Linguistica Inglese 1, Appunti di Linguistica Inglese

Scarica Linguistica Inglese 1 e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity! LINGUISTICA INGLESE 1 Thompson, Geoff Introducing Functional Grammar 1 THE PORPUSES OF LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS There are two main approaches to language analysis: formal (or structural, or traditional) grammar and functional grammar. • Focus on contextual meaning, language in use. • Functional, semiotic, semantic, descriptive. “a descriptive grammar based on empirical research, not a prescriptive one which tells you what you can and cannot say, including rules for correcting what are often referred to as grammatical errors. A functional grammar, in other words, is not a grammar of etiquette or linguistic table manners” (Martin, Matthiessen & Painter, 2010: 3). What is the difference with traditional grammar? Added value of SFL: particularly suitable not only for European languages like English, but also for Oriental languages. SFL’s founder, M.A.K. Halliday (1925- 2018), started his linguistics career in Chinese, in the 1950s, before moving on to English in the 1960s. Many of Halliday’s most innovative ideas of grammar originally developed from his deep knowledge of Chinese. To summarize: • Systemic Functional Grammar is a theory of grammar that focuses on meaning. It is oriented towards semantics. • It concentrates on language in use. • It provides a full understanding of the structure/ meaning connection for each and every clause in a language, with three simultaneous views of the clause: ideational (Field), interpersonal (Tenor) and textual (Mode). The fact that a statement and a question serve different functions in communication is regarded as irrelevant in the grammatical analysis. The model is not designed to show, for example, that one sentence functions as the answer to a preceding question. The aim is to discover the rules that govern how constituents can be put together to form grammatically correct sentences, and to find rules that are as general as possible (ideally, so that they apply to all languages). Generative linguists think it is only worth describing those aspects of language that can be scientifically (and explicitly) described. So, we need to take a different approach, starting from the human brain. How we arrange various types of sentences – and language in general – seems to tell us a lot about how our brains must work. Thus, a rigorous, formal approach of language inevitably leads us towards neurology and genetics. 1.2 Going in through meaning There are doubts about whether this approach explains what goes on in the mind when language is produced, and there is little doubt about the fact that it does not reflect how speakers themselves produce or understand language. For the user, the following sentences have very different meaning despite the fact that they have the same propositional content, because they are designed to elicit different responses from the addressee. Colds last seven days on average. Colds last seven days on average, don’t they? Do colds last seven days on average? Similarly, there are differences based on the speaker’s choice of a formal or colloquial wording: Would you mind helping me with this? Can you gissa hand [= give me a hand]? The exact nature of the tools used depends on the task in hand. In linguistic terms, if language has evolved for the function of communication, this must have a direct influence on its features ‒ in other words, the form of language can be explained by examining its functions. Of course, we need to consider its constraints: the pre-determined genetic characteristics of the human brain that allow or encourage certain language forms, and disallow or discourage other kinds. Generative approaches provide a possible way of analysing those characteristics, but we still need to examine the influences of the uses to which language is put. (We can see the contrast between the two approaches as a reflection of the dichotomy nature vs. nurture ‒ and the answer is most likely to lie in a combination of both.) The burglar shot himself = Had the burglar shot himself? S1  NP VP  [V NP] The burglar had shot himself What happens then when we start from meaning, like language users? The meanings that we want to express through language are so varied and dependent on the infinite range of different contexts that it might be difficult at first to impose some order on them. But if we look at our grammatical, we can relate them to different kinds of meaning. For example, we can relate the presence of modal verbs to (amongst other things) expressing the speaker’s feeling that what they are saying needs to be negotiated with the addressee. If we take meaning as being the sum of what the speaker wants the hearer to understand – in other words, if we equate the meaning of a sentence to its function – then understanding how the present message is part of the context is clearly part of the meaning Is there any way of establishing generalised groupings of meaning types without ending up with a random- seeming list of functions, so that we can start to explain why we find the particular kinds of function that we do? For this, we need to think about what we do with language. In the