Compiled by :

Muayad T. Yousif

2009/2010
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
___________________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE

WHAT IS LINGUSITICS?
What is a Linguist?
How does linguistics differ from traditional grammar?
The Sub-Fields of Linguistics

CHPTER TWO

What is Language?
Language and Medium
The Components of Language
Language Origin
What is the origin of language?
Divine Origin:
Language as a Human Invention:
Evolutionary Development:
Origins of Language Theories
Some properties of human language and animals communication

CHAPTER THREE

Structuralism
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE
Ferdinand de Saussure's Dichotomies
Saussure and Structuralism
BLOOMFIELD , LEONARD
NOAM CHOMSKY [b. 1928 .[
BEHAVIOURISM AND MENTALISM
a) The Behaviorist School
b) The Mentalist School
Systemic Functional Grammar
Organization of the Grammatical Model
DECIDING WHERE TO BEGIN
Universal and particular

CHAPTER FOUR

Phonetics
Consonants
Place of Articulation
Manner of Articulation
i
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
___________________________________________________________________________________

Vowels
Diphthong

CHAPTER FIVE

The Sound Patterns of Language

Morphology
What is a word?
Words vs. phrases
Status of clitics
Words nevertheless useful
Relationship between words and morphemes
Categories and subcategories of words and morphemes
Types of morphemes
Bound Morphemes
Free Morphemes
Inflectional vs. Derivational Morphology
Derivational morphemes
Inflectional morphemes
What is the meaning of an affix?
Constituent Structure of Words
Inflectional vs. Derivational Morphology
What is the meaning of an affix?
Constituent Structure of Words
Morphology FAQ
Are clitics inflectional or derivational morphemes?
Word-Formation Processes in English
Types of Acronyms
B. Clipping
C. Blending
D. Borrowing
E. Back- formation
F. Word Coinage
G. Functional shift
Other Cases of Conversion
H. Morphological Misanalysis
I. Eponymy

CHAPTER EIGHT

Immediate constituent analysis or IC Analysis

The Direct Object
The Direct Object with Indirect Object
The Objective Complement
ii
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
___________________________________________________________________________________

The Retained Object

The Subjective Complement
Diagramming Constructions: Some Problems
Diagramming Articles
Diagramming Negations
Diagramming Sentence Modifiers
Diagramming Verb Phrases
Diagramming Verbs with Auxiliaries

CHAPTER NINE

Phrase Structure Grammar

PHRASE-STRUCTURE RULES
TREE DIAGRAMS
Prepositional Phrases
Ambiguity
COORDINATION
Compound Sentences
Modals
Do Support
PROGRESSIVE VERB FORMS

CHAPTER TEN

THE CHOMSKY REVOLUTION

Universal Grammar
DEEP STRUCTURE AND SURFACE STRUCTURE
Transformational grammar

What is semantics?
• Symbol and referent
• Conceptions of meaning
• Words and lexemes
• Denotation, connotation, implication
• Pragmatics
• Ambiguity
• Metaphor, simile and symbol
• Semantic fields
• Synonym, antonym and hyponym
• Collocation, fixed expression and idiom
• Semantic change and etymology
• Polysemy
• Homonymy, homophones and homographs
iii
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
___________________________________________________________________________________

• Lexicology and lexicography

• Thesauruses, libraries and Web portals
Epistemology
Colour

iv
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER ONE

WHAT IS LINGUSITICS ?

Linguistics is usually defined as "the scientific study of language'. Such a statement,

however, raises two further questions: what do we mean by 'scientific'? and what do we
mean by 'language'? The first one can be answered relatively easily but the second needs to
be examined more fully. When we say that a linguist aims to be scientific, we mean that he
attempts to study language in much the same way as a scientist studies physics or
chemistry, that is systematically, and as far as possible without prejudice. It means
observing language use, forming hypotheses about it, testing these hypotheses and then
refining them on the basis of the evidence collected.
In saying that linguistics is a science in the stricter sense, one is saying that it
deals with a specific body of material, namely spoken and written language, and that it
proceeds by operations that can be publicly communicated and described, and justified
by reference to statable principles and to a theory capable of formulation. Its purpose in
this proceeding is the analysis of the material and the making of general statements that
summarize, and as far as possible relate to rules and regularities, the infinite variety of
phenomena (utterances in speech or writing) that fall within its scope. The previous
lines can be summarized as follows :

The Scientific Procedures Followed in Studying Any Science Including Linguistics:

A scientific study is one that is based on:
A. The systematic investigation of data conducted with reference to some general
theory of language structure.
B. Direct objective observations. Observation of events before the setting up of a
hypothesis which is then carefully investigated via systematic description, or
experimentation and a theory developed. This is a standard procedure in linguistics as in
other sciences.
C. A scientific study is also concerned with the formulation of sound theoretical
1
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
principles and clear and consistent terminology.
D. In order to be acceptable, a theory must be:
[i] Exhaustiveness, the adequate treatment of all the relevant material;
[ii] Consistency, the absence of contradiction between different parts of the
total statement; and, within the limits imposed by the two preceding principles .
[iii] Economy, whereby, other things being equal, a shorter statement or analysis
employing fewer terms is to be preferred to one that is longer or more involved.
One can make the position of linguistics within the sciences more precise. It is an
empirical science, in that its subject-matter is observable with the senses, speech as
heard, the movements of the vocal organs ,the sensations of speaking as perceived by
speakers, and writing as seen and read. No linguist would disown empiricism in
linguistics, but there is today lively discussion on the degree of empiricism that should
be embodied in a linguistic theory . Linguistics is also one of the social sciences, in that
the phenomena forming its subject-matter are part of the behaviour of men and women
in society, in interaction with their fellows. This last statement is not invalidated by the
existence of purely secondary uses of language by persons alone and out of earshot of
others, in monologue ('talking to oneself), ejaculations of joy, terror, or annoyance,
addressing animals, and the like; the essence of language, and the vast majority of its
uses, involve two or more persons in social intercourse. To get a simplified idea of what
is meant, consider the following example. With regard to English, we might make a
hypothesis that adjectives always precede nouns. In support of this hypothesis, we could
produce the following acceptable uses:
a good man
a dead tree

But against our hypothesis, we would find the following acceptable sentences:
The man is good.
The tree is dead.

where our adjectives do not precede the nouns they modify. In addition, a careful
study of the language would produce further samples such as:

2
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
life everlasting
mission impossible

where, once again, the position of the adjective contradicts our original hypothesis.
When we have carried out a detailed examination of adjectives in English, we are in
a position to say that adjectives in English are used in two main ways:

(a) they can be used attributively, that is before a noun, as in:

a good man

(b) they can be used predicatively, that is following a verb, as in:

The man is good.

Such rules would cover the uses of most adjectives in English. It would be necessary,
however, to add a further rule. In English a finite number of adjectives, borrowed from
other languages or used in fixed phrases, follow the nouns they modify. Such a finite list
would include:
astronomer royal
attorney general
court martial
heir apparent
prince imperial
princess royal

What is a Linguist ?
A person who studies linguistics is usually referred to as a linguist. The more accurate
term 'linguistician' is too much of a tongue-twister to become generally accepted. The
word 'linguist' is unsatisfactory: it causes confusion, since it also refers to someone who
speaks a large number of languages. Linguists in the sense of linguistics experts need
not be fluent in languages, though they must have a wide experience of different types
of languages. It is more important for them to analyze and explain linguistic phenomena
such as the Turkish vowel system, or German verbs, than to make themselves

3
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
understood in Istanbul or Berlin. They are skilled, objective observers rather than
participants - consumers of languages rather than producers, as one social scientist
flippantly commented.
Our type of linguist is perhaps best likened to a musicologist. A musicologist could
analyze a piano concerto by pointing out the theme and variations, harmony and
counterpoint. But such a person need not actually play the concerto, a task left to the
concert pianist. Music theory bears the same relation to actual music as linguistics does
to language.

How does linguistics differ from traditional grammar?

One frequently meets people who think that linguistics is old school grammar
jazzed up with a few new names. But it differs in several basic ways.

First, and most important, linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Linguists are
interested in what is said, not what they think ought to be said. They describe
language in all its aspects, but do not prescribe rules of 'correctness.'

It is a common fallacy that there is some absolute standard of correctness which it

is the duty of linguists, schoolmasters, grammars and dictionaries to maintain.
There was an uproar in America when in 1961 Webster's Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language included words such as ain't and phrases such
as ants in one's pants. The editors were deliberately corrupting the language - or
else they were incompetent, argued the critics. 'Webster III has thrust upon us a
dismaying assortment of the questionable, the perverse, the unworthy and the
downright outrageous', said one angry reviewer. But if people say ain't and ants in
one's pants, linguists consider it important to record the fact. They are observers
and recorders, not judges.

'I am irritated by the frequent use of the words different to on radio and other
programmes' ran a letter to a daily paper. 'In my schooldays of fifty years ago we
were taught that things were alike to and different from. Were our teachers so

4
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
terribly ignorant?' This correspondent has not realized that languages are
constantly changing. And the fact that he comments on the frequent use of
different to indicates that it has as much right to be classified as 'correct' as
different from. The notion of absolute and unchanging 'correctness' is quite
foreign to linguists. They might recognize that one type of speech appears,
through the whim of fashion, to be more socially acceptable than others. But this
does not make the socially acceptable variety any more interesting for them than
the other varieties, or the old words any better than new ones. To linguists the
language of a pop singer is not intrinsically worse (or better) than that of a duke.
They would disagree strongly with the Daily Telegraph writer who complained
that 'a disc jockey talking to the latest Neanderthal pop idol is a truly shocking
experience of verbal squalor'. Nor do linguists condemn the coining of new words.
This is a natural and continuous process, not a sign of decadence and decay. A
linguist would note with interest, rather than horror, the fact that you can have
your hair washed and set in a glamorama in North Carolina, or your car oiled at a
lubritorium in Sydney, or that you can buy apples at a fruitique in a trendy suburb
of London.

A second important way in which linguistics differs from traditional school

grammar is that linguists regard the spoken language as primary, not the written.
In the past, grammarians have over-stressed the importance of the written word,
partly because of its permanence. It was difficult to cope with fleeting utterances
before the invention of sound recording. The traditional classical education was
also partly to blame. People insisted on moulding language in accordance with the
usage of the 'best authors' of classical times, and these authors existed only in
written form. This attitude began as far back as the 2nd century BC when scholars
in Alexandria took the authors of 5th-century Greece as their models. This belief
in the superiority of the written word has continued for over two millennia.

But linguists look first at the spoken word, which preceded the written everywhere
in the world, as far as we know. Moreover, most writing systems are derived from
5
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
the vocal sounds. Although spoken utterances and written sentences share many
common features, they also exhibit considerable differences. Linguists therefore
regard spoken and written forms as belonging to different, though overlapping
systems, which must be analyzed separately: the spoken first, then the written.

A third way in which linguistics differs from traditional grammar studies is that it
does not force languages into a Latin-based framework. In the past, many
traditional textbooks have assumed unquestioningly that Latin provides a
universal framework into which all languages fit, and countless schoolchildren
have been confused by meaningless attempts to force English into foreign
patterns. It is sometimes claimed, for example, that a phrase such as for John is in
the 'dative case'. But this is blatantly untrue, since English does not have a Latin-
type case system. At other times, the influence of the Latin framework is more
subtle, and so more misleading. Many people have wrongly come to regard certain
Latin categories as being 'natural' ones. For example, it is commonly assumed that
the Latin tense divisions of past, present and future are inevitable. Yet one
frequently meets languages which do not make this neat threefold distinction. In
some languages, it is more important to express the duration of an action - whether
it is a single act or a continuing process - than to locate the action in time.

In addition, judgements on certain constructions often turn out to have a Latin

origin. For example, people frequently argue that 'good English' avoids 'split
infinitives' as in the phrase to humbly apologize, where the infinitive to apologize
is 'split' by humbly. A letter to the London Evening Standard is typical of many:
'Do split infinitives madden your readers as much as they do me?' asks the
correspondent. 'Can I perhaps ask that, at least, judges and editors make an effort
to maintain the form of our language?' The idea that a split infinitive is wrong is
based on Latin. Purists insist that, because a Latin infinitive is only one word, its
English equivalent must be as near to one word as possible. To linguists, it is
unthinkable to judge one language by the standards of another. Since split
infinitives occur frequently in English, they are as 'correct' as unsplit [Link] brief,
6
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
linguists are opposed to the notion that any one language can provide an adequate
framework for all the others. They are trying to set up a universal framework .And
there is no reason why this should resemble the grammar of Latin, or the
grammar of any other language arbitrarily selected from the thousands spoken by
human .

The Sub-Fields of Linguistics

Language is a phenomenon with many layers, from the sounds that come out of
people’s mouths to the meanings that those sounds express. The field of Linguistics is
composed of sub-fields, and most professional linguists become specialists in one or
more of those sub-fields. The major sub-fields are the following:

Phonetics: This is the study of speech sounds themselves. Phoneticians study both the
production of speech sounds by the human speech organs (articulatory phonetics) and
the properties of the sounds themselves (acoustic phonetics). Phoneticians are
concerned with such questions as the following: …what are the sounds, from among all
those that humans could make, that actually exist in the world’s languages? …what
specially defines different “accents”? …can speakers be identified by “voiceprints”?
...what are the properties of sounds that would go into computerized speech synthesis?

Phonology: This is the study of the organization of language sounds. Phonologists are
concerned with questions such as the following: …what sounds contrast in one
language but not another (answers to such questions explain why Spanish speakers have
trouble with the difference between English sh and ch, or why English speakers have
trouble with the different “u” sounds in French words like rue ‘street’ and roue
‘wheel’.)? … what sounds of a language can or cannot occur one after the other (for
example, why can words begin in st- in English but not in Spanish)? ...how do poets or
writers or song lyrics intuitively know how to match the rhythm of speech to the
abstract rhythmic pattern of a poetic or musical meter?

Morphology: This is the study of the make-up of words. Morphologists study such

7
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
questions as the following: …to what extent are ways of forming words “productive” or
not (why do we say arrival and amusement but not *arrivement and *amusal)? …what
determines when words change form (why does English have to add –er to adjectives
when making comparisons but Hebrew does not add any equivalent)? …how can we get
a computer to recognize the “root” of a word separated from its “affixes” (e.g. how
could a computer recognize walk, walks, walking, and walked as the “same” word)?

Syntax: This is the study of how phrases and sentences larger than the word are
constructed. Syntacticians address such questions as the following: …how can the
number of sentences we could utter be infinite in number even though the number of
words in any language is finite? …what is it that makes a sentence like visiting relatives
can be boring ambiguous? …why would English speakers judge a sentence like
colorless green ideas sleep furiously to be “grammatical” even though it is nonsensical?
…how can languages express the same thoughts even though they construct their
sentences in different ways (e.g. why does English I saw them there mean the same
thing as French je les y ai vus even though the order of elements in French is I them
there have seen)? …how can a computer be programmed to analyze the structure of
sentences (note that answers to this question would be crucial for machine translation
because of differences in sentence formation across languages)?

Semantics: This is the study of meaning. Semanticists answer such questions as the
following: …how do we know what words mean (how do we know where red stops and
orange starts)? what is the basis of metaphors (why is my car is a lemon a “good”
metaphor but my car is a cabbage is not)? …what makes sentences like I’m looking for
a tall student or the student I am looking for must be tall have more than one meaning?
…in a sentence like I regret that he lied, how do we know that, in fact, he did lie?
…How many meanings can be found in a sentence like three students read three books
and why do just those meanings exist?

In addition to these basic sub-fields there are a number of “hyphenated” fields of

Linguistics, which use the “tools” of the basic fields. Some of these “hyphenated”
fields are the following:
8
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Historical linguistics: This is the study of how languages change over time, addressing
such questions as why modern English is different form Old English and Middle
English or what it means to say that English and German are “more closely related” to
each other than English and French.

Sociolinguistics: This is the study of how Language is used in society, addressing such
questions as what makes some dialects more “prestigious” than others, where slang
comes from and why it arises, or what happens when two languages come together in
“bilingual” communities.

Psycholinguistics: This is the study of how language is processed in the mind,

addressing such questions as how we can hear a string of language noises and make
sense of them, how children can learn to speak and understand the language of their
environment as quickly and effortlessly as they do, or how people with pathological
language problems differ from people who have “normal” language.

Neurolinguistics: This is the study of the actual encoding of language in the brain,
addressing such questions as what parts of the brain different aspects of language are
stored in, how language is actually stored, what goes on physically in the brain when
language is processed, or how the brain compensates when certain areas are damaged.

Computational linguistics: Learning and understanding a language involves computing

the properties of language that are described in phonology, syntax, and semantics from
what is heard. The challenge of describing how this is possible connects linguistics
with computational issues at a very fundamental level. How could syntactic structures
be computed from spoken language, how are semantic relations recognized, and how
could these computational skills be acquired? Computational linguists attempt to
answer these questions.

