Ufhb-dptanglais.com
| | |
|Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny | |
|[pic] | |
| | |
|UFR Langues, Littératures& Civilisations | |
| | |
| | |
|Département d’anglais | |
Syllabus 2018-2019
UE Linguistique
Niveau Licence 3 – Semestre 5
LNG6205.3
La détermination nominale en anglais
Vol Hor 24h
==================
SILUE Sassongo Jacques
Grade PT–Mlle 145 310 D
Email : sassongosiluejp@ / sassongo.silue@univ-fhb.edu.ci
Tél : +(225) 08 34 67 39 / 05 07 63 09
( Warning! (
Bring your contribution to the improvement of the text!
This lecture was initially formatted and edited in a Powerpoint-slide file and for convenience to face the current institutional constraint, the slides have been harshly transformed into a Word text with the consequence that many errors will be encountered in the present text.
As a recipient, you can valuably contribute to the improvement of the text by identifying all sorts of errors you might encounter (typing errors, grammatical and language mistakes).
Concretely and thereafter, you simply create a file in which you copy (import) the sequences containing the abnormalities and underline the items causing problem. At the end, you send the file to mevia :
sohona2010@
General Objective :
➢ Get students familiar with DA theories, especially Meta-Operational Grammar (MOG) in its application to the analysis of the nominal system.
Specific objectives:
➢ Present the nominal system across several language with specific nominal markers
➢ Describe and give a meta-operational content to traditional meta-terms;
➢ Present the different statuses of the nominal relation through the article and deictic operators
➢ Treat the genitive case along line the meta-operational precepts
Prerequisites (to be able to make sense of the course)
The lectures in L1 and L2 :
- Introduction to linguistics a the fields/domains of linguistic study
- Structural and transformational Grammar
- The Descriptive Concepts and Founding principle of Meta-operational Theory
Expectations (targeted abilities):
➢ Spell out speech effects and invariant values as regards the Nominal Relation;
➢ Analyse utterances containing nominal operators in compliance with MOG
➢ Draw the parallel between the nominal operators in English and those in other languages;
➢ Draft a short research in connection with the Nominal Determination
✌ In order to reach these pedagogical objectives and expect students to be capable of performing the targeted tasks, the course will cover the following points (outline):
✌
Outline of the Course
Introduction
□ The Pre-requisites: descriptive concepts of MOG
□ Nominal relation and the Determination as a linguistic operation
□ The controversial view that the article “defines” the noun
□ Brief overviewonthe nominal system and nominal determination
1. The Nominal Determination
1.1 The Phase 1 Nominal Relation
1.2 The Phase 2 Nominal Relation
2. The Nominal Relation and the Complex Noun Phrase
1. The genitive in the nominal relation
3. The Deixis and the Nominal Relation
1. Deixis in traditional or pedagogical grammars
2. The Deixis in Meta-Operational Grammar
Conclusion
Introduction
□ The Pre-requisites: descriptive concepts of MOG
The nominal system will be analyzed along the theory of Meta-Operational Grammar (MOG). Meta-operational Grammar relies on some principles and assumptions (see course on the introduction to MOG):
✓ Language as a System
✓ The Invariant Value in Linguistic Analysis
✓ The Centrality of “Relation” in MOG
✓ The Principle of Natural Metal-language
✓ The Dichotomy Extra-Linguistics vs Meta-Linguistics
✓ Utterance but no Sentences
✓ Surface Linear Order and Systemic Order
□ Nominal relation and the Determination as a linguistic operation
The study of the nominal system is always associated to that of “determination”; in turn and as abstract concept, determination has an ordinary foundation and origin. Determining equals limiting or delimiting something, a space of a phenomenon. In linguistic theory, determination is almost always allusive of the noun along with its definiteness. A closer look at the determination operation informs that this linguistic operation overrides the noun category, as the verbal system is also concerned by determination.
Consider the verbal notion “work” as listed in the dictionary,
Would say it is limited or rather unlimited?
As a verbal notion, “work” is clearly unlimited and as a matter of fact, it is often said to be the “infinitive” form, which means unlimited extension so that it virtually applies to any object or things or to stick on the grammatical issue, saying that the verbal notion “work” in unlimited amounts to saying that it is so broad that it can claim any grammatical subject.
By contrast in face of a simple utterance like:
Peter works
The verbal notion is no longer an infinitive notion, it is no longer unlimited since in this particular circumstance, it applies only on the grammatical subject “Peter”. Thus, one is quite justified to state that “works” is limited by the grammatical subject “Peter” and in English the grammatical inflection “-s” is the trace of this notional reduction.
□ The Controversial view that the article “defines” the noun
The advocates of Meta-operational Grammar regularly lament that traditional or pedagogical grammars damagingly blur linguistic facts and their intelligibility because they often resort to a metalanguage loaded with imprecisions and approximations. Such is the case of the meta-term “definite” and non-definite”. The article is said to be “definite” of “non-definite” on the grounds that it “defines” the noun. The inconsistency is that traditional grammarians have unremittingly repeated that in French (and presumably all Latin languages), “the article bears the number and the gender category dictated by the noun”[1].
If the gender and number of the article is dependent on those of the noun; does it really sense to say that “the article defines the noun”? How can the element which grammatical features (number and gender) are dependent on (the features of) another element be the defining element? Even when we turn to the psycho-mechanics of language by G. Guillaume, the article is said to be incident on the noun and not the other way round. In clearer syntactic terms, while the noun can stand alone, the article will not. The article really needs a syntactic tutor before it can occur in language. Well, if the foreigner socially and psychologically needs a tutor in the village, can’t a tutor do without a foreigner?
