Article.
Elena Filatova
УДК 413.1.18
SYNTAGMA IN THE
ENGLISH SPEECH:
STRUCTURE, MEANING AND FUNCTIONS
Висвітлюється питання про роль синтагми в англійському мовленні.
Розвивається думка академіка Л.В. Щерби про синтагму. З’ясовується роль слова,
речення і синтагми в процесі формування тексту, його структуруванні та
сприйманні.
Ключові слова: мова, мовлення, одиниця мови, одиниця мовлення, одиниця
породження мовлення, слово, синтагма, речення, синтагматична структура
мовлення.
Many simple sentences let alone
complex ones in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages have both compound
contents and structure even if they look like simple ones. We mean all the
cases when sentences comprise several syntagmas. The syntagmatic structure of a
sentence can be one-component or multi-component, that is, it comprises one
minimal initial speech unit or some more units which function as a sentence.
The question of speech creation and its initial unit is not well studied in
linguistics.
The aim of the article is to define a true
initial unit of the English speech creation. Tasks of the article are to write its structure,
meaning and functions.
Let us take a close look at the
following sentence: (1) The girl bought
the book.
Due to intonation its structure is
monosemantic in the speech. In the written form it comprises different
intonational and intentional variants. It is vital to understand its true
structure (i.e. the structure of the units which make the sentence) and the
intonation. Only its context helps here. If the content of the sentence depicts
the fact of the book purchase by the girl it comprises one syntagma only. For
example, answering the question: What
happened?
If the sentence answers the
question: Who / bought the book? it
comprises two syntagmas and we should make an obligatory pause between them:
(2) The
girl / bought the book.
In this case attention is paid to
the subject and its action which is directed to the object. The syntagmatic
stress is on the syntagma with the meaning of the subject carrying the new
information.
If the sentence answers the
question: What / did the girl buy? it
will also include two syntagmas but the other ones (both in a structural and
content-driven way):
(3) The girl bought / the book.
And again there is an obligatory
pause between them. Now it distinguishes between the syntagma with the meaning
of the subject with its action and the syntagma with the meaning of the object.
The syntagmatic stress is on the syntagma with the meaning of the object.
As it is possible to buy a book, to
present a book, to read a book, to write a book, to give a book, etc., the
following question may be asked: What /
did the girl do / with the book?
The answer is obvious: (4) The girl / bought / the book.
The sentence comprises three
syntagmas now. The first and the third syntagmas consist of the known facts,
the third one provides new information. Therefore it is stressed intonationally
not only with pauses. It has the syntagmatic stress as well.
So graphically one and the same
sentence structure depending on its communicative purposes with the same lexical
filling can have different formats of contents. The contents given by the
subject modifies the syntagmatic structure and its intonation every time. The
reader’s comprehension helps with its exact understanding. Due to pauses
syntagmas and borders between them are realized, melodic and syntagmatic stress
understanding helps to distinguish the most important as for its content
syntagma and adequate perception of the content.
Regarding even this simple sentence
it is understood the English sentence is formed by means of syntagmas not
separate words. Hence the reader should understand its meaningful and grammar
combinations of words in groups and their intonation.
If the sentence represents the unity
of structure, intonation and content (all four variants differ in those
parameters) we should admit we have different sentences here though they have a
similar graphic form. Only a context helps in understanding a true syntagmatic
structure of a certain variant and defining its intonation with the adequate comprehension
of its content.
The first variant is represented
with one syntagma. There is no inter-syntagmatic connection here, only
intra-syntagmatic one. The second and the third variants comprise two syntagmas. Their inter-syntagmatic connection may
be shown in the following schemes.
The fourth variant of connection may
be represented by the following scheme:
The contents of those variants are
made of meanings of their syntagmas:
(2) S = The girl + bought the book.
(3) S = The
girl bought + the book.
(4) S = The girl + bought + the book.
It is seen that every sentence has a
definite syntagmatic basis. It is formed by the subject from syntagmas, their
structure and contents are conditioned by a certain communicative purpose and
intonation. By means of those syntagmas the sentence is perceived by a listener
and a reader. At the same time a listener by means of the intonation and a
reader by means of the context qualify the meaningful qualities of syntagmas
and define their content adequacy.
