ENG 221 AN INTRODUCTION TO SYNTACTIC MODELS
ENG 221 AN INTRODUCTION TO SYNTACTIC MODELS
Phonology serves to link grammar and lexis to their phonic representation. This envisages phonology very much as Firth envisaged.
Within this framework, important work has been done relating the
intonation of English sentences to their grammatical structures and to the various semantic distinctions.
Units in grammar are such entities as sentences, clauses, phrases, words and morphemes. They belong to the same level, and are related to each other in terms of size or inclusion: sentences include, or are made up of clauses; clauses are made up of phrases (or groups); phrases are made up
of words; and words are made up of morphemes. Likewise at the
phonological level, tone-groups are made up of feet, feet of syllables, and syllables of phonemes.
The interrelations of units in size or inclusion are referred to as the scale of rank, and in moving within one level (grammatical or phonological) up or down in size in a description, one is moving up or down the rank scale. Thus, broadly, Halliday’s rank corresponds to tagmemic level.
Along the rank-scale, units, except the smallest at each level, exhibit structures, that is to say, an ordered internal composition of units next
below on the rank-scale within the level; sentence structures consist of clauses, clause structures of phrases or groups, and so on. It is a tenet of
systemic grammar that structures must always be regarded as comprising the units next below in rank. If a clause contains only one
word, it must be analysed as a clause containing only one phrase
containing one word. Tagmemic does not impose such a requirement, and clauses can be described directly as composed of word tagmemes.
Part of the recursive possibilities of linguistic structures are treated in
terms of what is called rank-shift: a unit is shifted in rank when it
occupies a structural place, not in the structure of the unit next above, but in the structure of a unit in the same rank-size as itself or below it.
For example, adverbial phrases can occur as part of other adverbial
phrases (by the house in our garden), and in English, relative clause constructions shift sentences to the position of modifiers in nominal group structures (I admitted (him) to my house; the man whom I
admitted to my house was an exconvict).
In conformity to what has been said, units other than the highest in rank
(the largest or most inclusive) at each level are grouped into classes according to the functions they can fulfil in the structure of units next
above them. For example, in English clause structure, nominal groups or
phrases form a class in that they can (in general) function in the
positions of subject and complement; and nouns form a class because
they constitute the head, with or without a modifier, of noun groups.
ENG 221 AN INTRODUCTION TO SYNTACTIC MODELS
Each class is either a closed class, to which new members cannot readily be added, like the class of English prepositions, or an open class, whose
membership is freely extensible, like the English nouns and verbs.
Classes consist of the units that comprise their membership; in the case of word classes the members are words.
Along the scale of ‘delicacy’ the subclasses of a class are said to form
systems, and when the practicable limits of subclassifying have been reached in lexis, the individual lexical forms themselves constitute the
terms of systems.
The scale of exponence relates form to substance, that is, the abstractions of grammar, lexis, and phonology to the actual phonic (or
graphic) data, the exponents. Any descriptive move nearer the data is a move along the exponence scale. Thus, is passing from predicate as an element of clause structure to verb group, one is passing nearer to the actual data, and in passing from verb to enjoy as a lexical member of the subclass of transitive verbs, one comes nearer still to the data; and the limit on the scale of exponence is reached when the verb enjoy is finally referred to as an uttered sound sequence, or is narrowly transcribed as
[en i] (or written in an actual letter sequence ‘enjoy’). Logically, these three basic scales, rank, delicacy and exponence are independent
in the theory, since they concern different sorts of relationships.
In order to grasp the rationale of systemic grammar, it is important to
appreciate that its advocates do not normally suggest that it is more successful than transformational grammar at carrying out the task for which the latter was designed – namely, defining the range of grammatical sentences in a language. Systemic grammar aims rather to
provide a taxonomy for sentences, a means of descriptively classifying particular sentences.
Systemic grammarians claim, with some justice, that their sort of theory
is much more relevant than the generative approach to the needs of various groups of people who deal with langauge: while Chomskyan
linguistics appeals to the psychologist, systemic linguistics appeals to the sociologist. The psychologist wants a theory that describes languages, so that he can see what kinds of languages human beings are
capable of using; the sociologist wants to be able to describe any patterns that emerge in the particular choices that given types of individual make in given circumstances from the overall range provided
by their language. Other purposes for which systemic grammar is held to
be more relevant than transformational grammar are literary criticism and language teaching.
ENG 221 AN INTRODUCTION TO SYNTACTIC MODELS
At the same time, there are problems about the assumptions underlying systemic theory. Alongside the notion of system, Halliday introduces into syntax the notions rank and delicacy. ‘Rank’ refers to a scale of sizes of grammatical unit, roughly speaking; the lowest-ranking unit is
the morpheme, the highest-ranking is the sentence, and for any given language there will be a fixed number of intermediate ranks (English is said to have five ranks in all). Any grammatical system will operate at a
specific rank. If we think in terms of Chomskyan hierarchical tree
diagrams, Halliday is saying, as it were, that sentences can be represented not merely as trees but as trees which are regimented in such
a way that along any branch there are the same number of intermediate nodes between the ‘root’ and the ‘leaf’. For Chomskyan grammars, this
is untrue; some morphemes are dominated immediately or almost immediately by the root S node, other morphemes are reached only via a
long chain of intermediate nodes and branches representing the application of many rules. Halliday appears, with his notion of rank, to
be putting forward a new universal of syntactic structure. It is likely that he did not appreciate what he was committing himself to in introducing the term.
As for delicacy, this is a scale of relative preciseness of grammatical statement. Thus, car will be distinguished from shiny at a very gross syntactic level, since there are few verbal contexts in which one of the
words could be substituted for the other in a syntactically well-formed
sentence; on the other hand, car and hovercraft will be distinguished only at a more delicate level – the two are largely interchangeable
syntactically, but hovercraft does not take –s in the plural. The notion of
‘delicacy’ might be harmless, except that Halliday’s motive for introducing it is to argue that there is, in principle, no end to the process
of increasing the delicacy of grammar: at a delicate enough level even
the words boy and girl, for instance, would be syntactically distinct.
Some scholars have refuted this, maintaining that boy and girl are syntactically equivalent at the most delicate level. What Halliday has in
mind is that, for instance, the utterance This girl is pregnant is more
probable than This boy is pregnant; but this is because of human
physiology and because people do not often utter patent untruths, not because the latter sentence is in any way un-English.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, we have tried to present, in general outline, what structural grammar is and how it works. We have also discussed two variants of
structural grammar – Tagmemics and Scale and Category Grammar
(also called systemic grammar). Although there are several variants of
structural grammar, the above represents, in general, the aims and
objectives of the theory.
ENG 221 AN INTRODUCTION TO SYNTACTIC MODELS
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 3
(a) What do you understand by Scale and Category Grammar?
(b) Explain the following terms:
(i) rank-shift (ii) delicacy
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have learnt about:
• the origin of structural grammar;
• Tagmemics; and
• Scale and category grammar.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
1. Explain what you consider to be the benefits of structural framework in the analysis of language.
2. (a) Compare and contrast Tagmemic model with Scale and Category model
(b) Which do you consider more appropriate in language analysis?
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READINGS
Dinneen, Francis P. (1967). An Introduction to General Linguistics.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Eastman, Carol M. (1978). Linguistic Theory and Language Description. New York: J.B. Lippincott Co.
Lepschy, Giulio C. (1970). A Survey of Structural Linguistics. London:
Faber and Faber.
Robins, R. H. (1964). General Linguistics: AN Introductory Survey.
London: Longman.
ENG 221 AN INTRODUCTION TO SYNTACTIC MODELS