Thus, saying that “the article defines the noun” is just a blameworthy short-cut metaphor to reject outright!
□ Brief overviewon the nominal system and nominal determination
The study of the nominal system has inspired a massive literature in General Linguistics and analyses on this micro-system has evolved according to the successive linguistic theories. In Pedagogical grammars the nominal system is often a matter of classifying nouns into various categories:
✓ Countable nouns: books, table, car, tree, etc.
✓ Non-countable nouns:
- Mass nouns: water, salt, luggage
- Abstract nouns: life, work, pride, death, etc.
By the epistemological standards of MOG, the pedagogical approach to the nominal relation appears like extra-linguistic considerations essentially. Indeed, the nominal system is perceived in terms of correspondence with the extra-ling world.
It is important to point out that this extralinguistic-oriented approach maybe misleading since it corresponds to the way culture structure the extralinguistic world, as will be seen. When the English language perceives “the speech” like something “massive”, just like water, the Senufo people use a determiner whereby the “speech” in Senufo language “syaenri” is perceived as a multitude of sperate bits of little things, just like the ‘pieces of hair’ on the head.
Very often, pedagogical grammars will come up with recommendations that: “only countable nouns will be used with article ‘A’. An alternative version of Discourse Analysis by AntoineCulioli– The Theory of Enunciative Operations- analyses the nominal system using a very strange and suspicious meta-language. Some linguistic operations in the nominal system are labelled “extraction” : like in “a cat”, “a table” whereby operator “a” is said to indicate “an extraction of one element out of others” or out of a class of tables…
In the same Discourse Analysis theory, another operation is said to refer to “pointing” (in French “fléchage”) and is supposed to the act of designating a thing in the speaking context with an ostentation gesture, like in the sequence: “The table”.
There are many reasons to challenge this theory as relatively inadequate speech effects that appear to be the backbone of the theory obviously blur the explanations, and the description accordingly.
Consider the utterance:
➢ He went into the room his hands full of books. He did not close the door because there was none.
How can we honestly defend the view that a door is pointed out when the utterance state that there is no door!
Clearly, the nominal system will not be analysed based on sentences out of any real context.The study of the nominal system is known in general linguistics as the nominal determination and in this lecture, the analysis will be conducted taking into account genuine speaking situations. This means that when a noun is used in an utterance it automatically raises the issue of the determination of the noun or what the noun is supposed to represent or stand for.
The analysis will consist in tracking down the types of operations nominal operators are supposed to indicate in a natural metalinguistic way.The focus of the present lecture: the noun with its operators.
Which nominal operators do you know?
In European languages, the nominal operators are the class of determiners that are thearticle, the demonstratives, the possession determiners (deitics), the quantifiers (some, both, any, each, every, etc.).
The categories so named, especially the « article » are far from being universal categories. In African languages determination operations generally realised with operators other than the article. In most African languages that clearly display nominal operators, there is no article as such but nominal markers (Silué 1988) or nominal classifiers. They are called so because in those languages, nouns are classified according to some semantic criteria that are on their way of becoming more formal rather than expressing semantic features. The Senufo will distinguish things that are represented as large or small in size, or as a multitude, etc.
Definitely, the function of nominal classifiers or nominal markers in African languages is not to just to convey grammatical information and to ensure determination but also tell which (semantic class) the noun belongs to.
Bantu languages like Lingala provide a clear example of noun classification into different semantic classes and while some markers indicate that the noun refers to an inanimate objects; others indicate that the noun refers to the humancategory:
✓ Mutu (humanbeing (cf plural Bantu)
✓ mobali (man
✓ mwasi (woman
✓ mwana( child
✓ moto(person/life, the world
✓ movinga(someone
1. The Nominal Determination
✌ What “determination” is
Determination is any kind of linguistic operation aiming at modifying the extension ofa concept. The different degrees of the extension of a concept will give the philosophical interpretation or comprehension that the concept refers to an unlimited wide range of things or, the opposite, it is restricted to a particular thing;
The determination process or operation is a game from extension and to comprehension….
When the extension of a concept is large, the comprehension of the thing that this concept names referred to is reduced…
By contrast, when the comprehension of a concept is higher this amounts to a serious reduction of the extension of this notion as shown in the figure 1 to follow:
[pic]
❖ Take the following concepts
# life #, # mango #, # car #, # man #, # university #
They are very extended and their full extension leads to the comprehension “anything” known as man, mango, car, man, university…By contrast, in the sequences below:
the life, the mango, the car, the man, the university
The extension of each of these concepts is reduced causing the comprehension to be restricted to particular life, mango, car, man, university…
Depending on the communication motives or intents of the speaker or the contextual or situational requirements, he will reduce the extension of the nominal notion down to various degrees. Such degrees of the modification of the extension of the nominal notion will translate on the surface level with particular determiners.
Should the speaker need to build his nominal meaning with an unlimited nominal extension, he will insert the nominal element as it stands in the lexicon. This operation corresponds to putting the noun in the speaking/communication context and in the MOG terminology, such an operation amounts to binding a relation, a nominal relation:
❖ e.g. #car#
When the extension reduction of the nominal notion is minimum that will give impression of non-determination” and in language this corresponds to the speech effect of “indefinite” #x car#. By contrast, when the reduction of the nominal notion is maximum, this will result in the speech effect of “definite”: #the car#
1.1 The Phase 1 Nominal Relation
As already said, Phase 1 constructions are those where the speaker steps away, so leaving the notion to express itself fully. As the notion is fully delivered, this would serve various communication needs such as:
✓ Referring directly to reality: Water boils at 100°
✓ Referring to something in a generic way : Life is Good (LG)
✓ etc.
a) Reference to reality with operator “(N’
By being simply named, the notion unfolds in its full extension (the way it is listed in the dictionary) which corresponds to the direct reference to reality:
How to account for the use of (?