broadest terms, we use language to talk about things and events and to get things done. These are not mutually exclusive: indeed, every time we use language do both simultaneously. There is also a third major function (a language- internal ‘service function’). If we want to examine what a piece of language is intended to do (i.e. its function), we cannot avoid thinking in terms of choice. Speakers clearly have reasons for saying something, and for saying it the way they do. For example, if you want to find out some information, you are probably going to use a question, and, if you are with a friend, you are more likely to use an informal wording: “What the hell was that noise?” Here we have set up two sets of contexts – dependent choices: question vs statement, informal vs formal. Functional grammar sets out to investigate what the range of relevant choices are, both in the kinds of meanings that we might want to express and in the kind of wordings that we can use to express these meanings; and to match these two sets of choices. In order to identify meaning choices, we have to look outwards at the context. At the same time we have to identify the linguistic options (the lexical and structural possibilities that the language system offers for use), and to explore the possibilities that each option expresses. These are complementary perspectives on the same phenomenon: one, as it were, from the bottom up – form wording to context – and the other one dorm the top to down – from context to wording. We need a description of the social context which includes degrees of familiarity between people interacting with each other as relevant factor influencing their languages choices. Note that the use of the term choice does not necessarily imply a conscious process of selection by the speaker. It is only in consciously trying to imagine the “wrong” choices that such choices even present themselves as possible. Context and language are interdependent. For example, a teacher may ask ‘display’ questions to which s/he already knows the answer to evaluate the answer given by a pupil as correct or no: Teacher – what is the woman wearing? Pupil- a hat. Teacher – a hat, yes One would assume this kind of interaction would be possible because the context is a classroom, but the teacher and the pupil, by interacting this way, are also contributing to creating the classroom context. If the teacher used this kind of interaction with her students outside of the classroom, it would be inappropriate because she would project the context as if it were the classroom. We can use the term ‘construe’ to talk about this kind of reflexivity. The question and the evaluation of the response construe a classroom context: they simultaneously reflect and construct the context. At a broader level, our experience in the world influence what we normally talk about and how we talk about it. For example, we constantly adjust the way we talk to take into account what the listener already knows, and to negotiate our moment-by-moment relationship with them; and the lexical and grammatical resources of the language offer way of conducting this negotiation. At the same time, the way we talk about these experiences (and the way we hear other people talk about them) influences the way we see them. Text means any instance of language in use Generative approaches take linguistics towards biology: functional grammar takes it towards sociology: the systematic study of relevant features in the culture and society that form the context in which language is used, and which are at the same time constructed by the way in which language is used. Both form-based and functional approaches ask the question ‘how can we explain why languages has the main features that it does?’ Form-based approaches find the answer in the way our brain is structured, whereas the meaning- based approach finds it in the way our social context is structured. We should be able to deduce a great deal about the context in which the language was produced, the purpose for which it was produced, and the reasons why it was expressed the way it was. (esempio pag 11-12) 2 IDENTIFYING CLAUSES AND CLAUSE CONSTITUENTS 2.1 Breaking up the sentence – and labelling the parts I) Pro form  so, in I don’t think so (like a pro-noun) II) Groups  the words in a clause can often be grouped together into separate components of the clause each consisting of more than one word A) Nominal groups  ex. [The little girl] [had eaten] [all the porridge]. This phrase can be divided into 3 different groups and ‘the little girl’ and ‘all the porridge’ are Nominal groups while ‘had eaten’ is a Verbal group. Nominal groups can become very complex, and you may sometimes find it hard to work out where they end. It is usually easy enough to identify the noun at the center of the group, but the group may include a long Postmodifier. a) Postmodifier  part of the nominal group that follows the noun B) Verbal groups  Divided into finite and non-finite verbal groups a) Finite Verbal Group  traditionally defined as the one that shows tense b) Non-Finite verbal Group  doesn’t show tense  Tense is often shown in the auxiliary rather than in the main verb, as in ‘was learning’  Examples: Finite Groups = ‘would start’, ‘did’, ‘pay’, ‘have been created’, ‘gears up’ Non-Finite Groups = ‘ticking off’, to put’, ‘joking’, ‘to replace’ III) Clause  any stretch of language centered around a verbal group A) Today, however, she is struggling to finish a sentence 3 OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR There are different variables of context o FIELD  What’s going on?  