A sentence with the same semantic
filling in the oral speech due to intonation has one content, resulting from
the quantity and structure of syntagmas. It goes without saying in the written
speech it has also only one (author’s) content, it is understood by the reader
on basis of the context. Every syntagma is defined by the subject in the
process of speech creation. The goal of the addressee is to gain an
understanding of them, their quantity, structure and intonation. Only in this
case it is possible to understand the content adequately.
The sentence, given in our example,
is of elementary structure, there may be formed an opinion about its
construction of separate words. It is easy to disabuse referring to bulk
structures or complex sentences. For example, let us have a good look at the
sentence by N. Chomsky which he uses enlightening the question of
sentences “inserted in another sentence” [Chomsky 1957: 22]:
If the man who said that Chomsky has
very weak arguments is here then either he has to defend his point or he has to
be open to criticism.
We are not interested in its
composition or collocation of simple predicative units but in its syntagmatic
structure and a role of syntagmas in perception of its contents. Its
syntagmatics is obvious:
If the man / who said / that Chomsky
has very weak arguments / is here / then either he has to defend his point / or
he has to be open to criticism.
Chomsky pays attention to the gap of
the simple predicative unit If the man… is here and regards
the given situation as a widespread method used in many languages.
Commenting on the situation on the
level of syntagmas we should point out the following moments. The word man of
the first syntagma, from the point of view of the subject of speech, needs a
concrete definition, subsequently after it an extended attribute appears, which
consists of two syntagmas giving sufficient information in the author’s
opinion:
who said and that
Chomsky has very weak arguments.
Thanks to them the syntagma If
the man eliminates meaning
insufficiency, gets a definite
content, which is characteristic of any situational speech unit. These two
syntagmas define it and denote its independence. The content of the sentence is
understood as a result of consecutive perception of meanings of its all six
syntagmas.
The following
scheme shows the syntagmatic structure of the sentence, the order of syntagmas
and their inter-syntagmatic connection.
The first
syntagma corresponds to the minimal composition of the subject of subordinate
conditional predicative unit, it is joined by the subordinate connection with
the second one, which corresponds to subordinate attributive sentence and in
its turn is joined with the third which also corresponds to a separate
subordinate sentence with the meaning of object clause. So the second syntagma
is connected with the first and the third syntagmas which are not directly
interconnected but due to the binding role of the second syntagma the indirect
semantic bond is settled between them.
The first syntagma
goes with the fourth which represents the compound predicate. Taken together
they form a subordinate clause with the meaning of condition, which the fifth
and the sixth syntagmas corresponding to two homogeneous main clauses go
grammatically and by implication with. Between the last ones there is a
disjunctive syntactic connection with the meaning of an alternative action.
By means of the
first syntagma the second and the third syntagmas establish a semantic mediate
connection with the rest of syntagmas in the sentence forming its content.
None of syntagmas
of the sentence are represented by a separate word so there is no ground for saying about the sentence formation with the
help of separate words.
Studying the structure of the speech
American scientists T. Bever, D. Slobin, J. Fodor and others
determined that the speech and sentences in particular are “structured chains containing
hierarchical different units” [Fodor
1965: 415; Slobin 1976: 61]. For them the structured chain is a notion of a constituent
structure, a structure directly making up
sentences, which is represented by sounds, morphemes, words and syntagmas. Such
an approach is untenable as the accurate differentiation of language system and
speech sphere is not expected here and it leads to blending linguistic units of
different spheres and levels. However it is obvious neither sounds nor
syllables, nor morphemes carry out a speech creation function so they cannot be
qualified as direct constituents of a sentence as a speech unit. From the
beginning they have an established character and are fixed in words in a strict
and certain sequence. They are used
(reproduced) in ready-made units while a sentence is created. Without bias its direct constituents must be minimal
speech structures, creating a sentence. So there must be a speech unit which
comes out as a real initial component of a sentence. It must be univariate. Its one-dimensionality is in
the fact that the unity of its contents corresponds to the unity of a
structure.