9
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER TWO

What is Language?
Put at its simplest, a language is a set of signals by which we communicate. Human
beings are not the only species to have an elaborate communication system. Bees
communicate about honey and about the sitting of a new hive; chimpanzees can use
vocalisations to warn of danger, to signal the finding of food or to indicate attitudes to
mating; and dolphins can communicate information on food and danger by means of
whistles and clicks. It is not possible in a short book to illustrate all the similarities and
differences between human and animal communication. Nor would it prove fruitful to
discuss whether human languages developed from earlier, simpler signalling systems.
The evidence is just not available. Language seems to be as old as our species. It is not
so much that we have missing links in a chain from simple communication system to
complex human language. It is the chain that is missing and all we have are a few
intriguing links. What we can say with confidence is that even if human languages do
not differ in essence from animal communication, they certainly differ in degree.
Nothing in the animal kingdom even approximates to human language for flexibility,
complexity, precision, productivity and sheer quantity. Humans have learnt to make
infinite use of finite means.
10
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
There are a number of other general points that are worth making about language.
First, human language is not only a vocal system of communication. It can be
expressed in writing, with the result that it is not limited in time or space. Secondly,
each language is both arbitrary and systematic. BY this we mean that no two
languages behave in exactly the same way yet each language has its own set of
rules. Again.

a number of examples will clarify this point. The word for 'water' is 'eau' in French,
'uisce' in Gaelic . There is no intrinsic relationship between any of these words and
the chemical compound H2O which we know as water. The choice of word is
arbitrary, that is non-predictable, but speakers of French and Gaelic regularly and
habitually use the word from their language to refer to H2O. The same is true with
regard to sentences:

In English, we say:I am hungry.

In French:J'ai faim. (literally, I have hunger)

In Gaelic: Ta ocras orm. (literally, Be hunger on me)

There is no way in which we could say that one is more 'natural' or more 'appropriate'
than either of the others. Languages are arbitrary in their selection and combination of
items but systematic in that similar ideas are expressed in similar ways, thus:
English: I am thirsty.
French: J'ai soif. (literally, I have thirst)
Gaelic: Ta tart orm. (literally, Be thirst on me)

And finally, there are no primitive or inferior languages. People may live in the most
primitive conditions but all languages appear to be equally complex and all are
absolutely adequate to the needs of their users. It used to be believed that somewhere
in the world would be found a simple language, a sort of linguistic missing link
between animal communication and the language of technologically advanced
societies. People have been found in remote parts of Papua New Guinea and in the
Amazon Basin whose way of life has not changed for thousands of years and yet their
11
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
languages are as subtle, as highly organised, as flexible and as useful as those found in
any other part of the world.

Language and Medium

Tackling the role of language one might ask the following question "Why did language
begin?" Social chit-chat, the meaningless small talk of everyday life, may have played a key
role, as it does today: 'Hallo, how nice to see you. How are you? Isn't the weather terrible?'
Keeping in touch via talking could have replaced the friendly grooming indulged in by
primates, according to one view. It has even been called 'grooming talking'.

The use of language for persuading and influencing others has probably always been
important. Yet 'information talking' - swapping news and conveying essential commands -
may not be as basic as was once assumed. It is prominent primarily in public forms of
language, less so in private conversations, which form the bulk of day-to-day interactions.

Language can of course be used to communicate feelings and emotions, though this aspect
of language is not well developed. Humans, like other primates, can convey emotions via
screams, grunts, sobs, gestures and so on. So they need language only to confirm and
elaborate these more primitive signals.

Anyway , A language is an abstraction based on the linguistic behaviour of its users. It

is not to be equated precisely with speech because no speaker has total mastery of the
entire system and every speaker is capable of using the language inadequately through
tiredness, illness or inattention. All normal children of all races learn to speak the
language of their community, so speech has often been seen as the primary medium of
language. The abstract system which is language can also be realised as writing, and
although speech and writing have much in common, they are not to be equated or
hierarchically ordered. Many books will claim that speech is 'primary' and this is true in
a number of ways:

(a) writing is a relatively recent development in human societies .

(b) thousands of speech communities rely solely on speech .
{c) all of us speak a great deal more than we write .
12
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
(d) although we acquire speech without conscious effort, learning to read and write is
usually less spontaneous and less automatic

It is not, however, 'primary'' if we interpret 'primary' to mean 'more important'. Speech

and writing are not in competition. They are complementary and both are necessary in a
technologically advanced society. The relationship between language and its mediums
can be summed up in a diagram as shown below :

language (abstraction)

mediums (concrete)

Speech writing

FIG. The relationship between language and its mediums

The diagram indicates that, although speech and writing are in theory distinct, they can
and do influence each other. A simple example of this is that pronunciation is often
affected by spelling. A word like 'often', for example, is now frequently pronounced
with a 't' because of influence from the written medium.
Consider briefly the main differences between speech and writing, the two main
mediums in which language is realised:

Speech Writing

Composed of sounds Composed of letters /signs

Make use of intonation / pitch Make use of punctuation and other

/ rhythm. graphological like italics .

Transitory Relatively permanent

Perceived by the ear Perceived by the eye

Addressee present Addressee absent

13
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Immediate feedback Feed back delayed

Meaning helped by context , Meaning must be clear within the context

body movement , gestures

Spontaneous Not spontaneous

Such a list is sufficient to indicate that speech and writing are very different mediums.
Furthermore, they can function independently of each other. We do not have to speak a
language in order to read and write it. Nor does an ability to speak a language give a
person automatic access to writing. Yet there are links between the mediums. Most
writing systems are based on speech. As far as English is concerned, there is a rough
equivalence between sounds and letters. Thus, most people can distinguish three sounds
in the composition of the word that is written 'bat' and a different three in the word that
is written 'pen'. The equivalence between sounds and letters is not, however, very close
in English. We find, for example, only three sounds in the following words of five letters:

Knead

rough
In addition, the sounds of these words can be represented in more than one way, so that
'need' is pronounced in exactly the same way as 'knead' and 'ruff sounds exactly the
same as 'rough'. Nor are these the only mismatches that occur between English sounds
and letters. The 'ee' sound can be represented in at least six different ways:

beef

chief
deceive
even
machine
meat
and the' s' sound of 'sand' can be represented by both 's' and 'c':

ceiling

sealing

14
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Most European languages are 'alphabetic', that is, there is a link between sounds and
letters, but other links are possible. In Chinese the link is between a unit of meaning and a
character: down up man word

'Man' and 'word', however, can be combined to make 'honest':

Chinese speakers from different parts of China may pronounce these characters
differently but the written character always has the same meaning. A comparison with
European languages may be helpful here. Although English, French and Gaelic are all
alphabetic languages, they have ail borrowed the numerical symbols 1,2,3 . . . from
Arabic. The English write them 'one, two, three', the French 'un, deux, trots' and the
Irish 'aon, da tri and each group pronounces them differently. Yet all users interpret
the symbols 1,2,3 . . . in the same way.

The Components of Language

When a parrot utters words or phrases in our language, we understand them although it
is reasonably safe to assume that the parrot does not. The parrot may be able to
reproduce intelligible units from the spoken medium but has no awareness of the
abstract system behind the medium. Similarly, if we hear a stream of sounds in a
language we do not know, we may recognise by the tone of voice whether the person is
angry or annoyed but the exact meaning eludes us. To have mastery of a language,
therefore, means being able to produce an infinite number of language patterns which
are comprehensible to other users of the language, and in addition, being able to
decipher the infinity of language patterns produced by other users of the language. It is
thus a two-way process involving both production and reception.

Language Origin
What is the origin of language?
The universality of language led to the question of how language originated .
Anthropologists think that man has existed for at least one million years, but the earliest

15
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
interpreted written records are barely six thousand years old, dating from the writings of
the Sumerians of 4000 B.C. These records appear so late in the history of the
development of language that they provide no clue at all to the origin of language .
Hypotheses of divine origin, evolutionary development, and language as a human
invention have all been suggested to solve the question of how language originated .

Divine Origin:

According to the Judeo-Christian beliefs, God gave Adam the power to name all things.
Similar beliefs are found throughout the world. According to the Islamic beliefs, for
example, we read in Quran:
(31:‫>ة‬UV?‫" ) ا‬GHI‫ء آ‬GBLM‫دم ا‬P ;ّIR‫ ا?>=<; "و‬AB=>?‫ ا‬C‫; ا‬DE
"And He taught Adam the names of all things ;"(Al-Baqarah 31)
It makes sense if you believe in the Bible or in Koran, but you do not have hard
evidence. Academically speaking, we study science here, so we must depend on
tangible proofs .
In the fifth century B.C. the Greek historian Herodotus reported that the Egyptian
Pharaoh Psammetichus (664—610 B.C.) sought to determine the most primitive
“natural” language by experimental methods. The monarch was said to have placed two
infants in an isolated mountain hut, to be cared for by a servant who was cautioned not
to utter a single word in their presence on pain of death. The Pharaoh believed that
without any linguistic input the children would develop their own language and would
thus reveal the original tongue of man. Patiently the Egyptian waited for the children to
become old enough to talk. According to the story, the first word uttered was bekos.
Scholars were consulted, and it was discovered that bekos was the word for “bread” in
Phrygian, the language spoken in the province of Phrygia (the northwest corner of
modern Turkey). This ancient language, which has long since died out, was thought, on
the basis of this "experiment," to be the original language.

16
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Language as a Human Invention:

A commonly held view among the classical Greeks was that at some ancient time there
was a “legislator” who gave the correct, natural name to everything . Muslims believe
that language is not a human invention because in Quran one can read:
( 31 AB=>?‫ن" ) ا‬G<V?‫ ا‬bB]IR * ‫ن‬GD^_‫` ا‬Ia *‫ن‬P>U?‫]; ا‬IR * AB=>?‫ ا?>=<; "ا‬AB=>?‫ ا‬C‫; ا‬DE
" The Most Gracious ! It is He Who has taught the Quran .He has created man
.He has tasught him An intelligent speech " (Ar-Rahman 31)
;IU?GjE ;jIR ‫ي‬ej?‫>م ا‬j‫آ‬M‫ ا‬fjE‫>أ ور‬ji‫` ا‬jIR Ak ‫ن‬GD^_‫` ا‬Ia `Ia ‫ي‬e?‫ ا‬fE‫; ر‬LGE ‫>أ‬i‫ ا?>=<; "ا‬AB=>?‫ ا‬C‫; ا‬DE
(5‫ ـ‬1:`Il?‫;" ) ا‬Ilm ;? Gk ‫ن‬GD^_‫; ا‬IR
"Proclaim ( or Read ) In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher , Who created – A
leech-like clot: Proclaim ! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught ( The
use of Pen,- Taught man that Which he knew not ." ( Al-Alaq 1-5)

The order of words is very important here. God created man first, and then He taught
him language. Again, this may be 100% true, but we need evidence. The idea that the
earliest form of language was imitative, or “echoic,” was reiterated by many scholars up
to recent times. This hypothesis—that the earliest manifestations of language were
"cries of nature" that man shared with animals—was the view proposed by a founder of
the Romantic movement, Rousseau. Herder, the German philosopher and poet, argued
against Rousseau's theory that language developed out of the "cries of nature" which
man shared with animals by citing the fundamental differences between human
language and the instinctive cries of animals. Herder felt that language and thought are
inseparable, and that man must be born with a capacity for both. Herder's main point
was that language is a part of our essential human nature and was therefore neither
invented nor handed down as a gift. God has given us the brain, which is a very active
and creative device. We can always create new words and put this device into new
situations.
Evolutionary Development:
In trying to understand the development of language, scholars past and present have

17
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
debated the role played by the vocal tract and the ear. The linguist Philip Lieberman
suggests that "nonhuman primates lack the physical apparatus that is necessary to
produce the range of human speech." He links the development of language with the
evolutionary development of the speech production and perception apparatus. This, of
course, would be accompanied by changes in the brain and the nervous system toward
greater complexity. Lieberman’s view implies that the languages of our human
ancestors of millions of years ago may have been syntactically and phonologically
simpler than any language known to us today .
Origins of Language Theories
Otto Jespersen, a Danish linguist ("the great Dane," 18691943) collected a number of
origins of language theories, offered here for your amusement. As you read about these
theories, referred to here by their nicknames, please remember this: No matter how
comical a theory might sound to you, today's 21st-century reader, each theory had a
number of adherents at an earlier time.

The "Bow-Wow" Theory

Oral language began when people tried to imitate the sounds they heard in their
environment, especially animal sounds or calls. The primary evidence supporting this
theory, apparently, is the use of sound symbols, commonly known as onomatopoeic
words. From the environment, then, words like hiss, bow-wow, click, creak, rustle,
boom, and so on, came in to the language.
It is a fact that most languages in the world have onomatopoeic words, but it is also a
fact that onomatopoeic words vary considerably in the ways they are used to represent
sounds. It is also a fact that onomatopoeic words constitute an extremely small
percentage of the total number of words available for use in either written or oral form
in any language's vocabulary. My advice, therefore, is don't bet a prized possession on
this theory.
The "Pooh-Pooh" Theory
Advocates of this theory hypothesized that people instinctively make sounds caused by
pain, anger, and other human emotions. The primary evidence supporting this theory is,

18
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
apparently, the universal use of sounds as interjections, like gosh, or gasp. These words
are rare in most languages, and the sounds made when you suddenly inhale from fright
bear little relationship to the vowels and consonants used in the words you and I use. To
this theory, I'd say pooh-pooh.
The "Ding-Dong'' Theory
According to this theory, speech was created when people reacted to certain stimuli in
their environment and they produced, spontaneously, sounds ("oral gestures") that in
some way demonstrated that they were in tune with the environment. Some dreamlike
examples include the word mama, a word reflecting how the lips move then
approaching the mother's breast. Similarly, the words bye-bye and ta-ta demonstrate,
ostensibly, how the lips and tongue work when we wave "good-bye" to someone. Please
explain to me how the expression "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" supports
this theory.
The "Yo-He-Ho" Theory
Could it be, some have theorized, that language began when people worked together
moving large objects, producing grunts, groans, and gasps? Their continued group
efforts, with the accompanying and continuing grunts, groans, and gasps led to the
creation of chants. The primary evidence in support of this theory is presence of
prosodic elements (suprasegmental aspects of language: stress, pitch, and rhythm) in
most of the world's languages. How these chants might have led to the totality of a
complete language leaves too much to chance, in my view.

Some properties of human language and animals communication

1. Displacement Language users can talk about things and events not present in the
immediate environment. They can talk about things and places whose existence they
cannot be sure of. They can talk about hypothetical and imagined things.
2. Arbitrariness
Linguistic signs stand in an arbitrary relationship with the objects they are used to
indicate.

19
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Productivity
In response to being faced with new situations and new objects, language users may
manipulate their linguistic resources to produce new expressions and new sentences.
The potential number of utterances in any human language is thus infinite.
4. Cultural transmission Whilst in a general sense humans are born with an innate
predisposition to acquire language, they still need to grow up within a community of
other speakers to fully develop language. Language is thus passed on from one
generation to the next in a process we may call language socialization.
5. Discreteness The sounds used in language are meaningfully distinct; each sound is
treated as discrete. Example: Faced with a range of sounds produced in a continuous
stream which are all generally like the p and b sounds, a language user will interpret
each of these sounds as either p or b (or, possibly, as a non-sound of the language). In
more general terms, wherever a pronunciation falls within the physically possible range
of sounds, it will be interpreted as a linguistically specific and meaningfully distinct
sound.
6. Duality (or Double articulation) Language is organized at two levels or layers
simultaneously. At one level we have discrete sounds (which in themselves do not carry
meaning), e.g. n, b, and i, and at another level we have distinct meaning once these
sounds are combined into meaningful units, e.g. nib or bin. This duality of levels is, in
fact, one of the most economical features of human language, as it allows language
users to produce with a limited set of sounds a very large number of
sound combinations (e.g. words) which are distinct in meaning.
7. Reciprocity Any speaker/sender of a linguistic sign can also be a listener/receiver.
8. Specialization Linguistic signals do not normally serve any other type of purpose,
such as breathing or feeding.
9. Non-directionality Linguistic signals can be picked up by anyone within hearing,
even unseen.
10. Rapid fade Oral linguistic signals are produced and disappear quickly.

20
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER THREE

STRUCTURALISM

This term is usually used to describe the tradition of Wundt, de Saussure and
Bloomfield in linguistics (though it is also sometimes extended to Chomsky's
linguistics). It is probably best to approach the term "structuralism" through an attempt
to understand the concept of "structure" within this theoretical point of view. Without
an understanding of this fundamental concept, it is difficult to arrive to an
understanding of the intellectual movement referred to as structuralism. Traditionally
the major problem with the term structure has been its concreteness. The word refers to
phenomena, e.g. buildings, which are most physical in their essence. Needless to say,
structures in structuralism are not neither concrete nor physical. Structures refer to
mental models built after concrete realty. Furthermore these models are not obvious but
demand an understanding of hidden, or deep aspects, of the matter at hand. Following
this approach structuralism is an attempt to build models which can help understand or,
as structuralists, would put it explicate the materials at hand. The most difficult aspect
of structuralism is that these structures are not based on concrete or physical phenomena
as they are in biological or other sciences but based on cultural realities such kinship
organization or tales. These cultural realities are mental as are the structures which
explicate them. These structures and their structuralist models exist only in human
minds, and not in nature as e.g. a Marxist would claim.

Structuralism is an approach in academic disciplines that explores the relationships

between fundamental elements of some kind, upon which some higher mental,
linguistic, social, cultural etc. "structures" are built, through which then meaning is
produced within a particular person, system, or culture.