10a. (Life has become very tough these days as a result of the political crisis which the country has sustained
10b. This child does not like (milk
10c. (Speaking to this man was a fatal mistake
10d. (Water boils at a 100( / 10e.(Rice grows on water
In these utterances, as a result of inserting notions as they stand in the lexicon or dictionaries, the speech effect so obtained correspond to the “generic”.
b) Operator “(” in Defining utterances
As was seen with Phase 1 utterances and in the verbal system, defining utterances are those that state universal or scientific truths and such truths are precisely those that refer to reality or comply to common sense or ideology:
2a. x (Water boils at a 1000(
2b. x(Rice grows on water
2c. ( Coffee: tropical plant, brewage obtained by the roasting of its grains and served after meals, cash crop in some African countries…
c) Operator “( “ with proper nouns
Why should proper nouns occur without any determiner (or occur with (in our terminology?
The linguistic function of proper nouns is to refer to a concrete and physical person in the extra-linguistic sphere/domain (which is a typical Phase 1 feature!). Understandably, proper nouns look like mere labels that have direct reference to reality:
3a. (Johan Herder suggested the evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of human language
3b. She lives in (Cameroon
3c. (Ivory Coast is coffee farming country
Those linguistic elements (proper nouns) cease to function as such when used with an article. In such cases, they look like mere quotations and are on their way to become common names and when adjectivized, the initial capital letter becomes optional.
Consider the following…
3a. A certain Noam Avram Chomsky who was just a student at the MIT, inaugurated a new era in linguistics with the publication of Syntactic Structures …
3b. The chomskyan revolution turns out to become the chomskyan closure (A. Rivet)
d) Operator ‘A’ + N
How would you compare Operator (+Nto Operator ‘A+N’?
When this operator ‘A’ occurs before the noun, this is a manifestation of the nominal notion having been grammaticalized and will no longer be mistaken for another element of word class (e.g. a verb). Note that #FIRE# remains unspecified as to which word class it belongs, but when preceded by Operator ‘A’ it has definitely integrated the class of nouns. Now, with Operator ‘A’, even though the noun is grammaticalized, its introduction in discourse must be considered as relatively “fresh”.
In meta-operational terminology, the noun still remains closed to the notional level and in terms of meaning and signification (speech effects), operator ‘A’ will convey the speech effect of “indefiniteness” because the nominal notion remains relatively extended (broad).
Operator ‘A’ remains a Phase 1 construction as revealed by contrastive analysis with other languages. The structure ‘A + N’ translates in most African languages by the generic construction, that is, the bare notion (the noun occurs without any class marker see Godie and the Weh languages (Wobe&Guere examples)). Remember that the generic is a Phase 1 structure:
6. A lion is a beast of pray
The ‘A + N’ structure is a Phase 1 structure when compared to other European languages, Romance language (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Roman…) namely. Those Romance languages will use the cardinal operator (UN or UNO, UNA) corresponding to numbering/counting. This is the reason why some Discourse Analysis theories (like the one initiated by Antoine Culuoli, “the Theory of Enunciative Operations” ) would describe the ‘A’ operator as the “operator of extraction”.
Extraction in Culuoli’s theory simply means that an element has been retrieved out a class of elements…In Any case be it “counting” or “numbering”, these are extra-linguistic actions and extralinguistic things remains concrete things, that is, those corresponding to sheer reality.
6a. A man of his status should not associate with crooks!
6b. Would you like a coffee or aCoca-cola?
6c. The house was burned down by a terrible fire
In all these cases non-determination speech effect derives from the fact that the extension of such nominal notions has been reduced in a relatively limited proportion.
1.2 The Phase 2 Nominal Relation
With the ‘The + N’construction, the speaker has now abandoned the extra-linguistic world to installing all the linguistic/verbal activity intra-linguistically. All ‘The + N’ constructions are in disruption with the extralinguistic whatever the speech-effect-oriented beliefs and considerations (i.e; the noun is determined and the object identified) that Traditional grammar keeps on advocating. In all these cases the definiteness of the high determination simply derives from the fact that the extension of the nominal notions has been reduced in maximum to apply to specific things.
However, whenever the speaker uses the ‘The + N’construction, he does not refer to a concrete object or thing situated in the real world!
Consider the following utterances…
10a. The sun rises in the East
10b. Take the child to the Hospital!
10c. The man who came yesterday works for Phibro
10d. Reportedly, he has raped the girl
How would you analyse these utterances?
Now, consider the following…
3a. A certain Noam Avram Chomsky who was just a student at the MIT, inaugurated a new era in linguistics with the publication of Syntactic Structures …
3b. Thechomskyan revolution turns out to become the chomskyan closure (Rivet)
In 10a., our common experience informs that the notion of ‘SUN’ is, by nature, restricted to one thing, this astral planet. In 10b., the hospital is what the speaker & the co-speaker both know, by their life experience, as this institution where medical care is provided. In 10c., the man refers to this individual have in mind and who reported the day a day ago. In 10d., presumably there was a rape issue in the media or in all conversations, and understandably, the idea of “girl” is a shared information to whomever feels concerned.
✌ Comments on the descriptive notions of “Context” and “Situation”
How can the Context/Situation impact Discourse or Linguistic Operations?