These signs inhere in a syntagma
only. Sounds are direct constituents of morphemes. Morphemes are constituents
of words and words are constituents of syntagmas. With the transfer of a word
from the language sphere into the speech one it changes a character of its
meaning: instead of generalized it becomes definite. Sounds are relevant to a
morpheme, morphemes to words and words to syntagmas where they get one
situational meaning. It is wrong to unite linguistic units without their
differentiation to a sphere of functioning and declare them direct constituents
of a sentence. Sounds, syllables, morphemes do not bear any relation to the
process of thinking and speech creation and sentence creation as well. These
are not speech units. For every person they have a fixed position in its sign
structures.
The speech represents an individual
creative result. It is formed with a minimal speech unit (a syntagma) by every
speaker in his own way. That is why any speech chain including a sentence must
be divided into the univariate speech components it is directly comprised of,
i.e. initial minimal limiting speech units. Sounds, syllables and morphemes are
not related to its organization; therefore it cannot be divided into these
units in the aspect of speech. The limit of speech division of a sentence is
the structural and meaningful parts (syntagmas) which are represented by the
author as constituent units of its structure and content. For example, a text
may be divided into syntagmas in correspondence with its syntagmatic structure
(as it is directly composed of them), into sentences as constituent speech
units structuring its content and into utterances (complex syntactical
unities). Sentences normalize thoughts of a text and make easier its perception
assisting in realization of its syntagmatic structure.
As it was mentioned above words as
separate units of the language system with their generic meaning do not form
speech directly. They can be speech units in syntagmas, only united with its
other words acquiring a mutual situational meaning.
Above mentioned scientists were the
first ones who used a notion ‘direct
constituents’ in their researches. In our opinion they made it with some
contriety as they neither distinguished spheres of language and speech, nor
differentiated linguistic units from language and speech.
Any text and every its sentence are composed of
minimal and monosemantic speech
components. Therefore direct constituents of every sentence must be only
the ultimate speech units it is composed of. These are syntagmas and they mean
the transfer from the language sphere into the realm of speech. Minimality,
concrete nature, one-dimensionality and the exact reflection of the fragment of
the situation are characteristic of them as initial speech structures.
In the word of the language the essential
feature of reality is reflected, which allows to unite all realities with the
given feature in one group and oppose them to other realities with other
essential features. The meaning of such a word is generic.
Not essential but accident features of reality
distinguishing it from other similar realities are actualized in the word as a
component of a syntagma. So a syntagma represents a definite reality, no
reality-type. It is not accidental that I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay used different terms – a lexeme and a syntagma to differentiate words in the language and the speech. But
the term ‘syntagma’ in Baudouin’s
meaning has not fixed in the science. In view of refuse to use the term very
actual fundamental scientific thought has faded into the background.
A syntagma usually includes several
words united by implication, intonation and grammar. They form one structural
and meaningful fragment. But quite often even one word can fulfill the function
of a syntagma, if the subject of the speech believes that it is enough to
reflect the content in the combination with other syntagmas. Such cases must
not create an illusion that a sentence is composed of words. A minimum quantity
of syntagmas in a sentence is one, but usually there are a few of them. Their
quantity is defined by the content and peculiarities of a psychic activity of
the author of the text, by his language and speech competence.
Nevertheless in the study of the
speech structure by American linguists there is a kernel of good sense in spite
of their confusion of language and speech spheres. It is in the part devoted to
the study of a syntagma; it indicates while demarcating clearly language and
speech units the study of direct constituents can be quite useful, both in
theoretical and practical ways (for example, teaching the adequate perception
of texts and translating them from one language into another as well). Their
conclusion on syntagmas having a tendency to preserve their structural and
meaningful integrity resisting to fractures and other deformations is very
important [Fodor 1965: 416].
In 1951 K. Lashley stated the word
order in the English sentence is not apparent from words as such [Lashley 1961: 180]. This thought is true for many languages. At the heart of
combinability and syntactic connection of words there is no parts of speech
affiliation and meaning of words. It goes without saying these are important
linguistic features while organizing speech but not the main ones. Depending on
the content conveyed, the definite word can be followed by any other one which
can be combined with the given word only theoretically. Grammatical connections
and meaningful associations between words standing together cannot explain
either speech creation or speech perception. In the scientist’s opinion the enough
quantity of words, connected by implication and grammar, is necessary to convey
the content of the speech. He points out the importance of distant arrangement
for meaningfully related words (i.e. inter-syntagmatic connections of different
syntagmas).