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), Psychophysicist who in the early 1900s was interested in the mental processes of language production

(Psycholinguistics). Wundt believed that language was not a set of utterances but consisted of the underlying rules or principles which

made it possible for speakers to produce an unlimited number of such utterances. He considered the sentence as the primary unit of

language. Speech production was the transformation of complete thought processes into sequentially organized speech segments

21
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Structuralism appeared in academic psychology for the first time in the 19th century
and then reappeared in the second half of the 20th century, when it grew to become one
of the most popular approaches in the academic fields that are concerned with analyzing
language, culture, and society. The work of Ferdinand de Saussure concerning
linguistics is generally considered to be a starting point of the 20th century structuralism

FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE

Ferdinand de Saussure (November 26, 1857 – February 22, 1913) can arguably be
called the father of modern linguistics and, in particular, of structuralism. It was he
who, as the title of this page says, prepared the grounds for those who followed. De
Saussure is best-known for his seminal Cours de linguistique générale " A Course in
General Linguistics” (1916). Contrary to popular assumptions, Ferdinand de Saussure
was not French but, in fact, Swiss

Biographical Information

Ferdinand de Saussure grew up in Geneva, Switzerland, and that's where he began his
university studies of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit . He would go on to study in Leipzig and
Berlin, getting his doctorate in 1880 from the University of Leipzig. From 1881 to
1891, de Saussure was instructor at the School of Advanced Studies in Paris. He later
returned to Geneva, where he held the offices of professor for the Indo-European
linguistics and Sanskrit from 1901 to his death in 1913 and professor for general
linguistics from 1906 to 1913.

Charles Bally and Albert Séchehaye were students of de Saussure at the University of
Geneva. In 1916, two years after his death, they used lecture notes and other materials
to reconstruct de Saussure's lectures and published them as Course in General
Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale). This book, though not written by de
Saussure himself, was to cement his reputation. An unpublished manuscript by de
Saussure, containing his original notes, was found in his house in Geneva in 1996 and
publshed as Writings on General Linguistics.

22
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Ferdinand de Saussure's Dichotomies

One of the ways Saussure revolutionized linguistics is by introducing certain key

dichotomies into the field, each one allowing for a new perspective on language.

Synchrony - Diachrony

Before Ferdinand the Saussure, there was historical linguistics, a prescriptive

perspective (now that's a tongue-twister) on language that dealt with language change
from past to present. Saussure came along and dubbed this kind of approach
diachronic, as opposed to a syncronic approach, i.e. a descriptive look at language at a
certain point in time. Note that diachrony (the examination of historical change) need
not be prescriptive in nature.

The dichotomy of synchrony and diachrony is often explained by the metaphor of time
slices. If you were to cut time into slices, with each slice being a certain moment in
time, then a synchronic approach would look only at a single slice, whereas a
diachronic one would look at several slices and compare them to each other.

This dichotomy evolves more or less naturally from Saussure's lectures, but is not
formulated in them. Just like a doctor tells you what medicine to take via prescription,
prescriptive linguistics are a normative approach concerned with what
is »right« and »wrong«. On the other hand, descriptive linguistics are only concerned
with, well, describing what is (rather than what should be). If you took grammar as
example, prescriptive grammar would give you grammar rules, whereas descriptive

23
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
grammar would tell you how people actually use it – which is often not how their
English teacher would have wanted it to be.

Langue (language) and Parole

The dichotomy of langue and parole would more accurately have to be described as
a »trichotomy«, because Ferdinand de Saussure introduced not only these two, but also
a third term, language (pronounced Frenchly).

Langue, as used by Saussure, describes the general linguistic system of a given

language, e.g. English. In contrast to Chomsky's competence, langue does not refer to a
single person's knowledge about his or her language, but to the system as a whole, the
shared knowledge in a given community. In that regard, langue also highlights the
social attributes of language.

Parole, on the other hand, can be used synonymously with Chomsky's performance.
Both terms describe a given utterance, a recording or a text. It is not possible for
linguists to directly examine langue; they can only study parole and infer from it.

Finally, language is the term Saussure uses to describe the abstract ability to learn and
communicate via language. Since this understanding of language is most commonly
associated with language aqcuisition or neurolinguistics, it lacks common ground with
the then-dichotomy of langue and parole, and it is often left out of the discussion of
these two.

Signifier - Signified

Or, as the Swiss put it, signifiant and signifié. These two terms describe the two
concepts contained within a given word, i.e. the actual combination of letters and
sounds on the one hand and the meaning of the word on the other.

24
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Saussure held that language was a system of signs. In general conversation we would
call these signs »words«, but in linguistic terms each word is a sign pointing to a certain
concept, object or relationship. Distinct signs differ in the combination of phonemes
(meaningful sounds). Each sign can be examined based on that combination or with
regard to the meaning behind it.

The signifier is the actual combination of sounds (or letters, i.e. graphemes) that
comprise a sign. It is, so to speak, the word itself. The signifier points towards the
signified, i.e. the conceptual idea behind the word, its »meaning«. At the same time, the
signified automatically makes us think of the signifier; only by putting it into words can
we talk about it.

This abstract relationship is best explained with an example, and one of the most
common examples is that of the word »tree« (see left). The signifier »tree« [tri:] points
to the general concept of a big, leafy plant-thing. Note that this concept is not specific,
but very general. One might think of a birch tree, a huge redoak, an oak sapling, or a
christmas tree upon reading or hearing the word. To use a different
example, »phone« will most probably signify a long-distance verbal communication
technology, but there's no guarantee you won't think of an old dial phone where others
think of a cell phone.

On the other hand, the image of a tree, or seeing one in real life, will cause you to think
25
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
of its signifier, whether that be the general »tree« or, if you are more knowledgeable in
foresty things, its specific name.

Arbitrariness

Saussure not only differentiated between signifier and signified, but he also
characterized the relationship between these two as arbitrary. Arbitrariness in this
context means that there is no discernable system of composing signs with regard to the
signified. To give an example, a tree is called a tree simply because some people
thought it would be a fitting name, and the rest of us agreed. The word does not look
like a tree, or sound like one, nor is there a code by which we could infer something
about the signified. If you've never seen a tree, or don't know what it's caled, then
hearing or seeing the word will give you no clue as to its meaning.

It is important to note that while the general relationship between signifier and signified
is arbitrary, the specific signifier to be used is implicitly agreed upon by cultural
convention. This agreement ensures that the same signifier is used for a specific
signified by all speakers of a given variety (»language subgroup«). There is no total
arbitrariness; you cannot simply call a tree a window and expect other people to
understand you. Language change happens when a given signifier is described by a
different or additional signifier, or if the signifier refers to a different
concept: »suddenly« (in truth, language change is a slow process) gay no longer
means »happy«, and queer is not just »strange« anymore.

Note that there are limits to the arbitrariness of sign relationships. First, if you use a
composite, then this word can often be logically seperated into its parts; the
arbitrariness stops at composition. Keep in mind, however, that this is not necessarily
so, and even if it is, it may be difficult to deduce the concept behind it: Is a »dog
biscuit« for dogs, or is it made from dogs? And a »subway« may be a way under
(or »sub«) the streets, but that won't help you much if you've never seen one. Also, and
more importantly, there is onomatopoeia. Onomatopoetic signs have an acoustic
relationship to the signified. The »cuckoo« is called thus because of its trademark wake-
26
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
up call, and if you »squelch« a bug, you have a pretty good idea of how that will sound
like.

value

The value (valeur) of a sign describes how specific a signified concept is. The common
example is the French mouton having a different value than the English translation,
since the English language differentiates between mutton and sheep. From the examples
above, cell phone has a different value than the more general phone. Value can only be
derived from a sign's position within the whole language: simply looking at the
meaning, or signified of a sign, is not enough; you must look at meaningfully related,
but distinct signs. Without knowing about mutton, the value of sheep can not be
assessed.

Syntagm – Paradigm

The last of Saussure's key dichotomies is also the one most difficult to grasp. It
concerns the way signs are combined and thus belongs to the linguistic field of
semiotics (the study of signs). The relationship between signs, according to Saussure, is
a syntagmatic one, i.e. linear and direct. If you take a sentence, we have one sign
following another, the whole sentence having a distinct meaning. In the image, »she can
go« is a meaningful sentence, as is »I may come«.

The paradigmatic relationship is between similar signs taking up the same spot in a

27
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
syntagm. In linguistics, this spot is called slot. The example sentences have three slots.
Paradigmatically related signs can now be used in the same slot in order to change the
meaning of the sentence: »I can come« or »she may go« have quite a different meaning
even though, syntagmatically, they are the same. In the image to the left, a blue arrow
separates different syntagms. You could say that you move sideways from one
syntagmatic slot to the next, whereas you scroll up or down on the paradigmatic axis for
a given slot.

Saussure and Structuralism

As the syntagm-paradigm dichotomy shows, Saussure approached language from a very

orderly, structured perspective. This was innovative for his time and made possible by
his idea of synchronic studies, which allowed linguists not to relate utterances to their
historical development, but to examine the systems underlying them and governing
their formation. That is why today, Ferdinand de Saussure is regarded as the founder of
Structuralism, a linguistic approach that does exactly that: examine parole in order to
deduce the structure of language.

Saussure's take on sentence formation, i.e. the existence of syntagmatic relationships,

seems very rigid compared to modern generative approaches. Indeed, there is no
account for flexibility or creativity in the structuralist view. Sentences adhere to pre-
existing syntagms, with these syntagms comprising a closed (or finite) system, and only
paradigms as an open category allowing for a multitude of different, if related,
utterances.

A structuralist would analyze a given sentence almost mathematically. If you have ever
heard that »there are only five (or another small number) different stories in the world«,
you have talked to a structuralist. The same goes for »if you've seen one, you've seen
them all.« These examples show that while it is possible, and possibly even worthwhile,
to break down sentences (or stories and poetry) to its basic structure, such an analysis is
certainly not comprehensive, and may even be misleading. While it may seem narrow
or confining from a modern linguistic point of view, Saussure and structuralism was a
28
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
big step forward for its time. It gave linguists new freedom to look at language, and
while it may not be the be-all, end-all of linguistic studies, looking at the underlying
structure of language can still yield fruitful results.

Saussure and Semiotics

The Cours also brought about the linguistic field of Semiotics or Semiology, i.e. the
study of signs. Saussure described language as a system of signs, and the examination
of these signs is a natural extension. Saussure's concepts of signifier, signified,
arbitrariness, value, syntagm and paradigm all originate in Saussure's lectures, and all
play a role in semiotic studies.

De Saussure can be briefed as follows :

• Study of the structure of languages in current use: synchronic as contrasted with

diachronic linguistics. De Saussure denied structure in the latter.
• La langue est un système où tout se tient.: language is a carefully built structure
of interwoven elements, amenable to systematic, precise and objective study.
(Note - contemporary with Gestalt psychology)
• De Saussure likened the language system to a game of chess:
o The state of the board is changing constantly, yet each state is fully
describable in terms of the current position of the pieces, without reference
to their prior history.
o As in chess the actual size and shape of a linguistic token is irrelevant - by
mutual agreement any sound can stand for a given concept.
o Each piece is defined by its relationship to all the others. The meaning of
any component of a language is significant in terms of other components
and of the specific ones that it happens to be juxtaposed with.
o Introduction of a new word has reverberations across all other words in the
utterance, text or the entire language.
• Study of how words are formed and how they are used together to form larger
stuctures; analyse words in terms of morphemes and phonemes (``boats'' has two
29
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
morphemes: /b t/ with 3 phonemes and /s/ with 1 phoneme). Sentences were
analysed in terms of tree diagrams.
• Distinction between la langue (language - an abstract system of patterns and
regularities) and le parole (speech - actual utterances, like moves in a particular
game of chess, or a particular performance of a piece of music) - a parrot may
speak without understanding, but a person who knows the language may choose
not to speak.
• De Saussure rejected the positivist conception of language as one of simple
correspondence of words to objects in the physical world; instead he saw
meaning arising from the relation of the signifier to the thing signified.
``Semiotics'', the study of signs and signification, was developed further by
Roman Jacobson, Charles Morris and Roland Barthes (in literary criticism), and
was soon adopted into anthropology and sociology.

BLOOMFIELD , LEONARD

Leonard Bloomfield ( b. April 1, 1887 – d. April 18, 1949) was an American linguist,
whose influence dominated the development of structural linguistics in America
between the 1930s and the 1950s. He is especially known for his book Language
(1933), which greatly influenced the subsequent course of linguistics in the United
States for the first half of the twentieth century. His work helped establish linguistics as
an independent scientific discipline. Avoiding cognitive processes and other non-
observable processes, Bloomfield applied behavioristic principles to the field rejecting
the view that the structure of language reflects the structure of thought. While his
approach established linguistics as a scientific discipline, his isolation of linguistic
phenomena from their non-linguistic mental and social environment, was a serious
limitation, as human beings are social beings and language is an essential tool of
communication. In other words , linguistics needs to be more objective if it is to

30
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
become a real scientific discipline. Also, he believed that the main target of linguistic
inquiry should be observable phenomena, rather than abstract cognitive processes.

Anyway , as it is observed above in America, linguistics began as an offshoot of

anthropology. Around the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists were eager to
record the culture of the fast-dying American-Indian tribes, and the American-Indian
languages were one aspect of this. Although often interesting, the work of those early
scholars was, for the most part, haphazard and lacking cohesion. There were no firm
guidelines for linguists to follow when they attempted to describe exotic languages.
This state of affairs changed with the publication in 1933 of Leonard Bloomfield's
comprehensive work entitled simply Language, which attempted to lay down rigorous
procedures for the description of any language.

Bloomfield considered that linguistics should deal objectively and systematically with
observable data. So he was more interested in the way items were arranged than in
meaning. The study of meaning was not amenable to rigorous methods of analysis and
was therefore, he concluded, 'the weak point in language study, and will remain so until
human knowledge advances very far beyond its present state'.

Bloomfield had immense influence - far more than the European linguists working
during this period - and the so-called 'Bloomfieldian era' lasted for more than twenty
years. During this time, large numbers of linguists concentrated on writing descriptive
grammars of unwritten languages. This involved first finding native speakers of the
language concerned and collecting sets of utterances from them. Second, it involved
analyzing the corpus of collected utterances by studying the phonological and syntactic
patterns of the language concerned, as far as possible without recourse to meaning.
Items were (in theory) identified and classified solely on the basis of their distribution
within the corpus.

In the course of writing such grammars, a number of problems arose which could not be
solved by the methods proposed by Bloomfield. So an enormous amount of attention
was paid to the refinement of analytical techniques. For many, the ultimate goal of
31
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
linguistics was the perfection of discovery procedures - a set of principles which would
enable a linguist to 'discover' (or perhaps more accurately, 'uncover') in a foolproof way
the linguistic units of an unwritten language. Because of their overriding interest in the
internal patterns or 'structure' of the language, such linguists are sometimes labelled
'structuralists'.

The Bloomfieldians laid down a valuable background of linguistic methodology for

future generations. But linguistics also became very narrow. Trivial problems of
analysis became major controversial issues, and no one who was not a linguist could
understand the issues involved. By around 1950 linguistics had lost touch with other
disciplines and become an abstruse subject of little interest to anyone outside it. It was
ready for a revolution..

His thought was mainly characterized by its behavioristic principles, its insistence on
formal procedures for the analysis of language data, as well as a general concern to
provide linguistics with rigorous scientific methodology.

In order to separate linguistics from any mentalistic theory, Bloomfield rejected the
classical view that the structure of language reflects the structure of thought. He
believed that spoken language is the only object of study and applied different analytic
procedures to study language. He showed how to analyze spoken language, dividing it
into its smallest units—phonemes (“vocal features”), morphemes (“stimulus-reaction
features”), and combinations of those units that make higher lexical structures.
Bloomfield also emphasized that linguists need to study spoken language rather than
documents written in a language, because language changes over time. Besides Edward
Sapir, Bloomfield is often regarded as the most prominent American linguist of the first
half of the twentieth century. His scientific approach to the study of language
emphasized observable phenomena and the spoken language rather than abstract
mentalistic processes, which helped bring linguistics closer to an exact science.

Although his use of descriptive methods was not widely accepted, Bloomfield’s ideas
were widely used. In the period after the publication of his Language, up to the mid-
32
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1950s, Bloomfield was considered the highest authority in the study of language.
Together with his students, among others Bernard Bloch, Zellig Harris, and Charles
Hockett, he established the school of thought that has come to be known as American
structural linguistics.

After the 1950s, however, Bloomfield’s influence waned, as logical positivism ceased
to be the main preoccupation of social sciences. Linguists again turned to more
mentalistic attitudes and non-observable cognitive processes. With the emergence of the
generative grammar approach to linguistics initiated by Noam Chomsky in the 1960s,
structural linguistics completely vanished from the linguistic mainstream.

NOAM CHOMSKY [b. 1928].

When we study human language, we are approaching what some might call the
"human essence," the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know,
unique to man.

Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind

So the obvious hypothesis is that our language is the result of the unfolding of a
genetically determined program.

Noam Chomsky, Interview to KBS TV, Kyoto, Japan

Language serves essentially for the expression of thought.

Noam Chomsky, Language and Responsibility

In my opinion one should not speak of a "relationship" between linguistics and

psychology, because linguistics is part of psychology.

Noam Chomsky, Language and Responsibility

33
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The child, placed in a linguistic community, is presented with a set of sentences that
is limited and often imperfect, fragmented, and so on. In spite of this, in a very short
time he succeeds in "constructing," in internalizing the grammar of his language,
developing knowledge that is very complex, ...