Ideational meaning  Experiential meaning  Transitivity : Participants/Process/Circumstances  transitivity is a functional analysis that looks at the clause form the point of view of Participants in Process (Circumstances are peripheral)  Logic-semantic relation o TENOR  Who is taking part?  Interpersonal meaning (makes language our priority instrument to build human relations)  Mood  looks for the role of Subject in the clause o MODE  How does the text hold together?  Textual meaning  Cohesion  Functional grammar analysis that looks at what makes a text coherent (what makes a text a text)  Types of Cohesion  Structural (in English, it depends on the order of the elements); non-structural (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion) o There are 3 “Subjects” in FG  Ideational subject (Actor); Grammatical/Interpersonal Subject (Subject); Psychological/Textual Subject (Theme) 4 CONSTITUENCY • UNITS OF MEANING  Clause complex, clause, group, word, morpheme • Clause  unit of meaning that has a verb group at his centre o I’m going to bake a cake.  (a)m going to bake is all one verb in functional grammar • Clause complex  combination of more than one clause o In ideational analysis, conjunctions are just glue, so they are not really part of the sentence • Group or phrase  ita. Sintagma • Embedded PPs  “of what”, ex. 150 g of diced unsalted butter or range of bakeware o PPs  Embedded or Circumstance o If you have a comma, what follows cannot be embedded o Without Embedded PPs, the clause would have a different meaning o Examples:  Her attitude to emancipation doesn’t help  Experiments [in the dehydration and evaporation [of milk]] were carried out  Students [we spoke to] said…  defining relative clauses, always embedded (“restrictive”) o Circumstantial PPs vs Qualifier Embedded PPs  That dog [with the black tale] belongs to my uncle  [with the black tale] cannot be moved  Embedded PP  The stone is [in my boot]  Can be moved • Verb Group  It does not include the Subject • Noun Group  The only group that has its own Experimental Structure o Parts of speech in the Noun Group  article, adjective, noun, demonstrative, post-qualifier, possessive, numerative o Pronouns count as noun group o My beautiful bakeware range  Range is the head  Bakeware is a noun that behaves like an adjective  classifying noun  noun premodification o Types of adjectives  Epithet / Classifier (Epithets can only be adjectives) o Experiential structure of the noun group  Premodifiers, Thing, Postmodifiers  Thing  head of the noun group, regardless of animacy  Types of premodifiers:  Deictics  Deixis is the system to point/indicate things and people 1. Specific deictics  definite article, demonstratives, possessives 2. Non-specific deictics  some, many, few, a few, a little; indefinite article; other qualifiers that are not numerals  Numeratives  cardinal and ordinal numbers  Epithets and Classifiers  Tabby cat  Classifier; cute cat  judgement of value  Epithet ex. Pick the new one  new = Classifier !!!!!! = IF THE EPITHET CHANGES, THE SPEAKER’S EVALUATIONS CHANGES; IF THE CLASSIFIER CHANGES, THE THING CHANGES  Postmodifiers  Embedded clauses  defining relative clauses • Children [who hate chocolate] are uncommon • They live in a house [whose roof is full of holes] • Let’s go to a country [where the sun always shines] • There’s something [you should know] • The kind of person [that…] / [to…] • Defining relative clauses are always Qualifiers, so it only applies to the preceding noun group, in direct contact with it, and without any punctuation in between. • Non defining relative clause  hypotactic clause o It applies to a preceding noun or even to a longer stretch of the preceding text. It is often preceded by punctuation 5 IDEATIONAL MEANINGS: EXPERIENTIAL (TRANSITIVITY) AND LOGICAL (EXPANSION, PROJECTION, DEPENDENCY) Ideational meanings are the only ones in FG that are divided into 2 different branches: Ideational meanings: experimental and logical Ideational meanings (what’s going on?)= experiential + logical meanings The most important area is experiential= description of experience in grammatical terms o Verbal Process  Sayer [VP] Receiver | Verbiage (Ms Puzzle tells us her story) / (He whispered ‘I do love you but we are not meant to be’  Projected clause acting as Verbiage) o Existential Process  There [EP] Existent (There is a parallel space) o Behavioral Process  Behaver [BP] (Then she woke up)  TAXIS  ‘order’, hierarchical order between clauses in a clause complex (main clause – hypotaxis = used to refer to a relationship in which one clause is dependent on another – parataxis = used when one clause follows on from another) o Logico-semantic-relations  Projection  joining of clauses when Verbal and Mental processes are involved • Projection = direct / reported speech, but also for Mental Processes (“I have to give this away” says/thought David) • Verbal  Projected Locution; Proj