MOG, along with all reliable Discourse Analysis theories admit or postulate for a distinction between sentences and utterances. The sentence is regarded as an artificial sequence of words that serve pedagogical purposes (illustration of a grammar point for learners to understand). As for the utterance it is any linguistic sign having taken place in a real situation and for real communication purposes…
In such a perspective, an utterance is an event, even though a (meta)linguistic event - that occurs at a certain time, in a certain place.It follows that an utterance will never be repeated since the circumstances in which an utterance is produced (uttered) are not duplicable, just like extra-linguistic events (accidents, wars, social happening, etc.). There are number of theoretical principles attached to the utterance or linguistic operations as events. One such principle is that, as he speaks, the speakers holds a certain accountancy of the operations he performs.
MOG thinks that it is axiomatic that when the individual speaker uses languages, s/he takes into account operations that were already performed (early operations) and operations s/he is currently performing, not to mention those to perform (late operations):
[pic]
All this to say that when a speaker performs (produces utterances), he is bound to take into account the prior invested (structured) meaning/operations and which necessarily affects current/contemporary structurations…In other words, the speakers takes into account what is already in hand, as he structures subsequent operations.
By way of example, in an utterance in which we have a noun subsequently replaced by a pronoun, the noun represents the prior operation (the operation before) while the pronoun represents the subsequent operation.The importance In this particular instance, the speaker has taken in account, the context in which the noun was mentioned, that is the text before.
Definitely, the context is what is mentioned in the upstream of a text and often referred to as the “co-text” in literary orthodoxy!As for the situation, it is all what is implicit and already known in the non-linguistic situation, precisely the shared information among discourse participants…
When a speaker says:
14. Give the THE pen;
The accurate interpretation of this utterance (here an instruction) is possible on the only condition that the speaker and his co-speaker have a shared information of the thing named here a “pen”. And it follows that an individual who does not share this prior information will not know what is being referred to as “THE pen”. The crucial importance of the situation in real interactions can be illustrated by the “dog is dead” story”!
All in all, the operations we perform in real situation of communication are determined by the context (in written texts) or the situation (when the information is inferred communication situation). And definitely, in the nominal system, Phase 2 operations in the nominal system will be triggered either by prior contextual clues or determined by situational prior situational shared information.In this sense, the Phase 2 nominal relation is nothing but a retaking or a resumption of the corresponding Phase 1 nominal relation.
a) The Contextual Retaking
The use of THE will be triggered by the actual mentioning of the noun in the upstream context so that the THE operator is a retaking of the Phase 1 operation.
Consider the following utterances…
15a. Once upon a time, a man was leaving in a small remote village. The man was so poor that he could not even afford to feed himself with flies!
15b. Hermann bought his first car in the 1990s; the car was so cost-effective that he refused any offer to sell it
15c. The President has recently inaugurated an hospital in Gagnoa; reportedly, the Gagnoa hospital is 2 billion XOF worth.
Contextual Phase 2 retaking will not always necessarily imply the actual presence of mention of the noun. Indeed, in real language practice, what stands for the noun which is mentioned in the context before of the upstream of the text can only suggested just implicitly by some elements:
Consider the following utterances:
16. If you leave the car lights on, you will run the battery down
17. He entered the room, his hands full of books; he did not close thedoor, because there was non.
How would you account for the occurrence of Phase 2 nominal operator “THE”?
In the following utterance, the occurrence of the Phase 2 nominal operator (THE) can be explained the same way:
18. She did buy her dress at Printemp’s… the only problem if that the sleaveswere too short.
In each of those occurrences of the Phase 2 nominal marker, the battery (inutterance 16), the door (in utterance 17) and theleaves (in utterance 18) are all presupposed in the context before:
[pic]
✌ Contrastive Digression into the Senufo nominal system
In linguistic research, MOG advocators make use of contrastivity when necessary!
What do we call “contrastivity”?
Contrastivity is the fact of opposing two linguistic systems (languages) and this for two reasons: it can be a strategy to cross-check whether what was discovered in language A and in connection with the functioning or the invariant value of a meta-operator also holds for language B.
Language researchers can also resort to contrastivity as a way of better highlight the functioning or the invariant value of an operator, based on the fact that the operator under investigation is more illustrative language A than in language B.The underlying assumption in the use of contrastive strategy is that some languages are more suggestive, more telling on some particular linguistic phenomena than other, as will be seen with the digression into Senufo nominal system in comparison to that of the English language.
In the particular case of the nominal relation contrastivity between English and Senufo languages is very revealing as for the status of the Phase 2 operator.It would have been clear to everyone that the noun and it corresponding pronoun contrast in terms of operational or meta-operational time: the noun occurs in the early period of this operational time while the pronoun, which is a retaking of the noun in the same context reveals the late period over the operative time vector:
[pic]
□ Contrasting the English Nominal system with that of Senufo language
The contrastive digression will help in the analysis of the Phase 2 nominal relation. That the article THE in English is indicative of the Phase 2 nominal relation is given additional evidence when we turn to the nominal system of Senufo language, a far distant language from English and yet the universality features still stand out.
Assumptions in MOG hold that in the nominal system of natural languages, the noun being the lexical elements and does bear a semantic content is closed to the extralinguistic world as corroborated by the fact that a noun (compared to a pronoun) readily refers out to reality. Symbolically, nouns are definitely indicative of Phase 1 relations or structures. Indeed, nouns are used as labels to name things or objects…
As for the pronoun, its presence or occurrence itself is signal that a noun has been instantiated beforehand; the pronoun is a signal that “something has happened” as regard operation in the nominal system: the speaker has already used a noun. Note that the derivative prefix “pro-“ means “put for, or “substitute for” and logically, a thing cannot be substituted for another thing if the thing being replaced did not exist in the first place….