Six years later Chomsky went on
developing Lashley’s ideas. Analyzing a syntactic structure of Colorless
green ideas sleep furiously, Chomsky pays attention to the fact that
the possibility of combinability of words, presented there, is quite small.
Nevertheless taking into account some factors in the language (for example, the
availability of figurative meanings) and in the speech (the structure composed
of two syntagmas syntactically bound by predicate connection – Colorless
green ideas / sleep furiously) it is hard to deny that in this case we
have a sentence. Between words in every syntagma there is an intra-syntagmatic
relation, a common creative content is seen (‘ideas are immature and mediocre
and what is more they are in some drowsy or even heavy sleep condition’). The
meaning of the first syntagma is ‘mediocre, immature ideas’, the meaning of the second is ‘to be in a drowsy condition’.
Chomsky mentions the sentence is possible even when chances of words to combine
are quite small. Their combinability is defined by a practical situation of
reality.
Is it always possible to compose a
sentence of words with high probability of their combinability? Is the chain of
grammatically bound words always a reflection of connected speech? Can it be of accidental character? It turned out, that everything is
defined by no separate direct contacting words and their connections but by
structural and meaningful groups of words, informal and grammatical unity of
syntagmas at their key words level. It has been presented by the author in a
persuasive way.
Considering the question of “how
people divide a sentence into… syntagmas”, D. Slobin approaches the
subject a little bit one-sidedly. First, in his opinion syntagmas in the
written speech are “marked out by linguists” [Slobin 1976: 58], not by the subject of the speech or readers. The circle of
subjects dealing with syntagmas in the speech is limited sharply. Syntagmas are
single lexical groups which appeared as a result of creative speech activity of
the author while conveying definite contents; every language speaker deals with
them deliberately or instinctively. The subject of the speech constitutes the
information from syntagmas, and its addressee perceives it adequately thanks to
its comprehension and understanding. A syntagma is not an invention of
linguists, but a real unit of any speech. A syntagmatic structure of a text and
every sentence in it are defined by the author, readers must perceive them
adequately. It is the main way of intonation understanding as a means of
content interpretation. Linguists are in the same position as other readers,
i.e. in the position of people trying to find the author’s variant of text
syntagmatics for its content adequate understanding. A syntagma is not an
artificial hypothetic unit as a word-combination, invented by linguists for a
metalanguage purpose. It is an objectively existing unit of a definite speech,
which is the basis for its creation and further perception. One man forms a
speech, another perceives it. To understand the content of the speech in a
right way the process of its perception must be based on real monosemantic
speech units, it has been directly composed of. It is possible to understand
the content of the speech with the successive realization of their meanings. Due
to consecutive perception of syntagmas sentences, utterances and texts are
apprehended.
Any speech can be structured on the
level of different speech units: syntagmas, sentences, expressions as
relatively independent parts of the text. By means of syntagmas its structure
and content is formed. By means of other units the speech is traditionally
shaped into texts. In the chain of speech units a syntagma is a minimal,
initial, unit, and a text is maximal. They have a common feature: both units
are utmost. A syntagma is utmost in its minimality and a text is utmost in its
maximality.
From a sentence to a text the author gives only
one variant to the syntagmatic structure of the speech. Every reader tries to
understand it. Let us have a close look at the following sentence as a
structured chain of minimal meaningful speech units:
That he was happy /
was evident / from the way he smiled.
It comprises three
syntagmas, composing the content of the sentence.
S = That
he was happy + was evident + from the way he smiled.
The perception of
the content of the whole sentence is realized by means of its syntagmatic
division and consecutive perception of every syntagma and their meanings
augment. The principle is natural: which speech units formed the sentence, the
same units help perceive it. And vice versa: by means of what units the
sentence is perceived, the same units it is composed of. The adequacy of
perception of the syntagmatic structure of the text guarantees the true
comprehension of its content for the reader.