Locution acts as Verbiage • Mental  Projected Idea; Proj acts as Phenomenon • BOTH PROJECTED LOCUTIONS AND IDEAS CAN BE EITHER REPORTED OR DIRECT  the reported version is hypotactic (variation, offering alternatives= while/without/besides/instead), the quoted one is paratactic  Expansion  intercausal relations • Elaborating (Elaboration) (=) [Elaboration does twice the labor]  ex. In fact • Extending (Extension) (+) [‘and’ makes the clause tense]  ex. And, or (CAN be hypotactic) • Enhancing (Enhancement) (x)  dependent prepositions are mostly enhancements • Relations of Extension and Elaboration are, for the most part, paratactic, but not always - I’ll add a teaspoon of baking powder (that is going to give them a nice rise)  non – defining relative clause represent hypotactic Elaboration - Hypotactic Extension  Don’t speak while you eat = Enhancement; BUT while, without, besides, instead of can be hypotactic Extensions  X is eating while Y is eating while Z is drinking 6 INTERPERSONAL MEANINGS – MOOD  Tenor  who is taking part?  Clause as exchange  mood o Mood  the system that defines interactional meaning in the clause in terms of verbal exchange between speaker/writer and the audience (What the clause does in terms of interaction) [VPs may involve more than one verb]  Mood Block  it comprises Subject, Finite, Modal Adjunct (when present) - Finite = the part of the VP that provides it with anchorage in the tense - Non finite = PREDICATOR  the lexical element of the verb - Modal Adjuncts  Mood adjuncts (part of the VP, evaluation of the speaker, between Subject and Predicator generally); Comment Adjuncts  Refer to the whole clause Ex. People are protesting there  People are = Mood block | Protesting there = Residue 7 TEXTUAL MEANING – STRUCTURAL COHESION: THEME We will now look at the clause in its context. If we look at the language through the textual meaning metafunction, we see how speakers construct their message in a way that makes them fit smoothly into the unfolding language event. They organize the way their message is worded in order to signal how the present part of the message fits in with other parts. There are 3 main ways in which textual meaning are structured in a text: repetition, conjunction and thematization.  Repetition also includes more ‘grammatical’ kinds of repetition of meaning. The function of repetition is typically to show that parts of the text are related in some way. Thus, the speaker signal that they are keeping to the same topic.  Conjunction shows how parts of the text are related. Conjunctive Adjuncts (ex. Therefore), and certain kinds of noun (ex. The reason) can perform the same kind of function. Conjunction and Repetition work primarily between two clauses.  Thematization relates not to the way individual components are expressed but to the structuring of the clause itself – the order of the elements. The Theme of a clause is the first constituent of the clause. Cooperative speakers select something that will make it easier for their hearers to ‘hook’ to this clause onto earlier clauses. What is not Theme is called Rheme. The different choice of Theme has contributed to making a different meaning. The Theme can be naively described as ‘what the clause is about’, but this can lead into problems (the Subject can also be described as that). The Theme can be therefore described as the ‘point of departure of the message’, or ‘that which locates and orients the clause within the context’. 7.1 DECLARATIVE CLAUSES Here, the Theme is usually most straightforward to identify. In most cases, with this kind of clause Theme and Subject are the same (= they are conflated). So, the Subject is the unmarked Theme choice. The subject may be fairly extensive, if, for example, the nominal group acting as Subject includes a long Postmodifier  the whole nominal group is the Theme. The Subject may be a nominal group complex, where, for example, two coordinated nominal groups function together as Subject. The Subject may be an embedded clause. 7.2 OTHER CONSTITUENTS AS THEME Often the Adjunct is Theme. The position of Adjuncts is fairly flexible, and they can be placed in Theme without this seeming particularly unusual. The Adjunct may be quite long, too. It is possible to have a constituent other than Subject or Adjunct as Theme in a declarative clause, but this is not very common, and needs a particular kind of context. Examples: All the rest we’ll do for you. Friends like that I can do without. What I saw inside I do not want to describe. Particularly significant was the way the subjects reacted to the third task. All these are said to have marked Theme, because they only occur when contextual reasons overrule the unmarked choice of Subject as Theme. Looked at from the speaker’s point of view, it makes sense to start the clause with the constituent that combines both these types of ‘aboutness’. This is why Subject is the natural choice as Theme. Theme and Subject have been separated when they could in principle have been conflated to highlight a contrast between the thematized element and something in the preceding text.  Adjuncts their position in the clause is typically flexible. Therefore, when an Adjunct is used as Theme, it is somewhere in the middle on the scale of markedness. For simplicity, they are labelled as marked Theme.  