In any case in Senufo the Phase 2 nominal marker and the corresponding pronouns are isomorphic (similar forms):
Kaha -> “(a) village”
kaagi -> “the village”
kaagi, gi n leeli -> “the village, it is far”
b) The situational Retaking
Consider the following utterance below…
19. Did you go to a market?
How would you judge this utterance? Does it sound odd or is it quite normal?
If you find it abnormal, di you have explanations for this state of affairs?
The oddity of the utterance comes from the practical fact that before asking whether the co-speaker has been somewhere, the place where s/he as gone is already presupposed in the mind of the speaker!While the contextual retaking allowing to move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 is based on information available in the immediate context (or co-text), the situational is based on prior information but which is implicit. Once again, the “dog is dead” story is the best illustration of situational retaking: the Phase 2 nominal operation is triggered by “shared information”.
Consider…
20. Beware of the rapist!
21. Mind the adder/the step
212. Mind the step!
Where are the presuppositions here?
In utterances 20, 21 and 22, the terms BEWARE and MIND, are typical presupposition introductory terms. In requiring from someone to BEWARE OF or to MIND something, this thing must have been undisputedly identified or presupposed in the situation, it is axiomatic that a presupposition is a Phase 2 oriented phenomenon. As a result, the warning expressions BEWARE and MIND will always trigger a Phase 2 (nominal) relation operator:
e.g I don’t MIND waiting for him
2. The Nominal Relation and the Complex Noun Phrase
A complex noun phrase (NP) is the one built with more than one noun and in such a structure, whatever the number of nominal components the underlying structure is a binary structure (i.e. illustrations 1 to 4 below).
2.1 The Complex Noun Phrase and the role of the Preposition
Complex NPs are treated in the context of determination because in such structures one term is the Determined (Ded) and the other is the Determiner (Der), just like in a noun phrase complexified with an attributive adjective like
“the red house”.
Where the attributive adjective “red” modifies the meaning of “house”.
What is called here complex Noun Phrase is the one which is usually built in English with a preposition which semantic-syntactic role is ambivalent. In effect in a complex noun phrase where a proposition occurs, the preposition syntactically binds the two nominal components, but at the same time and paradoxically, it maintains them apart, that is separated. Only the diachronic phenomenon is likely to bring them together in some cases…
1. The leg of the table
2. The dog’s tail
3. The earthquake
4. The grammar-book
Where are the (Ded) and the (Der)?
As can be seen, the complex NP offers varied pictures as regards the formal manifestations of the relation between the two terms (Ded (N1) and Der (N2)), like in the following complex NPs:
a) A book of grammar / (b) A grammar book
The complex NP illustrates the notion of extension&comprehension mentioned earlier–(figure 1): the Der ((of) grammar) reduces the extension of the nominal notion book so increasing its comprehension. In these sequences the reference is not to any kind of book but the one having any given relation (about, on, in connection, etc.) with “grammar”.
Based on the assumptions of MOG how would you discriminate (a) and (b)?
(a) A book of grammar vs (b) A grammar book
From the formal layout of the sequences, the composition relation in (a) is still fresh or is recently established between N1 and N2, while in (b) the relation is already solidly established or finalized.Those formal manifestations of the relations between N1 (Ded) and N2 (Ded ) reflect the phase system, namely the nature of the relation between the two terms.
In (a), the relation between BOOK and GRAMMAR is loose as the two terms are separated by the preposition relator “of”.Paradoxically, as of relates the two terms of the complex NP, it maintains them apart (separate) causing the relation to be loose.
In (b) the absence of any prepositional relator causes a direct contact between the two terms so giving the structure a fairly higher compactness. Note that according to MOG’s assumptions, the “older” a relation between two terms, the more compact the structure they so form (like in real life!). Definitely the loose structure is a Phase 1 construction while the compact structure is a Phase 2 structure:
[pic]
Based on the notion of operative time along with the dating of operations, MOG takes it for granted that Phase 2 relations bear more structural cohesion and more discourse coherence compared to the Phase 1 ones.This observation holds both for the synchronic perspective and the diachronic perspective:
Consider the following complex NPs:
5. The point of view
6. The view (point
7. The view-point
8. The viewpoint
The difference between the nominal relations in those NP’s is the “operational time/period” and this is an instance where the MOG assumptions intersect with the diachronic dimension (extralinguistic time):
[pic]
2. The genitive in the nominal relation
The genitive construction also falls under the headings of the determination since one term is determined with reference to another. Pedagogical textbooks offer a poor account of the genitive construction with a great confusion between the invariant value and speech effects: a form is given a semantic interpretation!
In constructions like:
a) The woman’s dress or b) The dress of the woman
Which is the usual explanation by Pedagogical Grammars?
Advocators or pedagogical grammar generally oversimplify the analysis of genitive constructions with short-cuts explanations: purely linguistic operations are converted into real life realities. The genitive is generally assimilated to real life “possession” while it should have been clear that the distance that separates “gerund” form possession is similar to the distance from “tense” to “time” or from “sex” to “gender” …
Those traditional approaches of the genitive constructions make room for a “possessor” and a “possessed thing”! Note that MOG does not deny “possession” as a human reality of as a reality. The thing that MOG rejects is to mix up the levels of real-world realities (speech effects) with the level of functional linguistic operations (meta-linguistics).
On failing to distinguish the extra-linguistic level (i.e. possession) from the meta-operational level (genitive) we will have great pains to analyse:
9. The dog and its master
Where the dog turns out to be the possessor of its master)!!!
