help with the examination of corpora. Thus, corpus linguistics is, truth be told, a formalized way to deal with descriptive linguistics.
Analysing the (raw) corpus automatically may be used to test how much it may cover and how valid the formal grammar is; this means the linguist’s hypotheses be put into the formal grammar. In practice, the corpus actually contains numerous constructions that have not yet been added into the description. Based on the parsing findings, the grammar can be reviewed until, in a cyclic process of (re)analysis and revision, the description is considered complete. When the corpus is completely analysed, it makes up a linguistic database. With the recent improvements in corpus linguistics, corpora enriched with detailed linguistic information are becoming available. The linguistic data can be explored so as to provide insights into the real use of structures, how frequent they are and where they appear.
Using corpora is thus crucial in the descriptive linguistics perspective. In fact, even the more established English grammars mentioned before are barely based on accumulations of discourses. Obviously, the role played by corpora these days contrasts with the part the earlier linguists and grammarians had toward the start of this century. The prior utilisation of corpora is defined by the manual accumulation of texts mainly from literature, which were then utilised as examples of a structure or wonder. The latest way to deal with corpus linguistics includes vast accumulations of writings, both written and (transcribed) oral, accessible in structures that a machine can read. For English, the period of cutting edge corpus etymology began in 1960s when the Brown Corpus (Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, Kuera and Francis, 1967) was created. It has roughly one million words of written American English and may be accessed in its raw form and in a labelled form in which every word has been tagged a ‘type of word' code. The British counterpart, LOB, (Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, Johansson et al., 1978) appeared about ten years later. Both corpora seek to stand for an overall view of written American (BROWN) or British (LOB) English imprinted in 1961, by including a large number of distinctive kinds of texts, for example, press reportage, technical writing, sci-fi, and so on.
The cutting edge way to deal with corpus linguistics is not just about accumulating huge, representative assortments of machine-readable writings, but it also involves compu-tational means to put away, recover and enhance corpora and to encourage language research for lots of users. In addition, there is a need for standardising the annotations in corpora and the linguistic data that is incorporated. Such standardisation will guarantee that corpora will be compatible and also that linguistic investigations following these corpora are valid and reliability. Right now, more development of taggers and parsers for the morpho-syntactic investigation of corpora and debates on standardisation are taking place and will proceed for some years.
Up till now, advancements in software engineering and computational linguistics have brought about two sorts of new corpora. Firstly, corpora have become accessible (and are getting to be accessible) which are relatively little, but which have been enhanced by comprehensive linguistic data benefitting from (current) advancements in parsing methods. Great cases of such corpora are the Nijmegen Corpus and the TOSCA Corpus, and the ICE Corpus which is still being worked on. In the second place, big corpora are currently getting more accessible, and they incorporate a wide range of linguistic varieties, including oral data. A perfect sample is the British National Corpus, which contains 100-million words, including 10 million expressions of oral English. The whole corpus has been labelled and a little section has been linguistically investigated.
To finish up, advances in equipment and programming in the course of the most recent three decades have aided in the re-foundation in descriptive linguistics of the investigation of language use on the premise of corpus information. Besides, corpus information are, in addition, commonly utilised by theoretical language specialists and the utilisation may be widened to other exploratory fields, for instance, speech engineering, sociolinguistics and lexical studies. With progressing improvements in corpus linguistics, it may be that using corpus information will become even more popular, since more information is getting to be accessible that can be accessed quickly by numerous specialists in different fields. In this way, through the generation of (linguistic) databases, corpus phonetics backs up research in other (linguistic) areas.
In previous section it was claimed that, even though the traditional grammars are fully studied and complete, they are fragmented as far as scope and descriptions’ details are concerned. A field in which conventional descriptions are not fully done is variation in word order. Where the concept of variation is addressed the portrayal regularly needs (or gives just provisional) data on the recurrence and the conditions under which this variation takes place. For instance, consider Kruisinga's comment on a (attributive) modifier to a noun:
At the point when an attributive descriptive word is joined by a plain noun that refers to measure, the attributive group usually takes after the noun (a), yet pre-position sometimes in spoken English (b).
a. A trench five feet wide.
A boy three years of age.
b. A three-year-old boy. (Adapted from Kruisinga, 1909, p. 217)
Since events of corpora-found grammatical structures show substantially more variety than conventional portrayals make us think, a corpus that has been analysed syntactically makes the pre-famous means to test such depictions, with the goal that they can be supple-mented and/or made more unequivocal.
As such, investigations in word order variety have been predominantly worried with contiguous constituents at the sentence-level. In spite of that, the consequent constituents of the expression have, in theory, a more prominent potential for mobility – not just would the constituents be able to change places among themselves at phrase level, they can likewise appear outside the limits of the expression at sentence or clause level. Quirk et al. (1985) opines on ‘mobility’ to allude to changes in sentence/statement structure - that is, to parts of a sentence or clause that appear at strange positions in the previously mentioned structures (p. 48). For the time being little is known about how phrasal constituents may move. Here, the versatility of the immediate constituents of the English NP is examined. An investigation of (syntactically) analysed corpus information will provide understanding into the nature and recurrence of conceivable variations. Moreover, it gives an impression of the lacunae in conventional grammars. From afunctional perspective, this study is significant for descriptive linguistics generally speaking, because the outcomes that rise up out of this study help will make existing portrayals clearer and more concise.
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!