Noam Chomsky, Language and Responsibility

An American linguist and a political writer, born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

and introduced to philology by his father, a scholar of Hebrew. At the U. of
Pennsylvania he studied under the structural linguist Zellig Harris. After gaining his
Ph.D. in 1955 (dissertation: ‘Transformational Analysis’), he taught modern languages
and LINGUISTICS at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he became full
professor in 1961. He was appointed Ferrari P. Ward Professor of Foreign Languages
and Linguistics in 1976. During this period, he became a leading figure in US
linguistics, replacing a mechanistic and behaviouristic view of language (based on the
work of Bloomfield) with a mentalistic and generative approach.

His first book, Syntactic Structures, published in 1957, outlines his system of
transformational grammar. This grammar consists of surface structures - the sounds and
words in a sentence - and deep structures that contain the meaning of the sentence. The
meaning is converted by a transformation - any of an ordered set of rules - to a surface
structure. Chomsky originated such concepts as TRANSFORMATIONAL-
GENERATIVE GRAMMAR (TGG), transformational grammar (TG), and generative
grammar. To Chomsky , a grammar which consists of a set of statements or rules
which specify which sequences of a language are possible, and which impossible, is a
generative grammar. Chomsky, therefore, initiated the era of generative linguistics. In
his words, a grammar will be 'a device which generates all the grammatical sequences
of a language and none of the ungrammatical ones'. Such a grammar is perfectly
explicit, in that nothing is left to the imagination. The rules must be precisely
formulated in such a way that anyone would be able to separate the well-formed
sentences from the ill-formed ones, even if they did not know a word of the language

34
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
concerned. The particular type of generative grammar proposed by Chomsky was a so-
called transformational one . So his definition of GRAMMAR differs from both
traditional and structuralist theories, in that he is concerned not only with a formal
descriptive system but also with the linguistic structures and processes at work in the
mind. He sees such structures as universal and arising from a genetic predisposition to
language. Features drawn from mathematics include transformation and generation. As
proposed in 1957, transformational rules were a means by which one kind of sentence
(such as the passive The work was done by local men) could be derived from another
kind (such as the active Local men did the work). Any process governed by such rules
was a transformation (in the preceding case the passivization transformation) and any
sentence resulting from such rules was a transform. In Chomsky's terms, previous
grammars had only phrase-structure rules, which specified how sentences are structured
out of phrases and phrases out of words, but had no way of relating sentences with
different structures (such as active and passive).

Such earlier grammars were also concerned only with actual attested sentences and not
with all the potential sentences in a language. An adequate grammar, however, in his
view, should generate (that is, explicitly account for) the indefinite set of acceptable
sentences of a language, rather than the finite set to be found in a corpus of texts.
Aspects (1965) presented what is known as his ‘standard theory’, which added the
concepts deep structure and surface structure: deep or underlying forms which by
transformation become surface or observable sentences of a particular language. In this
theory, a passive was no longer to be derived from an active sentence, but both from a
common deep structure which was neither active nor passive. Comparably, sentences
with similar surface structures, such as John is easy to please and John is eager to
please were shown to have different deep structures. The standard theory distinguishes
between a speaker's competence (knowledge of a language) and performance (actual
use of a language), Chomskyan grammar being concerned with competence, not
performance. Chomsky pointed out that anyone who knows a language must have
internalized a set of rules which specify the sequences permitted in their language. In

35
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
his opinion, a linguist's task is to discover these rules, which constitute the grammar of
the language in question. Chomsky therefore used the word 'grammar' interchangeably
to mean, on the one hand, a person's internalized rules, and on the other hand, a
linguist's guess as to these rules. This is perhaps confusing, as the actual rules in .a
person's mind are unlikely to be the same as a linguist's hypothesis, even though there
will probably be some overlap.
Anyway, It has been observed that Chomsky has shifted attention away from detailed
descriptions of actual utterances, and started asking questions about the nature of the
system which produces the output . According to Chomsky, Bloomfieldian linguistics
was both far too ambitious and far too limited in scope. It was too ambitious in that it
was unrealistic to expect to be able to lay down foolproof rules for extracting a perfect
description of a language from a mass of data. It was too limited because it concentrated
on describing sets of utterances which happened to have been spoken.
A grammar, he claimed, should be more than a description of old utterances. It should
also take into account possible future utterances. In short, the traditional viewpoint that
the main task of linguists is simply to describe a corpus of actual utterances cannot
account for the characteristic of productivity, or creativity, as Chomsky preferred to call
it.
Chomsky is widely considered to be the most influential figure in linguistics in the later
20c and is probably the linguist best known outside the field. His views on language
and grammar are controversial and responses to them have ranged from extreme
enthusiasm, sometimes verging on fanaticism, through a sober and reflective interest, to
fierce rejection by some traditionalist, structuralist, and other critics.
It is also known that Chomsky not only initiated the era of generative grammars but
redirected attention towards language universals. He pointed out that as all humans are
rather similar, their internalized language mechanisms are likely to have important
common properties. He argued that linguists should concentrate on finding elements
and constructions that are available to all languages, whether or not they actually occur.
Above all, they should seek to specify the universal bounds or constraints within which
human language operates.

36
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
BEHAVIOURISM AND MENTALISM

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES Introduction During the past forty years

there have been two major theories of language learning by children. But there are two
major schools of thought known as, 'Behaviorists' and 'Mentalists'. One school is of the
view that language learning is entirely the product of experience and that our
environment affects all of us. Others have suggested that everybody has an innate
language learning mechanism. Let us discovery with the help of these two schools of
thought that how do children acquire their mother tongue. How do they grow up
linguistically and learn to handle the stylistics varieties of their mother tongue? How
much of the linguistics system they are born with and how much do they discover from
their exposure to language?

a) The Behaviorist School

B.F. Skinner and his followers are known as behaviorist. According to them language
learning is process known as operant conditioning. Conditioned Behavior is behavior
which is the result of repeated training. Operant means that it is voluntary behavior, it is
result of learner's own free will, and it is not forced by any outside person or thing. The
learner demonstrates the new behavior first as a response to a system of reward or
punishment, and finally as an automatic response. In order to prove their theory they
conducted an experiment. EXPERIMENT They put a rat in a box containing a bar. If it
presses a bar, it is rewarded with a pellet of food. Nothing forces it to press the bar. The
first time it probably does so accidentally. When the rat finds that the food arrives, it
presses the bar again. Eventually it finds that if it is hungry it can obtain food by
pressing the bar. Then task is made more difficult. The rat only gets rewarded if it
presses the bar while a light is flashing. At first rat is puzzled. Eventually it learns the
trick. Then the task is made more difficult again. This time the rat only receives food if
it presses the bar a certain number of times. After initial confusion it learns to do this
also. And so on, and so on. Operant condition can be summarized thus STIMULUS
RESPONSE REINFORCEMENT REPETITION In operant conditioned, reinforcement
plays a vital role. There are two kinds of reinforcement:
37
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
A) Positive Reinforcement Praise and rewards are positive reinforcement. Experiments
have shown that positive reinforcement works much better in bringing about good
learning.

B) Negative Reinforcement Rebukes and punishments are negative reinforcement. The

behaviorists also claim that we learn language by imitation and association. For
example, a young child hears the word \"water\" with the actual thing. He then makes
this sound himself, imitating what he has heard. His parents are pleased that he has
learnt another word and so his response is reinforced. The thoughts of behaviorist
school can well be understood according to following tree diagram. The Behaviorist
School Language learning is Positive Imitation Operant conditioning and and Negative
Association Reinforcement

Noam Chomsky explicitly rejects the behaviorists' position that language should be
thought of as verbal behavior, arguing that it should be thought of as knowledge held by
those who use language. Chomsky suggests that the learner of any language has an
inbuilt learning capacity for language that enables each learner to construct a kind of
personal theory or set of rules about the language based on very limited exposure to
language.

b) The Mentalist School

Chomsky and his mentalist followers claim that a child learns his first language
through cognitive learning. They claim that language is governed by rules, and is not a
haphazard thing, as Skinner and his followers would claim. According to Chomsky, the
child is born with a mental capacity for working out the underlying system to the
jumble of sounds which he hears. He constructs his own grammar' and imposes it on all
the sounds reaching his brain. This mental grammar is part of his cognitive framework,
and nothing he hears is stored in his brain until he has matched it against what he
already knows and found a 'correct' place for it within this framework. Chomsky argues
that language is so complex that it is almost incredible that it can be acquired by a child
in so short a time. He says that a child is born with some innate mental capacity which
38
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
helps the child to process all the language which he hears. This is called the Language
Acquisition Device, and he saws it as comprising a special area of the brain whose only
function was the processing of language. This function, he argues, is quite separate
from any other mental capacity which the child has. When Chomsky talks about 'rules',
he means the unconscious rules in a child's mind these rules enables him to make
grammatical sentences in his own language. Chomsky does not mean that a child can
describes these rules explicitly. For example, a four or five year old child can produce a
sentence like I have done my work; he can do that because he has a 'mental grammar'
which enables him to form correct present perfect structures and also to use such
structures in the right and appropriate situations. But he is unable to define the
formation of present perfect tense. The thoughts of Mentalists can well be understood
with the help of the following tree diagram. The Mentalists School Language learning
Input Mental grammar Is an (own rules) Innate ability LAD Grammatical Output
sentences Both the schools have said significant things, yet neither is perfect. The
mentalists' emphasis on the rule-learning is over enthusiastic, and the behaviorists'
rejection of meaning is entirely unjust. Language acquisition seems to be a process both
of analogy and application, both nature and nurture. The differences between the
empiricists approach and that of the rationalist can be summarized in the following
manner:

39
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion

This comparative study makes one thing clear: nature and nurture, analogy and
application, practice and exposure are important. Innate potentialities lay down the
framework. Within this framework, there is wide variation depending on the
environment. The kind of language that children ultimately grow into shaped by the
culture-based responses of the family, if not in a way that can be called imitation, then
at least in terms of things the child chooses to do with its language. But we should be
wary of the idea that all children experience the same practices and follow the same
development path as they grow into their language. Having been exposed to a small
number of utterances, the child begins to extract the principles underlying the utterances
and compose new utterances of his own. This is the way every child grammar to
communicate in an intelligent manner. He makes mistakes and produces ungrammatical
sentences. His elders correct him; he feeds the information into his mini-grammar,
modifies some of the rules, and again produces new utterances. In a period of about four
years, he is able to master and internalize all the essential rules of language. This is a
proof that a child's own rules of grammar are more important to him than mere
imitation

Systemic Functional Grammar

Systemic functional grammar is a grammar model developed by Michael Halliday in

the 1960s. It is part of a broad social semiotic approach to language called systemic
linguistics. The term "systemic" refers to the view of language as "a network of
systems, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning"; The model is systemic in
the sense that it sees grammar as a non-arbitrarily motivated network (system) of
potential choices. It is functional in the sense that it attempts to explicate the
communicative implications (function) of a selection within one of these systems.
The term "functional" indicates that the approach is concerned with the contextualized,
practical uses to which language is put, as opposed to formal grammar, which focuses
on compositional semantics, syntax and word classes such as nouns and verbs.
Systemic functional grammar is concerned primarily with the choices the grammar
40
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
makes available to speakers and writers. These choices relate speakers' and writers'
intentions to the concrete forms of a language. Traditionally the "choices" are viewed in
terms of either the content or the structure of the language used. In SFG, language is
analysed in three different ways (strata): semantics, phonology, and lexicogrammar.
SFG presents a view of language in terms of both structure (grammar) and words
(lexis). The term "lexicogrammar" describes this combined approach..
In general, functional approaches to grammar can be differentiated from formal or
generative approaches to grammar by their focus on the communicative, as opposed to
cognitive, aspect of language. The roots of Systemic Functional Grammar lie in
sociology and anthropology rather than psychology and computer science.

Organisation of the Grammatical Model

Systemic Functional Grammar divides the social purpose of language into three
semantic prongs which the grammar interleaves. Language is seen as a representation of
reality, transmitted for a specific purpose, and structured as a message. Halliday calls
these three aspects metafunctions, and uses them to explain the logic behind wording
choices. According to Systemic Functional Grammar:

The ideational metafunction of a clause is the happening it encodes - the 'who did what
to whom' of the utterance. Analysed this way, a clause consists of a Process and some
number of Participants in it. The participants are given functional labels depending on
their role in the clause. Thus: "The duke gave my aunt that teapot." represents a Process
of material action, 'giving'. This process has a Participant functioning as Actor ('doer'),
the duke, a participant functioning as Goal ('done to'), the teapot, and a participant
functioning as Beneficiary ('done for'), my aunt.

The interpersonal metafunction of a clause is the interaction between speakers it

encodes. Distinctions of mood, tense and positive/negative fall under this metafunction.
Thus, 'Did the duke give my aunt that teapot?' involves the same process and
participants, but with a different communicative purpose - the speaker requests
information instead of giving it. Similarly, tense distinctions position events relative to
41
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
the speakers' frame of reference - past, future or present; while 'polarity'
(positive/negative) distinctions position them according to the speakers' expectations.

The textual metafunction of a clause is the way it encodes its role in a greater span of
communication - a text. Links between what has been said before and what is being said
presently inhere in the order and intonation of each clause

The notion of "function" in FG generalizes the standard distinction of grammatical

functions such as subject and object. Constituents (parts of speech) of a linguistic
utterance are assigned three types or levels of functions:

1. Semantic function (Agent, Patient, Recipient, etc.), describing the role of

participants in states of affairs or actions expressed
2. Syntactic functions (Subject and Object), defining different perspectives in the
presentation of a linguistic expression
3. Pragmatic functions (Theme and Tail, Topic and Focus), defining the
informational status of constituents, determined by the pragmatic context of the
verbal interaction.

Functional grammar has a number of features which make it suitable for studying
language variation.

• Firstly, it is based on the notion of choice - it models grammar as a set of options

(a repertoire or resource). This means that it presents grammar to teachers and
students as a set of tools they can use rather than a set of rules about what not to
do.
• Secondly, functional grammar looks at the way in which grammar is used to
construct texts in their context of use - it is concerned in other words with real
language not just with the made up examples of language that can be found in
many language tests, exercises, work sheets or traditional grammar books. Its
application is not restricted to the analysis of isolated sentences - it explains the
way in which sentences are structured to construct whole texts such as stories,

42
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
essays and reports which students learn to read and write in primary and
secondary school.
• Thirdly, functional grammar is concerned with the way in which grammar is
organised to make meaning. Because it is concerned with meaning, it can be
related directly to the concerns of teachers and students in all subject areas.

Overall, functional grammar is concerned with the way that the different kinds of
meaning that contribute to grammatical structure are comprehensively addressed. It is
concerned with resources for

• Anlysing experience - what is going on,

• Anlysing interaction - who is communicating with whom
• Anlysing the ways in which messages are constructed

In order to model grammar as a context sensitive, meaning-making resource, functional

grammar looks closely at the different contributions made by clause, phrase and group
and word structure to a text.

• At the clause level, functional grammar deals with resources for

o analysing experience (Process type, Participants and Circumstances),
o participating in communication (mood and modality)
o packaging information (theme and cohesion)

In addition it is concerned with resources for combining clauses into clause complexes
(sentences).

• At the phrase and group level, functional grammar deals with resources for
o constructing Participants (noun groups)
o assessing events and setting them in time (verb groups).
o modifying events (adverb groups)
o qualifying Processes (preposition phrases)
43
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
• At the word class level functional grammar is concerned with resources for
adapting words to clause, phrase and group structures
• Within words, functional grammar is concerned with resources for analyzing
morphemes (inflection and derivation).

Because the study of language structure has not been an explicit part of teacher
education for some decades, a technical approach to language is unfamiliar to many
teachers. However the resources described above are regularly used by speakers and
writers to make meaning in speech and writing. Bringing these resources to
consciousness provides a powerful tool for teachers and students to use in
comprehending and composing texts within contexts.

Halliday's theory sets out to explain how spoken and written texts construe meanings
and how the resources of language are organised in open systems and functionally
bound to meanings. This is a radically different theory of language from Noam
Chomsky's. It does not try to address Chomsky's thesis that there is a "finite rule system
which generates all and only the grammatical sentences in a language .Instead of trying
to determine all closed systems and listing all words of a language, Halliday's theory
tries to determine no closed system nor set of resources. In SFG, every system can be
expanded with new resources and a system is a "small set" of resources that is closer to
the grammatical than the lexical end of the lexicogrammatical continuum. This means
that no grammatical system is not expansible by the use of a new resource and, instead
of postulating that a sentence is grammatical or ungrammatical, SFG documents the
relative frequencies of choices and assumes these relative frequencies reflect the
probability that each resource will be chosen. Thus, SFG dos not describe language as a
finite rule system, but rather as a system realised by instantiations which is continuously
expanded by the very instantiations that realise it and which is continuously reduced
with the birth of newer generations and the death of older ones.