Often times again, Pedagogical grammars instruct that the genitive construction with operator “’s” is used when the possessor is an animate entity or a human. This certainly works for some cases and yet proves ineffective or inadequate in many other instances such as with the following utterance:
10. The waste water also comes from the factory, this creates another problem for US Steel, the factory’s owner.
If one were to stick on the idea of possession the factory here is the possessor while the company “US Steel” (the actual owner) bears no “animatenes” feature, nor is the so-called possessor a human being…
The “possession explanation” (a speech effect actually) will fail to account the ways it does the simple complex NP like:
11. Chomsky’s book
This NP might refer alternatively to:
1. The book for witch Chomsky is the owner;
2. The book written by Chomsky,
3. The book written by Chomsky,
4. The book bought by Chomsky;
5. The book on Chomsky’s (scientific work or life)
6. The book stolen by Chomsky (the problem being discussed at the tribunal as a legal case);
7. The book suggested by Chomsky (as supportive reading material);
✓ Etc.
The genitive is a form, an operator and not areal-world phenomenon: the genitive is as formal a reality like the opposition between tense and time and between sex and gender, to some extent. This construction in English is more subtle than it would seem in the first place!
In face of it, the French linguist Denis Creissel preferred the term “associative determination” at the expense of “possession” and for the verb “Have” (avoir, in French) Creissel rather used “associative predication” (see Silué S. J and Yao K. J-F 1982).
Associativeness here means any form of relation existing between two things as exposed in the sequence: Chomsky’s book with its no less 7 possible interpretations (speech effects).The complex NP with a preposition (generally “of”) compared to the NP with the “’s” is a matter of the anteriority of the relation constructed.Whenever we have :
N1 prep N2,
This means that a relation have been freshly established like any Phase 1 constructions; by contrast, whenever we have the corresponding form:
N2’s N1
This means that there is a clear congruence between the two terms, that in the situation of communication, the relation between the two terms is clearly known or its existence is fully shared by discourse participants:
❖ e.g.: 12. This is Gerald Croft, the son of Sir George Croft
The language function here is “introducing a person”,which means that before this communication act, they ignored who that person named was the son to Sir George Croft. This means that there is a clear congruence between the two terms, that in the situation of communication, the relation between the two terms is clearly known or apprehended by the speaker and his co-speaker.
Consider now…
13. For years, people have believed that the shroud, a 14-foot linen cloth, was the burial shroud of Christ.
How would account for the presence of “OF” here?
Here the term “believe” (to oppose to “know”) means that it was just a belief unknown by the majority of Christians (actually few Christians are informed of that controversial finding!)In other words, that the shroud be that of Jesus Christ is far from being for granted (the debate is still in progress among Christians and some historian scientists!)
Consider the following…
14. We predicted that one day he would be his country’s brightest honour.
It can be said that the relation between “country” and “honour” was already in the mind of the speaker; in addition, there is the verb “predict” and both factors converge to suggest the anteriority of such relation…
In utterances like (14), some analysts will talk of the “personalization” of “country” (see the country’s honour). But personalization and all other figures of style in literature are precisely clear cases where the parallel between language and the real world is precisely abandoned!
❖ e.g. Samory was a lion!
Which is a negation of the extralinguistic world to serve enunciation purposes (Samory being rather a human being)!Just like with the situational retaking discussed earlier (Phase 2 nominal relation), some clues in the utterance will presuppose the existence of the relation:
15. The telescope’s primary mirror will be figured on the a precision optical polisher
16. Hagan found himself in a street where gangs of vagrants were stopping passing vehicles. One of them threw himself in front of the car’s wheel
From our (technological) culture, we know that a mirror is always part of a telescope, hence, the non-new relation between “telescope” and “mirror”, the way a car always has a wheel…
Definitely the difference between:
a) The leg of the boy and b) The boy’s leg
In a) the information is fresh in the sense that we might be informing someone about a problem concerning the leg but in b) the boy had been already mentioned in connection with something wrong about his leg.It would not be cause of surprise that in the “alienable possession” and “inalienable possession” display significant difference as for the use of the preposition or the genitive morpheme.
Alienable possession is when the relation between the so-called possessor and the possessed object is contingent, while inalienable possession is when the relation between the two entities is established once for all.The body parts qualify for inalienable possession while the assets (legal possessions) qualify for alienable possession and it would not be cause of surprise that in the “alienable possession” and “inalienable possession” display significant difference as for the use of the preposition or the genitive morpheme.
Alienable possession is when the relation between the so-called possessor and the possessed object is contingent, while inalienable possession is when the relation between the two entities is established once for all.The body parts qualify for inalienable possession while the assets (legal possessions) qualify for alienable possession. It follows that a statistical research might well reveal that the use of the genitive operator “’s” be more recurring with associatievness involving body parts rather than with associativeness involving extra-body belonging.
3. The Deixis and the Nominal relation
In the first place, the term “deixis” is the generic term for demonstration or “ostentation” (showing, indicating or pointing out); if restricted to this narrow function, the deixis would be made up with the demonstrative operators (determiners and pronouns). The deixis is broader than that and would correspond the dynamic system of linguistic operators that encode the context in which the enunciation activity unfolds (M. Ouattara 2019)
The deixis is the system of benchmarking utterances and their interpretations in speaking context. The deixis is taken charge of by linguistic units that will not be fully interpreted without contextual of situation additional information (or clues). This way the deixis in natural languages comprises the personal pronouns, all possessives, not to mention the demonstratives.The operators of the deixis are sometimes called shifters (Jacobson) to say that they cause the final interpretation to shift according to the main factor of enunciation: the speaker, the time of speaking, the situation and the like.