Subject is chosen as Theme when there is no good reason to choose anything else. When there are contextual pressures, such as the speaker’s wish to establish a contrast or signal a particular form of organization in their discourse, another element (Adjunct or Complement) may be chosen instead. 7.3 THEME IN NON-DECLARATIVE CLAUSES Polar question: the beginning auxiliary (the Finite) plays the function of Interpersonal Theme1 (the Finite is an Interpersonal category). Passive polar interrogative clauses are always marked. Are you motivated...? → Are you = full Theme (this Theme is marked); Are = Interpersonal Theme; you = TT || Are you excited about their vision? → Are you = conflated Theme (Do you feel [like you could help them grow exponentially]? → [ ] = hypotactic clause) Topical Theme words: TTs can be Noun Groups, PPs, Verbs (in all their forms), Circumstantial Adverbial Groups (not Interpersonal). An interview is also a chance for you to interview the company. → An interview = TT. (Mood structure: An interview = Subject; is = Finite + Predicator; also: Mood Adjunct; An interview is also = Mood Block; a chance for you... = Complement/Residue  Here are some examples. → Here = Topical Theme (TT) NB  The Interpersonal Theme is typically the Interpersonal Adjunct: Surprisingly, we are on time. → Surprising = Interpersonal Theme; we = Topical Theme (TT); Surprisingly, we = Full Theme  Cohesion devices (non structural=less dependent on word order) Reference Ellipsis and sostitution Lexical Cohesion Conjunctions Non-structural cohesive device= their purpose is to provide unity in a text. What is a text? -Hasan, Halliday Cohesion in English The definition of the text in this book is "the text is defined as such through the unity of structure and texture. What make a textile/fabric/cloth united are the threads; He got up on the buffalo I have booked a seat I have put away in the cupboard. →There is no unity A text is a unity of language in use. It is not a bigger sentence, but a unit of meaning. It is defined not by size but by realization. A text differs from a sentence in kind=it is a different mental category. It is thanks to the concatenation of the sentences if a text is a text, if it makes sense. REFERENCE Endophoric: -Anaphora: I telll my husband I don’t want to be married to him anymore= he-husband -Cataphora : mirror of anaphora: when the first element is a pronoun "I'm so tired of this. The silences, the bad atmosphere...." The reference comes afterwards. Exophoric: reference that is not in the text but in the outside world= general knowledge or culture (homophoric) or the situation here and now (deixis) -Deixis: I am in a car park in Leeds -Homophoric: Lee Oswald couldn’t claim that shooting presidents wasn’t really like him; I’m a GP in a small North London practice GP= medico di famiglia, North London= wealthy area The Angriest Man in Holloway =oxymoron: Holloway is a suburb of islington in North London; it is very gentryfied Once upon a time: beginning expression of a children's story SUBSTITUTION= pronominal cohesive device that uses a specific set of pronouns "so" as in do so/think so: so, one, ones; The last one i could bear to use... The same must apply... ....Say so in a car park... ...More than He does on the brochure... Auxiliary: I have less money than my husband has. I can swim better than my husband can I will go home after everyone else has One can often judge people from the company they keep. One = more formal way of saying the generic "you" = reference of the deictic kind. "Now I realize there are all sorts of suggestions a husband might make to a wife..." Part of speech (POS) that acts as a Tagger: so= conjunction, adverb, pronoun I've finished the programme, so I'll do a moock test I love you so. "I like novels". "So do I". The elements that get replaced in substitution are generally longer than in anaphora and cataphora = there is a verb opposing to a noun. The substitution is wider. ELLIPSIS: whenever there is something implied but you can understand it from the context.. ellipsis is also called substitution by zero (Fusi does not approve) Yeah, fine. (are the) Kids all right = you cant find it in the text expressed At Jamie's (house or place) Are you suggesting something? Yes, I suppose I am (suggesting something). LEXICAL COHESION - Lexical scatter: common root/etymology (baking and bakery = bak-: cook in the oven) -Synonymy-antonymy (I am not active because I am lazy) -Hyponymy: superordinate term + other words from the subcategory. Cutlery : hyperonym Fork, spoon, knife, teaspoon: hyponyms Crockery- cups, tea plates Furniture -chairs, tables, couches, cupboard, bookshelves... -Meronymy: the physical parts of the superordinate object. Tree (meronym) - (co-meronyms) branches, leaves, trunk roots. It is a relation of the parts to the whole -Collocation: semantic fields (ice cold, crystal clear..) CONJUNCTION: -Intrasential conjunction: coordination [I get on well with everyone, // but my special friend is Becca.] Same clause complex → but: intrasential extention. -Conjunction only works as a coheseive device when used intersentially: it connects two separate sentences. They are textual and cohesive (they act at a textual level)