Another way to understand the difference in concerns between functional and

generative grammars is through Chomsky's claim that "linguistics is a sub-branch of
44
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
psychology". Halliday investigates linguistics as though it were a sub-branch of
sociology. SFG therefore pays much more attention to pragmatics and discourse
semantics, rather than an easily computable formalism

DECIDING WHERE TO BEGIN

Language is an enormous and very complex phenomenon. If one wants to study it,
where should one begin? People tend to argue about this. Let us therefore consider the
various possibilities. First, however, it may be useful to discuss why people disagree
over the best way to go about it.
Language as a game
Language can be regarded as a complicated type of game, assuming a 'game' to be 'a
specified type of activity governed by rules'. The various facets involved in a game can
show why there is some argument when linguists try to decide where to begin studying
language.
In a typical game, such as chess or soccer, anyone trying to find out how the game is
played has to deal with three broad types of question: the aims of the game, the
principles of interaction, and the permitted moves.
Under the aims of the game, comes the fundamental question: what are people trying to
do when they play it? In soccer, the players are trying to kick the ball into a net in order
to score. The 'aims' of language involve not only the broad functions such as conveying
information, expressing emotion, keeping in touch socially, and so on), but also more
specific purposes for which language can be used, such as:
Obtain information: Where's the parrot?
Make someone do something: Shut the door!
Make a promise: I'll pay you next week.
The principles of interaction involve questions such as: How many people can play? Do
they all play at the same time, or do they take it in turns? If so, how does one know
when a person's turn is over? Within language, people take it in turns to speak, and each
language tends to have certain socially prescribed 'turns'. For example, in English, a
greeting is usually followed by another greeting:
45
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

John: Good morning, Felicity.

Felicity: Why hello there, John.
Under permitted moves, linguists explore which 'moves' are permitted, and which not.
In chess, some pieces can move across the board only in straight lines, and others only
diagonally. With regard to language, there are rules underlying well-formed sequences
of a language. In English, for example, verbs precede their objects, as in The cat ate the
canary, rather than *The cat the canary ate which would be the standard order in, say,
Turkish.
All of these aspects of a game are important, and no one could play the game without
some acquaintance with them. In language also, all these facets are relevant, and native
speakers have a firm knowledge of them.
When dealing with language, one might at first sight want to tackle these facets in the
order listed above. But in practice, there is a problem. It is easier to specify the basic
permitted moves than it is to give an equivalent account of the aims and principles of
interaction, which are closely interwoven with the social structures of the society
involved. For this reason, the majority of professional linguists prefer to begin with
those aspects of language which can most easily be detached from the social
background. They therefore start with the permitted moves or, in linguistic terminology,
the grammar of the language. They consider this to be the core of linguistic study, and
expect to add on its interrelationships with society at a later stage. A knowledge of the
linguistic resources of a language is often a prerequisite to an intelligent discussion of
how these resources are used.
However , we shall be moving from the basic linguistic core outwards, in other words,
we shall start from the centre of the circle diagram shown in and move out to the edges
later. But a decision as to where to begin does not necessarily imply an overall order of
importance: people put on their socks before their shoes, but they are not necessarily
attributing greater importance to socks than to shoes.

46
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Universal and particular

Controversy does not necessarily cease even among those who agree that it is useful to
begin studying language by looking at the three central components which make up a
grammar: phonology, syntax and semantics (Figure 4.1). In general, people fall into one
of two categories. On the one hand, there are those who want to study language because
they are interested in knowing more about one particular language. Into this first
category might come a teacher of French, or a missionary who had discovered a new
South American language, or a person who has an American-Indian great-grandmother
and wants to know more about Nootka. On the other hand, there are those who want to
find out more about language as such. Into this second category come the majority of
professional linguists and other social scientists - people such as sociologists,
psychologists and anthropologists, who need to know about the phenomenon of
language as a whole.

PHONOLO SYNTAX SEMANTI

GY Sound Arrangement CS
patterns and make-up of Meaning

These two groups of people are likely to write very different types of grammar, and to
view linguistics quite differently. Those interested in a particular language will be
trying to write a perfect grammar of that language (or one section of it), usually by
making a detailed study of the patterns of that language alone. For example, they might
be interested in the relationship of French vowels to one another. It would be quite
irrelevant to them whether this vowel system coincided with that of any other language,
and such people would probably pick those aspects of linguistics to help them which
seemed to be best suited to the phenomenon they were examining, even if it meant
choosing an unfashionable or unknown model of grammar. They are likely to consider
that the chief role of linguistics is the development of analytic techniques which will
enable them to fulfil their chosen task.

47
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Those interested in language as a whole, on the other hand, will be trying to lay down a
grammatical framework which will be suitable for all languages. Although such people
may well write a grammar of a particular language, they will be doing this in order to
test out a theory with wider implications, since one way of testing a proposed universal
framework is to see whether it will fit any given language. If it does not, then it must be
amended or abandoned. This type of person might also be working on French vowels,
but they would be interested not so much in the vowels themselves, as in finding a
framework which could 'capture' their peculiarities alongside those of other languages.
A framework which was perfect for French, but was inadequate for, say, Greek, Swahili
and Icelandic, would have to be abandoned.
Unfortunately, in recent years, extremists from each of these groups of people have
spent an unnecessary amount of time attacking one another. Those interested in a
particular language have argued that those searching for a universal framework are too
theoretical and irrelevant to everyday life. One hears comments such as, 'Modern
linguistics doesn't help me very much when it comes to teaching my Spanish class', and
'I'm doing a thesis on fish imagery in Shakespeare, and I can't see where linguistics fits
in'. The 'universalists' counter this criticism by saying that the 'particularists' are narrow-
minded people who simply like collecting facts, and one hears comments such as, 'I
wish she'd stop making lists of irregular verbs in Arawak and get on with something
useful'.
In fact, the universalist and particularist views are complementary, not contradictory.
No one can work seriously on a universal framework unless they have at their disposal a
considerable amount of information about individual languages against which to test
their theories. Conversely, the heaping up of masses of information about diverse
languages reduces linguistics to the level of a hobby such as stamp-collecting unless
some attempt is made to relate the miscellaneous facts within a wider framework.
Moreover, it is perhaps wrong to assume that anyone interested in linguistics must fall
into either the particularist or the universalist category. Nowadays, a growing number of
people are carrying out both types of study. In addition, those who start out with an
interest in a particular language ideally move on to becoming interested in language as

48
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
such. The progression from a predilection for, say, German word formation or French
vowels, to a desire to help develop a universal grammatical framework can be likened
to the possible progression of an intelligent motor mechanic, who is likely to move from
a wish to service their own car, to an interest in how cars work in general. A person
may, initially, want to learn only how to fit a new fan-belt onto a vintage Rolls-Royce.
This may lead them to an interest in identifying and labelling the various components of
the car's engine, and an understanding of how they fit together. Eventually, they may
become curious as to how the Rolls-Royce compares with other cars, and to start
looking into the theory of the internal-combustion engine as a whole.
The progression from the particular to the universal is perhaps more important for the
linguist than for the motor mechanic. Anyone working seriously on a language is likely
to need to know whether the phenomena they meet are unique or commonplace. To take
a trivial example, someone working on English may be intrigued by the division of
nouns into those that can be counted, as in six hens, three cabbages, and those that
cannot: we do not normally say six butters, or three soaps (unless we mean three types
of butter or soap). We have to say some butter, some soap, or use a word expressing a
quantity, as in six pounds of butter, three bars of soap. How widespread is this
phenomenon in the languages of the world? Is English exceptional in this respect? Or is,
say, Igbo, exceptional in not having such a distinction? Furthermore, if a language does
make this distinction, are there any other related characteristics which are likely to
follow in consequence? These are the types of question which, in the short run, are
likely to lead someone to study language in a wider way.
In the long run, a 'universal grammar' (if one could ever be written) would have
enormously important implications for our knowledge of the human race. Such a
grammar might well reflect innate properties of the human mind. In the opinion of
Chomsky, 'There are very deep and restrictive principles that determine the nature of
human language and are rooted in the specific character of the human mind'.
However, the idea of finding a fixed universal grammar has been slowly fading, as
noted in the last chapter. Trying to find absolute constraints may be as pointless as
trying to find if there is a limit on the height of human beings. It does not matter if a

49
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
man ten feet tall were to be found. What matters is understanding the normal range.
Similarly, with linguistics, a search for abnormalities may not be as useful as finding
out how most languages behave.
Meanwhile, ideas on any universal framework are in a continuous state of flux,
particularly those of Chomsky, still the most widely worked-on theory. It is quite
unrealistic to expect everyone to be aware of the latest proposed amendments, which
change all the time.
But it is important for anyone studying linguistics to have a basic background
knowledge of the techniques of descriptive linguistics, particularly the procedures and
terminology used in the identification of linguistic units. The use of such techniques is
essential if one is faced with a hitherto unknown, unwritten language, where the flow of
speech must be broken down into segments. They can be of value in other
circumstances also. Language teachers, for example, may gain new insights into the
languages they teach if they approach them as if they were totally new, unwritten
languages. Such people need to know the answers to such questions as: 'How can one
identify words?', 'What is a word?', 'Can a word be split up into smaller segments? If so,
by what criteria can one do this?', 'How is it possible to identify the basic sounds in any
language?', and so on. These and similar questions will be dealt with in the next few
chapters.

50
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER FOUR
Phonetics
The general study of the characteristics of speech sounds is called phonetics. Our
primary interest will be in articulatory phonetics, which is the study of how speech
sounds are made, or' articulated'. Other areas of study within phonetics are acoustic
phonetics, which deals with the physical properties of speech as sound waves 'in the air',
and auditory (or perceptual) phonetics, which deals with the perception, via the ear, of
speech sounds. One other area, called forensic phonetics, has applications in legal cases
involving speaker identification and the analysis of recorded utterances.
Articulation: voiced and voiceless
In articulatory phonetics, we investigate how speech sounds are produced using
the fairly complex oral equipment we have. We start with the air pushed out by the
lungs up through the trachea (the 'windpipe') to the larynx. Inside the larynx are your
vocal cords which take two basic positions.
(1)When the vocal cords are spread apart, the air from the lungs passes between them
unimpeded. Sounds produced in this way are described as voiceless.
(2)When the vocal cords are drawn together, the air from the lungs repeatedly pushes
them apart as it passes through, creating a vibration effect. Sounds produced in this way
are described as voiced.
The distinction can be felt physically if you place a fingertip gently on the top of your
'Adam's apple' (i.e. part of your larynx) and produce sounds like Z-Z-Z-Z or V-V-V-V.
Because these are voiced sounds, you should be able to feel some vibration. Keeping
your fingertip in the same position, make the sounds S-S-S-S or F-F-F-F. Because these
are voiceless sounds, there should be no vibration. Another trick is to put a finger in
each ear, not too far, and produce the voiced sounds (e.g. Z-Z-Z-Z) to hear some
vibration, whereas no vibration will be heard if the voiceless sounds (e.g. S-S-S-S) are
produced in the same manner

51
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Place of articulation
Once the air has passed through the larynx, it comes up and out through the mouth
and/or the nose. Most consonant sounds are produced by using the tongue and other
parts of the mouth to constrict, in some way, the shape of the oral cavity through which
the air is passing. The terms used to describe many sounds are those which denote the
place of articulation of the sound: that is, the location, inside the mouth, at which the
constriction takes place. What we need is a slice of head. If you crack a head right down
the middle, you will be able to see which parts of the oral cavity are crucially involved
in speech production. To describe the place of articulation of most consonant sounds,
we can start at the front of the mouth and work back. We can also keep the voiced-
voiceless distinction in mind and begin using the symbols of the phonetic alphabet to
denote specific sounds. These symbols will be enclosed within square brackets.[ ]

Bilabials. These are sounds formed using both (= bi) upper and lower lips (= labia).
The initial sounds in the words pat, bat and mat are all bilabials. They are represented
by the symbols [p], which is voiceless, and [b] and [m], which are voiced. The [w]
sound found at the beginning of way, walk and world is also a bilabial.

52
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Labiodentals. These are sounds formed with the upper teeth and the lower lip. The
initial sounds of the words fat and vat and the final sounds in the words safe and save
are labiodentals. They are represented by the symbols [f], which is voiceless, and [v],
which is voiced. Notice that the final sounds of laugh and cough, and the initial sound
of photo, despite the spelling differences, are all pronounced as [f].
Dentals. These sounds are formed with the tongue tip behind the upper front teeth. The
term interdental is sometimes used to describe a manner of pronunciation with the
tongue tip between (=inter) the upper and lower teeth. The initial sound of thin and the
final sound of bath are both voiceless dentals. The symbol used for this sound is [e],
usually referred to as 'theta'. It's the symbol you would use for the first and last sounds
in the phrase three teeth.
The voiced dental is represented by the symbol [6], usually called 'eth'. This sound is
found in the pronunciation of the initial sound of common words like the, there, then
and thus. It's also the middle sound in feather and the final sound of bathe.
Alveolars. These are sounds formed with the front part of the tongue on the alveolar
ridge, which is the rough, bony ridge immediately behind the upper teeth. The initial
sounds in top, dip, sit, zoo and nut are all alveolars. The symbols for these sounds are
quite easily remembered - [t], [d], [s], [z], [n]. Of these, [t] and [s] are voiceless,
whereas [d], [z] and [n] are voiced.
It may be clear that the final sounds of the words bus and buzz have to be [s] and
[z] respectively, but what about the final sound of the word raise? The spelling is
misleading because the final sound in this word is voiced, and so must be represented
by [z]. Notice also that despite the different spelling of knot and not, both of these
words are pronounced with [n] as the initial sound.
Other alveolars are the [1] sound found at the beginning of words such as lap and lit,
and the [r] sound at the beginning of right, write and rip.
Arveo-palatals. If you feel back behind the alveolar ridge, you should find a hard part
in the roof of your mouth. This is called the palate. Sounds which we produced with the
tongue at the very front of the palate, near the alveolar ridge, are called alveo-palatals.
Examples are the initial sounds in the words shout and child, which are voiceless.

53
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Although there are two letters in the spelling of 'sh' and 'ch', the sounds are represented
by the single phonetic symbols [s] and [c] respectively. The mall mark above the
symbols is called 'wedge'. So, the word shoe-brush begins and ends with the voiceless
alveo-palatal sound [s] and the word church begins and ends with the voiceless alveo-
palatal sound [c].

One of the voiced alveo-palatal sounds, represented by the symbol [z], is not very
common in English, but can be found as the middle consonant sound in words like
treasure and pleasure, or the final sound in rouge. The other voiced alveo-palatal sound
is represented as [j] and is the initial sound in words like/o&e and [Link] •word judge
and the name George both begin and end with the sound [J],despite the obvious
differences in spelling.
One sound which is produced with the tongue in the middle of the palate is the
[y] sound to be found at the beginning of words like you and yet. This sound is usually
described as a palatal.
Velars. Even further back in the roof of the mouth, beyond the hard palate, you will
find a soft area which is called the soft palate, or the velum. Sounds produced with the
back of the tongue against the velum are called velars. There is a voiceless velar sound,
represented by the symbol [k], which occurs not only in kid and kill, but is also the
initial sound in car and cold. Despite the variety in spelling, this [k] sound is both the
initial and final sound in the words cook, kick and [Link] voiced velar sound to be
heard at the begin¬ning of words like go, gun and give is represented by [g].This is also
the final sound in words like bag, mug and, despite the spelling, plague.
The velum can be lowered to allow air to flow through the nasal cavity and thereby
produce another voiced velar which is represented by the symbol [rj], typically referred
to as 'angina'. In written English, this sound is normally spelled as the two letters 'ng'.
So, the [n] sound is at the end of sing, sang and, despite the spelling, tongue. It would
occur twice in the form ringing. Be careful not to be misled by the spelling - the word
bang ends with the [n] sound only. There is no [g] sound in this word.
Glottals. There is one other sound that is produced without the active use of the tongue

54
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
and other parts of the mouth. It is the sound [h] which occurs at the beginning of have
and house, and, for most speakers, as the first sound in who and whose. This sound is
usually described as a voiceless glottal. The 'glottis' is the space between the vocal
cords in the larynx. When the glottis is open, as in the production of other voiceless
sounds, but there is no manipulation of the air passing out through the mouth, the sound
produced is that represented by [h]
Charting consonant sounds
Having described in some detail the place of articulation of English consonant sounds,
we can summarize the basic information in the following chart.