An, sequence like: “My house” cannot have a complete interpretation unless the co-speaker knows the person being referred to with the word “my”. Similarly, in the utterance below:
1. Could you please go there as soon as possible?
The pragmatic interpretation of this message clearly depends on where the speaker is situated and unless the co-speaker had this information, he will not be able to report to the indicated venue. If the speaker is in Abidjan and in Cocody District and is speaking to someone in Adjame. Getting there as soon as possible can be a matter of minutes, hours or even days. But if the utterance were produced in a different context with the speaker in Abidjan and the co-speaker in Sidney, Australia, being “there as soon as possible” might be a matter of month or years…
We would agree that if we tell someone that we are sick, the seriousness of the sickness will be taken different way depending on from which place I am informing my co-speaker that I feel sick. If I am speaking to my neighbor next door, surely the sickness is just a negligible little sore; by contrast if from Abidjan the speaker is informing his brother in Tokyo, that he is sick, the hearer would normally feel more concerned. This is so because the deixis system is at work!
People often try to fool others by exploiting the shifters (deixis) cunningly. Such is the case of this announcement on the entrance of amaquis in Yopougon:
2. Si vous coulez manger à crédit, passez demain!
This advertising message is meant just to fool people who want to consume for free, the problem being that each day, the promise to have free meals holds only the day after, which amount to saying that the promise will never come true!
In English and presumably all human languages the deixis system is generally materialized by demonstratives which tend to overshadow all other deictic forms; in the present lecture, the deixis concerned here will be the one with the so-called demonstratives.
3. Deixis in traditional or pedagogical grammars
The use of demonstratives THIS and THAT are often describe in terms of physical reference, THIS indicting proximity, while THAT refers to distance.
3. This man you see has reported in your office this morning !
4. Look at that man there!
Often times, those analyses which can be considered as more refined will state that the distance might not be necessarily physical but just of a chronological kind:THIS will be used when the things evoked are present now in the present time while THAT will be in use to refer to past or remote things.
Though it is hard to deny outright the distance and proximity dimension, we must acknowledge that these are misleading speech effects and might have held in the early periods of human languages. Indeed, there are reasons to hypothesize that in the course of the formation of linguistic systems and their increasing qualitative sophistication (see Qualitative and quantitative development of Human language in the L3 lecture on The Anthropology of Language L3), space and time might overlap. All along the chrono-genesis, the human awareness of the notion of space might be earlier than that of time. What is absent (in space) can be assimilated to what is past (in time) and as a matter of fact, in the development of language among young children the awareness of space precedes that of time; in other words, young will master reference to space (places) before to the mastery of time, which is more abstract[2]…
But in contemporary languages, the deictic operators hardly still confirm to extralinguistic considerations:
5. Speaker A: Is there life on other planets?
Speaker 5: On those nearest to us, probably not!
Can you see why “distance argument is seriously challenged?
The “distance” argument is seriously challenged since reference is made here to “the planets nearest to us”! In other words, if distance really mattered, then “closest” which is the maximum proximity could not co-occur with the alleged distance-marking deictic THAT!
Tin the face of it, the English linguist Martin JOOSE, once lamented that as far as the functioning of demonstratives (THIS/THAT) is concerned “is not a matter of inches”!Indeed, one feelschallenged by daily utterances like:
6. Revenez ici pour voir si je suis encore là !
What is odd here if the distance explanation could help?
The things is that person who is talking will not have move one inch with the use of “ici” and “là”! What should be retained is that in contemporary English, THIS and THATand in contemporary French with “ici” and “là” the operators have become more formal that conveyors of extra-linguistic realities so that they will not lend themselves to speech-effect oriented explanations and we should also wonder about these fossilized constructions :
✓ La vie et la mort and not La mort et la vie
✓ He was moving here and there and not He was moving there and here
6a. You don’t like this you don’t like that, what do you like then?
but not
6b *??You don’t like that you don’t like this, what do you like then?
What difference do you make between the followingutterances ?
What is this
What’s that?
4. The Deixis in Meta-Operational Grammar
Meta-operational Grammar does not reject the speech effects of distance and proximity outright!In contemporary English and presumably as a result of the sophistication of discursive features over time, deictic operators THIS/THAT (and their corresponding plural variants “THESE/THOSE”) have come to encode the operative time, say the phase system.This remark holds for their role as determiners and as pronominal forms as well.
This way, and for the advocators of MOG, those elements now operate as genuine meta-operators. THIS and THAT constitute a micro-system (just like ordinary articles) and while THIS occurs as a Phase 1 element, THAT is an indicator of Phase 2 deictic constructions.
[pic]
a) THIS and the reference to reality
As a phase 1 marker in the micro-system of the deixis, THIS will be the most appropriate operator to refer to extralinguistic realities:
7. This is to certify that Harold J R is registered as a pharmaceutical chemist;
8. This card is valid only when used by the person named
9. This jar contains a full one pound.
In each of these utterances the actual object referred to is precisely the one the speaker is holding in his hands or is looking at…Note that in each case, the utterances are indications directly printed on the object itself and if translated in French, we would have…
✓ Le/la présent(e ) X …
Which is a crystal-clear indication that the object being referred to is really and concretely present!
b) THIS and the “upcoming” information
As THIS is on the complete opposite side of “shared information”, this operator will occur when the information is yet to come:
10. The only thing I can say isTHIS: it is my hope that this volume may encourage you to speak a little more freely…
Understandably, THIS will also occur in the language functions resorted to introduce an individual to the speaker:
11. THIS is my son , … Telemachus
Compare:
12a. … And now that’s Alpha Blondy
12b. This is Alpha Blondy, the Ivoirian Reggae star…
c) THAT to recall former information /operation
While THIS occurs to introduce or announce fresh information, THAT will take over to recall prior relation or information. The retaking can be contextual:
13. THIS a big step you are taking; is THAT what you really want?
The retaking can also be just situational like with the article:
Context: the speaker and his co-speakers are waiting for the census agents when the door ring is rung:
14. Speaker: THAT will be the census takers
this is to say that the “census agents” is what was in the mind of the discourse participants.