Conclusions. As we can see, the answer to the question,
what unit – a word, a word-combination or a syntagmas – is the initial component of
sentence creation, is evident: this unit must be, firstly, minimal, univariate (i.e. having a single undivided component
of a structure with one component of content), secondly, monosemantic and, thirdly, of speech character, i.e. it must not have a
generic meaning, typical for language units, but a definite, situational one. Among speech units only a syntagma suits these parameters.
The theory of a syntagma is closely connected with pragmatics of speech. In the native language it is important for formation and development of skills of written summary of the matter while teaching reading with adequate perception of the text. It is effective while studying foreign languages, which successful mastering is possible only with syntagmas, with the comprehension of the syntagmatic structure of the reviewed text, not separate words of a foreign language.
References. Література
Слобин 1976: Слобин, Д.
Психолингвистика [Текст] // Д. Слобин, Дж. Грин.
Психолингвистика. – М. : Прогресс, 1976. – 350
с.
Филатова 2009: Филатова, Е.В.
Вопрос синтагмы в американской лингвистике [Текст] // Восточноукраинский лингвистический сборник. – Вып. 13. – Донецк, 2009. – С. 313-324.
Філатова 2011: Філатова, О.В.
Місце і роль синтагми в усній і писемній формах мовлення [Текст] /
О. В. Філатова // Лінгвістика . – 2011. – № 3 (24), ч. 2. – С.
216-223.
Филатова 2011а: Филатова, Е.В. Синтагматическая и предложенческая структуры
текста и их назначение [Текст] / Е. В. Филатова // Ученые записки Таврического национального
университета им. В.И. Вернадского». Серия «Филология. Социальные коммуникации». – Т. 24 (63), ч. 2.
– № 4. – 2011. – С. 65-72.
Филатова
2011: Филатова, Е.В. О некоторых
противоречиях в теории порождения речи [Текст] / Е. В. Филатова // Філологічні трактати. –
Т. 3, № 2. – 2011. – С. 71-77. – Режим доступа : [Электронный ресурс]. –
Access mode : URL : http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/21961. – Название с
экрана.
Bloomfield 1964: Bloomfield, L. Language [Text] /
L. Bloomfield. – New
York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964.
– 592 pp.
Braine 1963: Braine, M.D.S. The
ontogeny of English phrase structure : The first phase [Text] /
M. D. S. Braine // Language. – 1963. – V. 39, № 2. – Pp. 1-13.
Chomsky 1957: Chomsky, N. Syntactic structures [Text] / N. Chomsky. – The Hague : Mouton, 1957. – 117 pp.
Filatova 2012: Filatova, E.V. Syntagmatics of the English sentence as the main way of its adequate perception [Text] / E. V. Filatova // Вісник ДІТБ. – 2012. – № 14. – С. 335-338.
Fodor, Bever 1965:
Fodor, J.A., Bever, T.G. The psychological reality of linguistic segments
[Text] / J. A. Fodor, T. G. Bever // Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior. – 1965. – № 4. – Pp. 414-420.
Lashley 1961: Lashley, K.S. The problem of
serial order in behavior [Text] / K. S. Lashley // Saporta
S. (Ed.) Psycholinguistics : A book of readings. – N. Y., 1961. –
Pp. 180-198.
Slobin 1971: Slobin, D.I. Psycholinguistics
[Text] / D. I. Slobin. – L.A. : University of California,
Berkeley, 1971. – 189 pp.
Рассматривается
роль синтагмы в английской речи. Развиваются мысли академика Л.В. Щербы о
синтагме. Уделяется внимание роли слова, предложения и синтагмы в процессе
формирования, структурирования и восприятия текста.
Ключевые
слова: язык, речь, единица языка, единица речи, единица порождения речи, слово,
синтагма, предложение, синтагматическая структура речи.
The question of the role of a syntagma in the English
speech is under consideration. The ideas of a syntagma of the academician L.V. Shcherba are developed. The roles of a word, a sentence and a syntagma in the process of the text formation, its structuring and perception are defined.
Keywords: language, speech, language unit, speech unit, speech creation unit, word, syntagma, sentence, syntagmatic structure of the
speech.
Надійшла до редакції 9 вересня
2012 року.
|