Notes on the chart. This chart is far from complete. It does contain the majority of
consonant sounds used in the basic description of English pronunciation. There are,
however, several differences between this basic set of symbols and the much more
comprehensive chart produced by the International Phonetic Association (IPA).The
most obvious difference is in the range of sounds covered.
The IPA aims to describe the sounds of all languages and includes, for example,
symbols for the velar fricative sound you may have heard in the German pronunciation
of the "ch" part of Bach or Achtung. It also includes sounds made with the back of the
tongue and the uvula (below the velum) which represents the "r" parts of the French
pronunciation of rouge and lettre. Uvular sounds also occur in many American Indian

55
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
languages. Other, non-English sounds such as pharyngeals (produced in the pharynx)
occur in Semitic languages such as Arabic. There are many more.
Another shortcoming of the chart above is the single entry covering r sounds in English.
There can be a lot of variation among speakers in the pronunciation of the initial sound
in raw and red, the medial sound in very, and the final sound in hour and air. Different
symbols (e.g. [j], [R]) may be encountered in transcriptions where the different r sounds
are distinguished.
Manner of articulation
So far, we have concentrated on describing consonant sounds in terms of where they are
articulated. We can, of course, describe the same sounds in terms of how they are
articulated. Such a description is necessary if we wish to be able to differentiate
between some sounds which, in the preceding discussion, we have placed in the same
category. For example, we can say that [t] and [s] are both voiceless alveolar sounds.
How do they differ? They differ in their manner of articulation, that is, in the way they
are pronounced. The [t] sound is one of a set of sounds called 'stops' and the [s] sound is
one of a set called 'fricatives.'
Stops. Of the sounds we have already mentioned, the set [p], [b], [t], [d], [k], [g] are all
produced by some form of complete 'stopping' of the airstream (very briefly) and then
letting it go abruptly. This type of consonant sound resulting from a blocking or
stopping effect on the airstream is called a stop (or a 'plosive'). A full description of the
[t] sound at the beginning of a word like ten is as a 'voiceless alveolar stop'. On
occasion, only the manner of articulation is mentioned, as when it is said that the word
bed, for example, begins and ends with 'voiced stops.'
Fricatives. The manner of articulation used in producing the set of sounds [f], [v], [e],
[d], [s], [z], [s], [z] involves almost blocking the airstream, and having the air push
through the narrow opening. As the air is pushed through, a type of friction is produced
and the resulting sounds are called fricatives. If you put your open hand in front of your
mouth when making these sounds, [f] and [s] in particular, you should be able to feel
the stream of air being pushed out. A word like fish will begin and end with 'voiceless
fricatives'.The word those will begin and end with the 'voiced fricatives' [d] and [z.[

56
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Affricates. If you combine a brief stopping of the airstream with an obstructed release
which causes some friction, you will be able to produce the sounds [c] and [j] These are
called affricates and occur at the beginning of the words cheap and jeep. In the first of
these, there is a 'voiceless affricate', and in the second a 'voiced affricate.'
Nasals. Most sounds are produced orally, with the velum raised, preventing airflow
from entering the nasal cavity. However, when the velum is lowered and the airstream
is allowed to flow out through the nose to produce [m], [n] and [n], the sounds are
described as nasals. These three sounds are all voiced. Words like morning, knitting and
name begin and end with nasals.
Approximants. In the set of sounds called approximants, the articulation of each is
strongly influenced by the following vowel sound. Indeed, the sounds [w] and [y] are
sometimes called 'semi-vowels' or 'glides', because they are typically produced with the
tongue moving, or 'gliding', to or from the position of a nearby vowel. Both [w] and [y]
are voiced, occurring at the beginning of we, wet, you and yes.
Also voiced are the two initial approximants in led and red. The [1] sound is formed by
letting the airstream flow around the sides of the tongue as it makes contact with the
alveolar ridge. The type of sound for which we are using the [r] symbol is formed with
the tongue tip raised and curled back behind the alveolar ridge. The [1] and [r] sounds
are also sometimes called 'liquids.'
The sound [h] is a voiceless approximant which, in common words like Hi or hello,
simply begins the pronunciation of the following vowel as if it was voiceless.
The glottal stop and the flap. Two common terms used to describe ways of
pronouncing consonants are not included in the chart presented earlier.
The glottal stop, represented by the symbol [?], occurs when the space between
the vocal cords (the glottis) is closed completely, very briefly, and then released. Try
saying the expression Oh oh!. Between the first Oh and the second oh, people typically
produce a glottal stop. Some people do it in the middle of Uh-uh (meaning 'no'), and
others put one in place of 't' in pronouncing Batman. You can also produce a glottal stop
if you try to say the words butter or bottle without pronouncing the -tt- part in the
middle. This sound is considered to be characteristic of Cockney (London) speech, but

57
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
it is also used by Scottish speakers and New Yorkers.
If, however, you are an American English speaker who pronounces the word butter in a
way that is close to 'budder', then you are making a flap. It is represented by [D] or
sometimes [r].This flap is produced by the tongue tip being thrown against the alveolar
ridge for an instant. Many Americans tend to flap the [t] and [d] consonants between
vowels so that, in casual speech, the pairs latter and ladder, writer and rider, metal and
medal do not have distinct middle consonants. They all have flaps. The student who
was told about the importance of 'Plato' in class and reported it as 'play-dough' was
clearly a victim of a misinterpreted flap.
This rather lengthy list of the phonetic features of English consonant sounds is not
presented as a challenge to your ability to memorize a lot of terminology and symbols.
It is presented as an illustration of how a thorough description of the physical aspects of
speech production will allow us 10 characterize the sounds of spoken English,
independently of the vagaries of spelling found in written English. There are, however,
some sounds which we have not yet investigated. These are the types of sounds known
as vowels and diphthongs.
Vowels
While the consonant sounds are mostly articulated via closure or obstruction in the
vocal tract, vowel sounds are produced with a relatively free flow of air. They are all
typically voiced. To describe vowel sounds, we consider the way in which the tongue
influences the 'shape' through which the airflow must pass. To talk about place of
articulation, we think of the space inside the mouth as having a front versus a back and
a high versus a low area. Thus, in the pronunciation of heat and hit, we talk about 'high,
front' vowels, because the sound is made with the front part of the tongue in a raised
position.
In contrast, the vowel sounds in hot and hat are produced with the tongue in a relatively
lower position and are described as 'low, back' vowels. The next time you're facing the
bathroom mirror, try saying heat, hit, hot, hat. For the first two, your mouth will stay
fairly closed, but for the last two, your tongue will move lower and cause your mouth to
open wider. (You may also notice that the sounds of relaxation and pleasure, if you're

58
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
getting any, typically contain back vowels)
The terminology for describing vowels is usually presented in the form of a chart, as
shown below, which provides a means of classifying the most common vowel sounds of
English.
Front Central Back

Diphthongs.
The last three symbols in the list above contain two sounds. These 'combined' vowel
sounds are called diphthongs. Note that in each case they begin with a vowel sound and
end with a glide. With the majority of single vowel sounds, the vocal organs remain
relatively steady, but in pronouncing diphthongs, we move from one vocalic position to
another.
This process of diphthongization can actually happen with a wide range of vowel
sounds and is more common in some varieties of English (e.g. Southern British) than in
others. Most Americans pronounce the word say as [ ], with a diphthong rather than
a single vowel. You will also hear the pronouns they as [ ], you as [ ] and we
as [ ], all diphthongized. If you try to pronounce the consonants and diphthongs in the

59
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
following transcription, you should recognize a traditional speech training exercise:
[haw naw brawn kaw]

.
Notes on the vowel chart. Vowel sounds are notorious for varying between one variety
of English and the next, often being a key element in what we recognize as different
accents. So, you may find that some of the words offered here as examples are not
normally encountered with the vowel sounds as listed. Also, some of the sounds shown
here may not be commonly in your dialect. It may be, for example, that you make no
distinction between the vowels in the words caught and cot. Some transcriptions only
use [a] for this back vowel sound.
Or, you may not make a significant distinction between the central vowels [ ]
and [ ]. If not, then just use the symbol [ ], called 'schwa'. In fact, in casual speech, we
all use schwa more than any other single sound. It is the unstressed vowel in the
everyday use of words like afford, collapse, oven, photograph, wanted, and in the
common words a and the.
There are many other variations in the actual physical articulation of the sounds we
have considered here. The more we focus on the subtle differences of the actual
articulation of each sound, the more likely we are to find ourselves describing the
pronunciation of small groups or even individual speakers. Such subtle differences
60
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
allow us to identify individual voices. But those differences don't help us understand
how we know what total strangers with unfamiliar voices are saying. To make sense of
that, we need to look at the more general sound patterns of a language, also known as
'phonology.'

61
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER FIVE
The Sound Patterns of Language
In the preceding chapter, we investigated the physical production of speech sounds in
terms of the articulatory mechanisms of the human vocal tract. That investigation was
possible because of some rather amazing facts about the nature of language. When we
considered the human vocal tract, we did not have to specify whether we were talking
about a fairly large male, over as feet tall, weighing over 200 pounds, or about a rather
small female, about five feet tall, weighing 100 pounds. Yet those two physically
different individuals would inevitably have physically different vocal tracts, in terms of
size and shape. In a sense, every individual has a physically different vocal I tract.
Consequently, in purely physical terms, every individual will pronounced sounds
differently. There are, then, potentially thousands of physically different ways of
saying the simple word me.
In addition, each individual will not pronounce the word me in a physical-f identical
manner on every occasion. Obvious differences occur when the individual is shouting,
is asking for a sixth martini, or is suffering from a id. Given this vast range of potential
differences in the actual physical production of a speech sound, how do we manage
consistently to recognize I those versions of me as the form [mi], and not [ni], or [si], or
[ma], or [mo]

or something else entirely? The answer to that question is provided to a large extent by
the study of phonology.
Phonology
Phonology is essentially the description of the systems and patterns of speech sounds in
a language. It is, in effect, based on a theory of what every speaker of a language
unconsciously knows about the sound patterns of that language. Because of this
theoretical status, phonology is concerned with the abstract or mental aspect of the
sounds in language rather than with the actual physical articulation of speech sounds.
Phonology is about the underlying design, the blueprint of the sound type, that serves as
the constant basis of all the variations in different physical articulations of that sound

62
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
type in different contexts.
Thus, when we think of the [t] sound in the words tar, star, writer and eighth as being
'the same', we actually mean that, in the phonology of English, they would be
represented in the same way. In actual speech, these [t] sounds are all very different.
However, all those articulation differences in [t] sounds are less important than the
distinction between the [t] sounds in general and the [k] sounds, or the [f] sounds, or the
[b] sounds, because there are meaningful consequences related to the use of one rather
than the others. These sounds must be distinct meaningful sounds, regardless of which
individual vocal tract is being used to pronounce them, because they are what make the
words tar, car, far and bar meaningfully distinct. Considered from this point of view, we
can see that phonology is concerned with the abstract set of sounds in a language which
allows us to distinguish meaning in the actual physical sounds we say and hear.
Phonemes
we were actually working with the concept of the phoneme as the single sound type
which came to be represented by a single symbol. It is in this sense that the phoneme /t/
is described as a sound type, of which all the' different spoken versions of [t] are tokens.
Note that slash marks are conventionally used to indicate a phoneme, III, an abstract
segment, as opposed to the square brackets, as in [t], used for each phonetic, or
physically produced, segment.
An essential property of a phoneme is that it functions contrastively.
know that there are two phonemes /f/ and l\l in English because they are the only basis
of the contrast in meaning between the forms fat and vat, or fine and vine. This
contrastive property is the basic operational test for determining the phonemes which
exist in a language. If we substitute one sound for another in a word and there is a
change of meaning, then the two sounds represent different phonemes. The consonant
and vowel charts presented in Chapter 5 can now be seen as essentially a mapping out
of the phonemes of English.
The terms which were used in creating that chart can be considered 'features' which
distinguish each phoneme from the next. If the feature is present, we mark it with a plus
(+) sign; if it's not present, we use a minus (-) sign. Thus, /p/ can be characterized as [-

63
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
voice, +bilabial, +stop] and /k/ as [-voice, +velar, +stop]. Because these two sounds
share some features, they are sometimes described as members of a natural class of
sounds. The prediction would be that sounds which have features in common would
behave phonologically in some similar ways. A sound which does not share those
features would be expected to behave differently.
For example, /v/ has the features [+voice, +labiodental, +fricative] and so cannot be in
the same 'natural class' as /p/ and /k/. Although other factors
will be involved, this feature-analysis could lead us to suspect that there may be a good
phonological reason why words beginning with /pi-/ and /kl-/ are j common in English,
but words beginning /vl-/ are not. Could it be that there re some definite sets of features
required in a sound in order for it to occur word-initially before /!/? If so, then we will
be on our way to producing a phonological account of permissible sound sequences in
the language.
Phones and allophones
While the phoneme is the abstract unit or sound-type ('in the mind"), there : are many
different versions of that sound-type regularly produced in actual speech ('in the
mouth'). We can describe those different versions as phones. Phones are phonetic units
and will appear in square brackets. When we have set of phones, all of which are
versions of one phoneme, we refer to them as : allophones of that phoneme.
For example, the [t] sound in the word tar is normally pronounced with a stronger puff
of air than is present in the [t] sound of the word star. If you put the back of your hand
in front of your mouth as you say tar, then star, you should have some physical
evidence of the aspiration (the puff of air) accompanying the [t] sound in the initial
position of tar (but not in star).This aspirated version is represented more precisely as
[th].That's one phone. It is noted that the [t] sound between vowels in a word like
writer often becomes a 'flap', which we represented as [D]. That's another phone. In the
pronunciation of a word like eighth, the influence of the final dental [e] sound causes a
dental articulation of the [t] sound. This would be represented more precisely as
[t].That's yet another phone. There are other variations of this sound which, like [th],
[D] and [t], can be represented differently in a detailed, or narrow, phonetic

64
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
transcription. Because these variations form a set of phones, they would typically be
referred to as allophones of the phoneme /t/.
The crucial distinction between phonemes and allophones is that substituting one
phoneme for another will result in a word with a different meaning (as well as a
different pronunciation), but substituting allophones only results in a different (and
perhaps odd) pronunciation of the same word.
Let's take another brief example. In English, there is a difference in pronunciation of the
/ / sound in words like seed and seen. In the second word, the effect of the nasal
consonant [n] makes the [i] sound nasalized. This nasalization can be represented by a
diacritic [~], called 'tilde', over the symbol [ ] in narrow phonetic transcription. So, there
are at least two phones, [i] and [i], used in English to realize a single phoneme. They are
,allophones of /i/ in English.
It is possible, of course, for two languages to have the same pair of phonetic segments,
but to treat them differently. In English, the effect of nasalization on a vowel is treated
as allophonic variation because the nasalized version is not meaningfully contrastive.
In French, however, the pronunciation [m ] is used for one word mets, meaning 'dish',
and [m ] for a different word main, meaning 'hand'. Also, [so] for seau, meaning 'pail',
contrast with [so] for son, meaning 'sound'. Clearly, in these cases, the distinction is
phonemic.
Minimal pairs and sets
Phonemic distinctions in a language can be tested via pairs and sets of words. When
two words such as pat and bat are identical in form except for contrast in one phoneme,
occurring in the same position, the two words described as a minimal pair. More
accurately, they would be classified as a minimal pair in the phonology of English.
(Arabic does not have this contrast between the two sounds.) Other examples of
English minimal pairs are | fan - van, bet-bat , site-side. Such pairs have been used
frequently in tests of English as a second language to determine non-native speakers
ability to understand the contrast in meaning resulting from the minimal sound
contrast.

65
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
When a group of words can be differentiated, each one from the others, by changing
one phoneme (always in the same position), then we have a minimal set. Thus, a
minimal set based on the vowel phonemes of English would include feat, fit, fat, fate,
fought, foot, and one based on consonants could have big,pig, rig,fig, dig, wig.
Syllables and clusters
A syllable must contain a vowel (or vowel-like) sound. The most common type of
syllable in language also has a consonant before the vowel, often represented as CV.
Technically, the basic elements of the syllable are the onset (one or more consonants)
and the rime. The rime (also written as thyme') consists of the vowel, which is treated as
the nucleus, plus any following consonant(s), treated as the coda.
Thus, syllables like me, to or no have an onset and a nucleus, but no coda. They are
known as 'open' syllables. When a coda is present, as in the syllables up, cup, at or hat,
they are called 'closed' syllables. The basic structure of the kind of syllable found in
English words like green (CCVC), eggs (VCC), and (VCC), ham (CVC), / (V), do
(CV), not (CVC), like (CVC), them (CVC), Sam (CVC),I (V),am (VC) .
English actually can have larger onset clusters, as in stress and splat, consisting of three
consonants (CCC). The phonotactics of these larger onset consonant clusters in English
is not difficult to describe. The first consonant must always be /s/, followed by one of
the voiceless stops (/p/, lit, /k/) and then one of the approximants (/r/,/l/,/w/). You can
check if this description is adequate for the combinations in splash, spring, strong,
scream and square. Does the description also cover the second syllable in the
pronunciation of exclaim'? How about / /? Remember that it is the onset
of the syllable that is being described, not the beginning of the word.
It is quite unusual for languages to have consonant clusters of this type. Indeed, the
syllable structure of many languages (e.g. Hawaiian or Japanese) is predominantly CV.
It is also noticeable in English that large consonant clusters are frequently reduced in
casual conversational speech, particularly if they occur in the middle of a word. This is
just one example of what is often discussed in terms of' co-articulation effects'.
Co-articulation effects
In much of the preceding discussion, we have been describing the speech sounds as if

66
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
they are always pronounced carefully and deliberately, almost; in slow motion. Speech
isn't like that very often. Mostly our talk is fast and spontaneous, and it requires our
articulators to move from one sound to the next without stopping. The process of
making one sound almost at the same time as the next is called co-articulation. There
are two well-known co-articulation effects, called 'assimilation' and 'elision'.
Assimilation
When two phonemes occur in sequence and some aspect of one phoneme is taken or
'copied' by the other, the process is known as assimilation. In terms of the physical
production of speech, one might assume that this regular process is occasioned by ease
of articulation in everyday talk. In isolation, you would probably pronounce III and /ae/
without any nasal quality at all. However, in saying words like pin and pan, the
anticipation of forming the final nasal consonant will make it 'easier' to go into the
nasalized articulation in advance and consequently the vowel sounds in these words will
be, in precise transcription, [I] and [a].This is a very regular feature of English speakers'
pronunciation. So regular, in fact, that a phonological rule can be stated in the following
way: 'Any vowel becomes nasal whenever it immediately precedes a nasal.'
This type of assimilation process occurs in a variety of different contexts. It is
particularly noticeable in ordinary conversational speech. By itself, you may pronounce
the word can as [kaen], but, if you tell someone / can go, the influence of the following
velar [g] will almost certainly make the preceding nasal sound come out as [rj] (a velar)
rather than [n] (an alveolar).The most commonly observed 'conversational' version of
the phrase is [ ]. Notice that the vowel in can has also changed to schwa [a]
from the isolated-word version [ae]. In many words spoken carefully, the vowel
receives stress, but in the course of ordinary talk, that vowel may no longer receive any
stress and reduce to schwa. For example, you may pronounce and as [ ] in
isolation, but in the casual use of the phrase you and me, you almost certainly say
[an], as in [ ].
Elision
Note that in the last example, in the environment of preceding and following nasals, the
[d] sound of and has simply disappeared. The [d] sound is also commonly 'omitted' in

67
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
the pronunciation of a word like friendship, [ ].This 'omission' of a sound
segment which would be present in the deliberate pronunciation of a word in isolation is
technically described as elision. In consonant clusters, especially in coda position, III is
a common casualty in this process, as in the typical pronunciation [ ] for
aspects, or in [ ] for he must be. You can, of course, slowly and
deliberately pronounce the phrase we asked him, but the process of elision in casual

speech is likely to produce [ ]. Vowels also disappear, as in [evri] fod every,

[ ] for interest, [ ] for cabinet, and [ ] for suppose.
These two processes of assimilation and elision occur in everyone's, speech and should
not be treated as a form of sloppiness or laziness in speaking. In fact, consistently
avoiding the regular patterns of assimilation and elision used in a language would result
in extremely artificial-sounding talk. The point of investigating phonological processes
(only a very small number of which have been explored here) is not to arrive at a set of
rule about how a language should be pronounced, but to try to come to an under-
standing of the regularities and patterns which underlie the actual use of sounds in
language.