Now, consider…
15. THAT cake was very nice
16. I was pleased to hear THAT news
Often times however, THIS will occur in situations where it is THAT that is normally expected!This will indicate that the knowledge supposed to be already shared and integrated is rejected by the speaker or that the speaker refuses to adhere...
16. “I’ll not stand for THIS” , he muttered to himself
17. It’s cruel of him to do THIS to us
As the genuine operator of retaking THAT will be particularly appropriate to render the speech effect of conclusion, a conclusion being the summary of previously invested information:
18. THAT’s it!
19. ****THIS is it
20. THAT’s it; isn’t it?
Why is utterance (19) rather unlikely?
It is very unlikelybecauseTHIS specializes more in cataphoric contexts (announcement of up-coming events) and not in anaphoric (recalling aspect) ones; the thing is that a concluding effect has an anaphoric orientation which is not the prime property of THIS!
Discussions and Study Questions
a) Discuss the following questions with your classmates
b) Alternatively, select one of the questions and write a 10-page assignment alone or in group.
============
1. This utterance was produced by a relief agent on a mining site where a mining accident has claimed several lives:
The corpse that is being lifted up is THAT of Hassan
a) Could THIS occur here?
b) Why has THAT occurred here?
2. Suggest an explanation to discriminate these two utterances:
a) This is a tree!
b) That’s a tree!
3. How would you analyse the use of THIS in this advertising message illustrating the photograph of a Toyota car:
When a car looks THIS good, it is nice to say it is THIS good.
4. Use the appropriate nominal operator in the utterance to follow:
What ________ size is your shirt?
5. Analyse the following utterances so that the difference between them stands out clearly:
a) Is THIS a threat?
b) Is THAT a threat, Harry?
6. How would you account for the occurrence of operator THE in the utterance below:
The moment I entered the dining-room, I could see that the table was laid. The candles, the yellow roses (…) the three glaces to each person…
Insert the appropriate operator (∅, A or THE) in the utterances that follow:
A: Where is ______ box?
B: Just behind _______ nylon bag.
7. If you were told that the two prepositional operators in French ‘à’ and ‘de’ were micro-systems where ‘à’ is a marker of phase 1 structures/relations and ‘de’ Phase 2 structures/relations.
Could we say that these invariants values so postulated for à’ and ‘de’ are in keeping with the two complex noun phrases:
a) Un verre à vin
b) Un verre de vin
8. Traditional grammar holds that ‘THE’ is “the definite article” meaning that this determiner is used when the object/thing referred to is clearly known; as for the advocators of Meta-operational Grammar they insist that ‘THE’ is a Phase 2 Operator.
Give an explanation that will reconcile these two positions that seem to different.
9. In the phase system suggested by MOG, which operative phase do operators ‘THIS’ and ‘THE’ respectively in utterance (a) and utterance (b) respectively encode?
a) Take this car to the garage;
b) Take the car to the garage;
Can you imagine two speaking situations where the use of these operators in either utterance complies with the meta-operational status of ‘THIS’ and ‘THE’?
10. What is the metalinguistic value of operators ‘A and ‘THE’ in the underlined noun phrases; the underlined noun phrases the titles of novels:
a) The Lonely Voice, A BOOK about short stories
b) The Most Wanted Man: the book was a real success certainly because it was a fully detailed report of the great train robbery that took place in England in the 1960s.
Bibliography
ADAMCZEWSKI, Henri. 1982. Grammairelinguistique de l’anglais. Paris: Armand Colin.
ADAMCZEWSKI, Henri. 1990. Le françaisdéchiffré: clef du langage et des langues. Paris: Armand Colin.
DELMAS, Claude. 1980. Quelqueséléments de la métalangue naturelle.
DELMAS, Claude. 1987. Structuration abstraite et chaînelinéaireenangaliscontemporain. Paris: Société Linguistique de Paris
OUATTARA, Moussa. 2019.La deixis personnelle de l’anglais et du senar: analysemorphosyntaxique et sémantico – référentielle. Thèse de doctorat unique en Études anglophones, Option: Langues et Cultures anglophones. Laboratoire DE LANGUES ET CULTURES ANGLOPHONES (LACA) UNIVERSITÉ JOSEPH KI-ZERBO, Ouagadougou.
SILUE, Sassonogo J. 1988. La relation nominale du sénoufo: analyseméta-opérationnelle. Cahiers ivoiriens de recherche linguistique (CIRL) n° XXX pp. xxxx
YÉO, Kanabein Oumar (2012). Étude comparative de la morphologie nominale de six langues sénoufo. Thèse de doctorat unique, Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny: Département des sciences du langage, 376 p.
-----------------------
[1] The actual formulation in French is « L’article s’accorde en genre et en nombre avec le nom auquel il se rapporte ».
[2]J. Piaget refer to this period as the sensorimotor stage whereby the young human being realizes that s/he is an object that singles out itself from other things in the immediate environment.
-----------------------
Figure 2 : The article as the trace of the interface (relation) between a noun and the Context
C
the
car
Time n
Time n+1
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.