68
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER SIX

Morphology

Morphology is basically gratuitous, as well as complex and irregular: anything that a

language does with morphology, it usually can also do more straightforwardly with
syntax; and there is always some other language that does the same thing with syntax.

For instance, English morphology inflects nouns to specify plurality: thus dogs means
"more than one dog". This inflection lets us be specific, in a compact way, about the
distinction between one and more-than-one. Of course, we could always say the same
thing in a more elaborated way, using the resources of syntax rather than morphology:
more than one dog. If we want to be vague, we have to be long winded: one or more
dogs.

As an example of another kind of morphological packaging, English can make iconify

from icon and -ify, meaning "make into an icon." Perhaps it's nice to have a single word
for it, but we could always have said "make into an icon." And many languages lack
any general way to turn a noun X into a verb meaning "to make into (an) X", and so
must use the longer-winded mode of expression. Indeed, the process in English is rather
erratic: we say vaporize not *vaporify, and emulsify not *emulsionify, and so on.

In fact, one of the ways that morphology typically differs from syntax is its
combinatoric irregularity. Words are mostly combined logically and systematically. So
when you exchange money for something you can be said to "buy" it or to "purchase" it
-- we'd be surprised if (say) groceries, telephones and timepieces could only be
"purchased," while clothing, automobiles and pencils could only be "bought," and
69
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
things denoted by words of one syllable could only be "acquired in exchange for
money."

Yet irrational combinatoric nonsense of this type happens all the time in morphology.
Consider the adjectival forms of the names of countries or regions in English. There are
at least a half a dozen different endings, and also many variations in how much of the
name of the country is retained before the ending is added:

Bhutanese, Chinese, Guyanese,

-ese Japanese, Lebanese, Maltese,
Portuguese, Taiwanese

African, Alaskan, American,

-an Angolan, Cuban, Jamaican,
Mexican, Nicaraguan

Argentinian, Armenian,
Australian, Brazilian, Canadian,
-ian
Egyptian, Ethiopian, Iranian,
Jordanian, Palestinian, Serbian

Irish, British, Flemish, Polish,

-ish
Scottish, Swedish

Afghani, Iraqi, Israeli, Kuwaiti,

-i
Pakistani

-? French, German, Greek

And you can't mix 'n match stems and endings here: *Taiwanian, *Egyptese, and so on
just don't work.

To make it worse, the word for citizen of X and the general adjectival form meaning
70
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
associated with locality X are usually but not always the same. Exceptions include
Pole/Polish, Swede/Swedish, Scot/Scottish, Greenlandic/Greenlander. And there are
some oddities about pluralization: we talk about "the French" and "the Chinese" but
"the Greeks" and "the Canadians". The plural forms "the Frenches" and "the Chineses"
are not even possible, and the singular forms "the Greek" and "the Canadian" mean
something entirely different.

What a mess!

It's worse in some ways than having to memorize a completely different word in every
case (like "The Netherlands" and "Dutch"), because there are just enough partial
regularities to be confusing. This brings up George W. Bush. For years, there has been a
web feature at Slate magazine devoted to "Bushisms", many if not most of them arising
from his individual approach to English morphology. Some of the early and famous
examples, from the 1999 presidential campaign, focus on the particular case under
discussion here:

"If the East Timorians decide to revolt, I'm sure I'll have a statement." ?Quoted
by Maureen Dowd in the New YorkTimes, June 16, 1999

"Keep good relations with the Grecians."?Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999

"Kosovians can move back in."?CNN Inside Politics, April 9, 1999

President Bush, if these quotes are accurate, quite sensibly decided that -ian should be
the default ending, after deletion of a final vowel if present. This follows the common
model of Brazil::Brazilians and Canada::Canadians, and gives Bush's East
Timor::East Timorians, Greece::Grecians and Kosovo::Kosovians, instead of the
correct (but unpredictable) forms East Timorese, Greeks and Kosovars. And why not?
The President's method is more logical than the way the English language handles it.

Despite these derivational anfractuosities, English morphology is simple and regular

compared to the morphological systems of many other languages. One question we

71
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
need to ask ourselves is: why do languages inflict morphology on their users -- and their
politicians?

What is a word?

We've started talking blithely about words and morphemes as if it were obvious that
these categories exist and that we know them when we see them. This assumption
comes naturally to literate speakers of English, because we've learned through reading
and writing where white space goes, which defines word boundaries for us; and we
soon see many cases where English words have internal parts with separate meanings or
grammatical functions, which must be morphemes.

In some languages, the application of these terms is even clearer. In languages like
Latin, for example, words can usually be "scrambled" into nearly any order in a phrase.
As Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar says, "In connected discourse the word
most prominent in the speaker's mind comes first, and so on in order of prominence."

Thus the simple two-word sentence facis amice "you act kindly" also occurs as amice
facis with essentially the same meaning, but some difference in emphasis. However, the
morphemes that make up each of these two words must occur in a fixed order and
without anything inserted between them. The word amice combines the stem /amic-/
"loving, friendly, kind" and the adverbial ending /-e/; we can't change the order of these,
or put another word in between them. Likewise the verb stem /fac-/ "do, make, act" and
the inflectional ending /-is/ (second person singular present tense active) are fixed in
their relationship in the word facis, and can't be reordered or separated.

Among many others, the modern Slavic languages such as Czech and Russian show a
similar contrast between words freely circulating within phrases, and morphemes
rigidly arranged within words. In such languages, the basic concepts of word and
morpheme are natural and inevitable analytic categories.

In a language like English, where word order is much less free, we can still find
evidence of a similar kind for the distinction between morphemes and words. For
72
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
example, between two words we can usually insert some other words (without changing
the basic meaning and relationship of the originals), while between two morphemes we
usually can't.

Thus in the phrase "she has arrived", we treat she and has as separate words, while the
/-ed/ ending of arrived is treated as part of a larger word. In accordance with this, we
can introduce other material into the white space between the words: "she apparently
has already arrived." But there is no way to put anything at all in between /arrive/ and /-
ed/. And there are other forms of the sentence in which the word order is different --
"has she arrived?"; "arrived, has she?" -- but no form in which the morphemes in
arrived are re-ordered.

Tests of this kind don't entirely agree with the conventions of English writing. For
example, we can't really stick other words in the middle of compound words like swim
team and picture frame, at least not while maintaining the meanings and relationships of
the words we started with. In this sense they are not very different from the morphemes
in complex words like re+calibrate or consumer+ism, which we write "solid", i.e.
without spaces. A recent (and controversial) official spelling reform of German make
changes in both directions splitting some compounds orthographically while merging
others: old radfahren became new Rad fahren, but old Samstag morgen became new
Samstagmorgen..

As this change emphasizes, the question of whether a morpheme sequence is written

"solid" is largely a matter of orthographic convention, and in any case may be variable
even in a particular writing system. English speakers feel that many noun-noun
compounds are words, even though they clearly contain other words, and may often be
written with a space or a hyphen between them: "sparkplug", "shot glass". These are
common combinations with a meaning that is not entirely predictable from the
meanings of their parts, and therefore they can be found as entries in most English
dictionaries. But where should we draw the line? are all noun compounds to be
considered words, including those where compounds are compounded? What about
(say) government tobacco price support program? In ordinary usage, we'd be more
73
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
inclined to call this a phrase, though it is technically correct to call it a "compound
noun" and thus in some sense a single -- though complex -- word. Of course, in
German, the corresponding compound would probably be written solid, making its
"wordhood" plainer.

There are a number of interesting theories out there about why morphology exists, and
why it has the properties that it does. If these theories turn out to be correct, then maybe
linguistics will be as lucky with the complexities of morphology as physics was with
"Greek alphabet soup" of elementary particles discovered in the fifties and sixties,
which turned out to be complex composites of quarks and leptons, composed according
to the elegant laws of quantum chromodynamics.

Universality of the concepts "word" and "morpheme"

Do the concepts of word and morpheme then apply in all languages? The answer is
"(probably) yes". Certainly the concept of morpheme -- the minimal unit of form and
meaning -- arises naturally in the analysis of every language.

The concept of word is trickier. There are at least two troublesome issues: making the
distinction between words and phrases, and the status of certain grammatical formatives
known as clitics.

Words vs. phrases

Since words can be made up of several morphemes, and may include several other
words, it is easy to find cases where a particular sequence of elements might arguably
be considered either a word or a phrase. We've already looked at the case of compounds
in English.

In some languages, this boundary is even harder to draw. In the case of Chinese, the
eminent linguist Y.R. Chao (1968: 136) says, 'Not every language has a kind of unit
which behaves in most (not to speak all) respects as does the unit called "word" . . . It is
therefore a matter of fiat and not a question of fact whether to apply the word "word" to

74
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
a type of subunit in the Chinese sentence.' On the other hand, other linguists have
argued that the distinction between words and phrases is both definable and useful in
Chinese grammar. The Chinese writing system has no tradition of using spaces or other
delimiters to mark word boundaries; and in fact the whole issue of how (and whether) to
define "words" in Chinese does not seem to have arisen until 1907, although the
Chinese grammatical tradition goes back a couple of millennia.

Status of clitics

In most languages, there is a set of elements whose status as separate words seems
ambiguous. Examples in English include the 'd (reduced form of "would"), the
infinitival to, and the article a, in I'd like to buy a dog. These forms certainly can't
"stand alone as a complete utterance", as some definitions of word would have it. The
sound pattern of these "little words" is also usually extremely reduced, in a way that
makes them act like part of the words adjacent to them. There isn't any difference in
pronunciation between the noun phrase a tack and the verb attack. However, these
forms are like separate words in some other ways, especially in terms of how they
combine with other words.

Members of this class of "little words" are known as clitics. Their peculiar properties
can be explained by assuming that they are independent elements at the syntactic level
of analysis, but not at the phonological level. In other words, they both are and are not
words. Some languages write clitics as separate words, while others write them together
with their adjacent "host" words. English writes most clitics separate, but uses the
special "apostrophe" separator for some clitics, such as the reduced forms of is, have
and would ('s 've 'd), and possessive 's.

The possessive 's in English is an instructive example, because we can contrast its
behavior with that of the plural s. These two morphemes are pronounced in exactly the
same variable way, dependent on the sounds that precede them:

75
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Noun Noun + s (plural) Noun + s (possessive) Pronunciation

(both)
thrush thrushes thrush's iz
toy toys toy's z
block blocks block's s

And neither the plural nor the possessive can be used by itself. So from this point of
view, the possessive acts like a part of the noun, just as the plural does. However, the
plural and possessive behave very differently in some other ways:

1. If we add a following modifier to a noun, the possessive follows the modifier, but
the plural sticks with the head noun:

Morpheme stays with head noun Morpheme follows modifier

Plural The toys I bought yesterday were on *The toy I bought yesterdays were
sale. on sale.
Possessive *The toy's I bought yesterday price The toy I bought yesterday's price
was special. was special.

2. In other words, the plural continues like part of the noun, but the possessive acts
like a separate word, which follows the whole phrase containing the noun (even
though it is merged in terms of sound with the last word of that noun phrase).
3. There are lots of nouns with irregular plurals, but none with irregular possessives:

Plural (irregular in these cases) Possessive (always regular)

oxen ox's
spectra spectrum's
mice mouse's

Actually, English does have few irregular possessives: his, her, my, your, their. But
these exceptions prove the rule: these pronominal possessives act like inflections, so

76
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
that the possessor is always the referent of the pronoun itself, not of some larger phrase
that it happens to be at the end of.

So the possessive 's in English is like a word in some ways, and like an inflectional
morpheme in some others. This kind of mixed status is commonly found with words
that express grammatical functions. It is one of the ways that morphology develops
historically. As a historical matter, a clitic is likely to start out as a fully separate word,
and then "weaken" so as to merge phonologically with its hosts. In many cases,
inflectional affixes may have been clitics at an earlier historical stage, and then lost their
syntactic independence.

[A book that used to be the course text for LING001 lists the English possessive 's as an
inflectional affix, and last year's version of these lecture notes followed the text in this
regard. This is an easy mistake to make: in most languages with possessive morphemes,
they behave like inflections, and it's natural to think of 's as analogous to (say) the Latin
genitive case. Nevertheless, it's clear that English possessive 's is a clitic and not an
inflectional affix.]

Words nevertheless useful

Important distinctions are often difficult to define for cases near the boundary. This is
among the reasons that we have lawyers and courts. The relative difficulty of making a
distinction is not a strong argument, one way or the other, for the value of that
distinction: it's not always easy, for example, to distinguish homicide from other (and
less serious) kinds of involvement in someone's death. Despite the difficulties of
distinguishing word from phrase on one side and from morpheme on the other, most
linguists find the concept of word useful and even essential in analyzing most
languages.

In the end, we wind up with two definitions of word: the ordinary usage, where that
exists (as it does for English or Spanish, and does not for Chinese); and a technical
definition, emerging from a particular theory about language structure as applied to a

77
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
specific language.

Relationship between words and morphemes

What is the relationship between words and morphemes? It's a hierarchical one: a word
is made up of one or more morphemes. Most commonly, these morphemes are strung
together, or concatenated, in a line. However, it is not uncommon to find non-
concatenative morphemes. Thus the Arabic root /ktb/ "write" has (among many other
forms)

katab pefective active

kutib perfective passive
aktub imperfective active
uktab imperfective passive

The three consonants of the root are not simply concatenated with other morphemes
meaning things like "imperfective" or "passive", but rather are shuffled among the
vowels and syllable positions that define the various forms. Still, a given word is still
made up of a set of morphemes, it's just that the set is not combined by simple
concatenation in all cases.

Simpler examples of non-concatenative morphology include infixes, like the insertion of

emphatic words in English cases like "un-frigging-believable", or Tagalog

bili 'buy' binili 'bought'

basa 'read' binasa 'read' (past)

sulat 'write' sinulat 'wrote'

Categories and subcategories of words and morphemes

The different types of words are variously called parts of speech, word classes, or
lexical categories. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language gives this list of 8 for
English:
78
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
noun
pronoun
verb
adjective
adverb
conjunction
preposition
interjection

This set might be further subdivided: here is a list of 36 part-of-speech tags used in the
Penn TreeBank project. Most of the increase (from 8 to 36) is by subdivision (e.g.
"noun" divided into "singular common noun," "plural common noun," "singular proper
noun," "plural proper noun," etc., but there are a few extra odds and ends, such as
"cardinal number."

Other descriptions of English have used slightly different ways of dividing the pie, but
it is generally easy to see how one scheme translates into another. Looking across
languages, we can see somewhat greater differences. For instance, some languages don't
really distinguish between verbs and adjectives. In such languages, we can think of
adjectives as a kind of verb: "the grass greens," rather than "the grass is green." Other
differences reflect different structural choices. For instance, English words like in, on,
under, with are called prepositions, and this name makes sense given that they precede
the noun phrase they introduce: with a stick. In many languages, the words that
correspond to English prepositions follow their noun phrase rather than preceding it,
and are thus more properly called postpositions, as in the following Hindi example:

Ram cari-se kutte-ko mara

Ram stick-with dog hit
"Ram hit the dog with an stick."

79
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Types of morphemes:

Bound Morphemes: cannot occur on their own, e.g. de- in detoxify, -tion in creation, -s
in dogs, cran- in cranberry.

Free Morphemes: can occur as separate words, e.g. car, yes.

In a morphologically complex word -- a word composed of more than one morpheme --

one constituent may be considered as the basic one, the core of the form, with the others
treated as being added on. The basic or core morpheme in such cases is referred to as
the stem, root, or base, while the add-ons are affixes. Affixes that precede the stem are
of course prefixes, while those that follow the stem are suffixes. Thus in rearranged,
re- is a prefix, arrange is a stem, and -d is a suffix. Morphemes can also be infixes,
which are inserted within another form. English doesn't really have any infixes, except
perhaps for certain expletives in expressions like un-effing-believable or Kalama-effing-
zoo.

Prefixes and suffixes are almost always bound, but what about the stems? Are they
always free? In English, some stems that occur with negative prefixes are not free, such
as -kempt and -sheveled. Bad jokes about some of these missing bound morphemes
have become so frequent that they may re-enter common usage.

Morphemes can also be divided into the two categories of content and function
morphemes, a distinction that is conceptually distinct from the free-bound distinction
but that partially overlaps with it in practice.

The idea behind this distinction is that some morphemes express some general sort of
referential or informational content, in a way that is as independent as possible of the
grammatical system of a particular language -- while other morphemes are heavily tied
to a grammatical function, expressing syntactic relationships between units in a
sentence, or obligatorily-marked categories such as number or tense.

80
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Thus (the stems of) nouns, verbs, adjectives are typically content morphemes: "throw,"
"green," "Kim," and "sand" are all English content morphemes. Content morphemes
are also often called open-class morphemes, because they belong to categories that are
open to the invention of arbitrary new items. People are always making up or borrowing
new morphemes in these categories.: "smurf," "nuke," "byte," "grok."

By contrast, prepositions ("to", "by"), articles ("the", "a"), pronouns ("she", "his"), and
conjunctions are typically function morphemes, since they either serve to tie elements
together grammatically ("hit by a truck," "Kim and Leslie," "Lee saw his dog"), or
express obligatory (in a given language!) morphological features like definiteness ("she
found a table" or "she found the table" but not "*she found table"). Function
morphemes are also called "closed-class" morphemes, because they belong to
categories that are essentially closed to invention or borrowing -- it is very difficult to
add a new preposition, article or pronoun.

For years, some people have tried to introduce non-gendered pronouns into English, for
instance "sie" (meaning either "he" or "she", but not "it"). This is much harder to do
than to get people to adopt a new noun or verb.

Try making up a new article. For instance, we could try to borrow from the Manding
languages an article (written "le") that means something like "I'm focusing on this
phrase as opposed to anything else I could have mentioned." We'll just slip in this new
article after the definite or indefinite "the" or "a" -- that's where it goes in Manding,
though the rest of the order is completely different. Thus we would say "Kim bought an
apple at the-le fruit stand," meaning "it's the fruit stand (as opposed to anyplace else)
where Kim bought an apple;" or "Kim bought an-le apple at the fruit stand," meaning
"it's an apple (as opposed to any other kind of fruit) that Kim bought at the fruit stand."

This is a perfectly sensible kind of morpheme to have. Millions of West Africans use it
every day. However, the chances of persuading the rest of the English-speaking
community to adopt it are negligible.

81
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
In some ways the open/closed terminology is clearer than content/function, since
obviously function morphemes also always have some content! The concept of the
morpheme does not directly map onto the units of sound that represent morphemes in
speech. To do this, linguists developed the concept of the allomorph. Here is the
definition given in a well-known linguistic workbook:

Allomorphs: Nondistinctive realizations of a particular morpheme that have the same

function and are phonetically similar. For example, the English plural morpheme can
appear as [s] as in cats, [z] as in dogs, or ['z] as in churches. Each of these three
pronunciations is said to be an allomorph of the same morpheme.

Inflectional vs. Derivational Morphology

Another common distinction is the one between derivational and inflectional affixes.

Derivational morphemes makes new words from old ones. Thus creation is formed
from create by adding a morpheme that makes nouns out of (some) verbs.

Derivational morphemes generally :

1. change the part of speech or the basic meaning of a word. Thus -ment added to a
verb forms a noun (judg-ment). re-activate means "activate again."
2. are not required by syntactic relations outside the word. Thus un-kind combines
un- and kind into a single new word, but has no particular syntactic connections
outside the word -- we can say he is unkind or he is kind or they are unkind or
they are kind, depending on what we mean.
3. are often not productive or regular in form or meaning -- derivational morphemes
can be selective about what they'll combine with, and may also have erratic
effects on meaning. Thus the suffix -hood occurs with just a few nouns such as
brother, neighbor, and knight, but not with most others. e.g., *friendhood,
*daughterhood, or *candlehood. Furthermore "brotherhood" can mean "the state
or relationship of being brothers," but "neighborhood" cannot mean "the state or

82
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
relationship of being neighbors." Note however that some derivational affixes are
quite regular in form and meaning, e.g. -ism.
4. typically occur "inside" any inflectional affixes. Thus in governments, -ment, a
derivational suffix, precedes -s, an inflectional suffix.
5. in English, may appear either as prefixes or suffixes: pre-arrange, arrange-ment.

Inflectional morphemes vary (or "inflect") the form of words in order to express the
grammatical features that a given language chooses, such as singular/plural or
past/present tense. Thus Boy and boys, for example, are two different forms of the
"same" word. In English, we must choose the singular form or the plural form; if we
choose the basic form with no affix, we have chosen the singular.

Inflectional Morphemes generally:

1. do not change basic syntactic category: thus big, bigg-er, bigg-est are all
adjectives.
2. express grammatically-required features or indicate relations between different
words in the sentence. Thus in Lee love-s Kim, -s marks the 3rd person singular
present form of the verb, and also relates it to the 3rd singular subject Lee.
3. occur outside any derivational morphemes. Thus in ration-al-iz-ation-s the final -
s is inflectional, and appears at the very end of the word, outside the derivational
morphemes -al, -iz, -ation.
4. In English, are suffixes only.

83
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Some examples of English derivational and inflectional morphemes:

derivational inflectional
-ation -s Plural
-ize -ed Past
-ic -ing Progressive
-y -er Comparative
-ous -est Superlative

Properties of some derivational affixes in English:

-ation is added to a verb to give a noun

finalize finalization
confirm confirmation
un- is added to a verb to give a verb
tie untie
wind unwind
un- is added to an adjective to give an adjective
happy unhappy
wise unwise
-al is added to a noun to give an adjective
institution institutional
universe universal
-ize is added to an adjective to give a verb
concrete concretize
solar solarize

Keep in mind that most morphemes are neither derivational nor inflectional! For
instance, the English morphemes Melissa, twist, tele-, and ouch.

Also, most linguists feel that the inflectional/derivational distinction is not a

fundamental or foundational question at all, but just a sometimes-useful piece of
84
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
terminology whose definitions involve a somewhat complex combination of more basic
properties. Therefore we will not be surprised to find cases for which the application of
the distinction is unclear.

For example, the English suffix -ing has several uses that are arguably on the borderline
between inflection and derivation (along with other uses that are not).

One very regular use of -ing is to indicate progressive aspect in verbs, following forms
of "to be": She is going; he will be leaving; they had been asking. This use is generally
considered an inflectional suffix, part of the system for marking tense and aspect in
English verbs.

Another, closely related use is to make present participles of verbs, which are used
like adjectives: Falling water; stinking mess; glowing embers. According to the rule that
inflection doesn't change the lexical category, this should be a form of morphological
derivation, since it changes verbs to adjectives. But in fact it is probably the same
process, at least historically as is involved in marking progressive aspect on verbs, since
"being in the process of doing X" is one of the natural meanings of the adjectival form
X-ing.

There is another, regular use of -ing to make verbal nouns: Flying can be dangerous;
losing is painful. The -ing forms in these cases are often called gerunds. By the
"changes lexical categories" rule, this should also be a derivational affix, since it turns a
verb into a noun. However, many people feel that such cases are determined by
grammatical context, so that a phrase like Kim peeking around the corner surprised me
actually is related to, or derived from, a tenseless form of the sentence Kim peeked
around the corner. On this view, the affix -ing is a kind of inflection, since it creates a
form of the verb appropriate for a particular grammatical situation, rather than making a
new, independent word. Thus the decision about whether -ing is an inflection in this
case depends on your analysis of the syntactic relationships involved. It's for reasons
like this that the distinction between inflectional and derivational affixes is just a
sometimes-convenient descriptive one, and not a basic distinction in theory.
85
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

What is the meaning of an affix?

The meanings of derivational affixes are sometimes clear, but often are obscured by
changes that occur over time. The following two sets of examples show that the prefix
un- is easily interpreted as "not" when applied to adjectives, and as a reversing action
when applied to verbs, but the prefix con- is more opaque.

un- untie con- constitution

unshackle confess
unharness connect
unhappy contract
untimely contend
unthinkable conspire

Are derivational affixes sensitive to the historical source of the roots they attach
to?

Although English is a Germanic language, and most of its basic vocabulary derives
from Old English, there is also a sizeable vocabulary that derives from Romance (Latin
and French). Some English affixes, such as re-, attach freely to vocabulary from both
sources. Other affixes, such as "-ation", are more limited.

ROOT tie consider

free form free form

Germanic root Latinate root

SOURCE Old English tygan, "to tie" Latin considerare, "to examine"

86
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

PREFIX retie reconsider

SUFFIX reties reconsiders

retying reconsideration

retyings reconsiderations

The suffix -ize, which some prescriptivists object to in words like hospitalize, has a long
and venerable history. The suffix -ize comes originally from the Greek -izo. Many
words ending with this suffix passed from Ecclesiastical Greek into Latin, where, by the
fourth century, they had become established as verbs with the ending -izare, such as
barbarizare, catechizare, christianizare. In Old French we find many such verbs,
belonging primarily to the ecclesistical sphere: baptiser (11th c.), canoniser (13th c.),
exorciser (14th c.).

The first -ize words to be found in English are loans with both a French and Latin
pattern such as baptize (1297), catechize, and organize (both 15th c.) Towards the end
of the 16th century, however, we come across many new formations in English, such as
bastardize, equalize, popularize, and womanize. The formal and semantic patterns were
the same as those from the borrowed French and Latin forms, but owing to the renewed
study of Greek, the educated had become more familiar with its vocabulary and used
the patterns of Old Greek word formation freely.

Between 1580 and 1700, the disciplines of literature, medicine, natural science and
theology introduced a great deal of new terminology into the language. Some of the
terms still in use today include criticize, fertilize, humanize, naturalize, satirize,
sterilize, and symbolize. The growth of science contributed vast numbers of -ize
formations through the 19th century and into the 20th.

The -ize words collected by students in in this class nine years ago show that -ize is
almost entirely restricted to Romance vocabulary, the only exceptions we found being

87
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
womanize and winterize. Even though most contemporary English speakers are not
consciously aware of which words in their vocabulary are from which source, they have
respected this distinction in coining new words.

Constituent Structure of Words

The constituent morphemes of a word can be organized into a branching or hierarchical

structure, sometimes called a tree structure. Consider the word unusable. It contains
three morphemes:

1. prefix "un-"
2. verb stem "use"
3. suffix "-able"

What is the structure? Is it first "use" + "-able" to make "usable", then combined with
"un-" to make "unusable"? or is it first "un-" + "use" to make "unuse", then combined
with "-able" to make "unusable"? Since "unuse" doesn't exist in English, while "usable"
does, we prefer the first structure, which corresponds to the tree shown below.

This analysis is supported by the general behavior of these affixes. There is a prefix
"un-" that attaches to adjectives to make adjectives with a negative meaning ("unhurt",
"untrue", "unhandy", etc.). And there is a suffix "-able" that attaches to verbs and forms
adjectives ("believable", "fixable", "readable"). This gives us the analysis pictured
above. There is no way to combine a prefix "un-" directly with the verb "use", so the
other logically-possible structure won't work.

Now let's consider the word "unlockable". This also consists of three morphemes:

1. prefix "un-"

88
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
2. verb stem "lock"
3. suffix "-able"

This time, though, a little thought shows us that there are two different meanings for
this word: one corresponding to the left-hand figure, meaning "not lockable," and a
second one corresponding to the right-hand figure, meaning "able to be unlocked."

In fact, un- can indeed attach to (some) verbs: untie, unbutton, uncover, uncage,
unwrap... Larry Horn (1988) points out that the verbs that permit prefixation with un-
are those that effect a change in state in some object, the form with un- denoting the
undoing (!)of that change.

This lets us account for the two senses of "unlockable".. We can combine the suffix -
able with the verb lock to form an adjective lockable, and then combine the prefix un-
with lockable to make a new adjective unlockable, meaning "not able to be locked". Or
we can combine the prefix un- with the verb lock to form a new verb unlock, and the
combine the suffix -able with unlock to form an adjective unlockable, meaning "able to
be unlocked".

By making explicit the different possible hierarchies for a single word, we can better
understand why its meaning might be ambiguous.

Morphology FAQ

What are the major differences between derivational and inflectional affixes?

First, it's worth saying that most linguists today consider this distinction as a piece of
convenient descriptive terminology, without any fundamental theoretical status. Then
we can point to the basic meanings of the terms: derivational affixes "derive" new

89
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
words from old ones, while inflectional affixes "inflect" words for certain grammatical
or semantic properties.

derivational inflectional
position closer to stem further from stem
addable on to? yes not in English
meaning? (often) unpredictable predictable
changes word class? maybe no

Are clitics inflectional or derivational morphemes?

The answer would depend on your definitions -- and as we explained earlier, the
categories of "inflection" and "derivation" are descriptive terms that really don't have a
strong theoretical basis. However, based on comparison to typical examples of
inflectional and derivational affixes, the answer seems to be "neither", in that clitics are
not really lexical affixes at all.

Word-Formation Processes in English

In English, the following processes have been used in the formation of new
words. No- tice that such processes are not necessarily of a morphological nature.
A. Acronymy
Acronymy is the process whereby a new word is formed from the initial letters of
the constituent words of a phrase or sentence. For example, from the initial letters of
the words of the phrase North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the word NATO is
formed. Similarly, from the initial letters of the constituent words of the phrase
unidentified flying object, the word is formed. In a like manner, from the con-
stituent words of the sentence I owe you, the word IOU (notice the adaptation in
spelling) is formed. And from the Situation normal, all fouled up, snafu (army
slang) is formed. The words created by this process are called acronyms; all of them
func- tion as nouns.

90
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Types of Acronyms
According to Quirk et al. (1985), there are two main types of acronyms, namely:
1. Acronyms which are pronounced as a word; e.g., NASA (= National
Aeronautics and Space Administration), radar (radio detecting and ranging), laser
(= light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation), UNESCO
(= United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), BASIC
(= Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code), COBOL (Common Business
Oriented Language), etc
As can be seen, acronyms of this type often derive from phrasal names. Many of
them
belong to the jargon (i.e., specialized language) of particular occupations,
organizations or fields of study (esp. scientific, administrative, political) and might be
completely meaning- less to the persons who are not familiarized with them. Notice
also that some of these acronyms are of so frequent an occurrence that people often
use them without the slightest idea of what the words stand for; e.g., laser, radar.

2. Acronyms which are pronounced as sequences of letters (also called

'alphabet- isms'); e.g., C.O.D. ( = cash on delivery), MIT (= Massachusetts Institute
of Technology), VIP (= very important person). In writing, the more institu-
tionalized formations have no periods between their component letters. This tendency
is especially more common in British English than in American English; e.g., DIY \
(= do-it-yourself), FBI (= Federal Bureau of Investigations).
Note that each constituent letter of these acronyms usually represents a full word
or constituent in the compound, or just a part of a word, as in the following
examples: TB (= tuberculosis), TV (= television), c/o (= (in) care of). Likewise,
notice that some of these acronyms are given a quasi-phonetic written form; e.g.,
Emcee for M.C. (= Master of Ceremonies), Deejay for DJ (= disc jockey), etc.

91
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

B. Clipping
Clipping is the processes whereby new words are formed by shortening other
words; i.e., by eliminating the initial part, the last part, or both parts, of those
words. E.g., phone from (tele)phone, plane from (air)plane, ad (advert (BrE))
from ad(vertisement), exam from exam(ination), flu from (in)flu(enza), fridge(esp.
BrE) from refrigerator.
Notice that the short form or clipping represents the word in its entirety; however,
that fragment does not have to be the salient part of the original word, neither
prosodically nor semantically. Also, the clipping may not be used in the same
contexts as the longer word. For example, the word exam is mostly used to refer
to academic examinations or tests, not to medical examinations or check-ups.
Clipped forms generally show a certain tone of informality, which is often
reflected in their spellings; e.g., showbiz for showbusiness, 'cause ('cuz or cos) for
because, praps for perhaps. Note that in some cases the spelling is adapted to suit the
pronunciation of the original word, as in mike for microphone, Mike for Michael,
nark for narcotics, bike for bicycle. In other cases, the pronunciation changes,
as in soc (BrE) for society .Still in other cases, neither spelling nor
pronunciation changes as in veg for vegetable (or veggies for vegetables). Also,
some clipped forms retain a final – s present in the original longer forms, as in maths
(esp. BrE) for mathematics, specs for spectacles. The tone of informality of some
clippings is usually lost when they become well established in the language; e.g.,
plane, stereo (from stereophonic), taxi (from taxicab), cab (from cabriolet), pram
(BrE for perambulator) and so on.
In many long-established cases, the fuller form is rarely used or is not
ordinarily known, as in omnibus for bus and mobile vulgus for mob (cf. Quirk et
al., 1985)., demo for demonstration, Doc from Doctor, Ed from Education, French
fries (AmE) from French fried potatoes, gas from gasoline, gents from gentlemen's
room (lavatory), gym from gymnasium, lab from laboratory, lib form liberation as
in Women's Liberation Movement, mart from market, nark from narcotics

92
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
(agent), photo from photograph, prof from professor, pseud (BrE) from pseudo
(-intellectual), lit from literature, pub from public house, Stat from Statistics,
telly (BrE) from television, hanky from handkerchief, tec or dick from de-
tective, turps (BrE) from turpentine, van from caravan (or vanguard),
etc.

C. Blending
Blending is the process whereby new words are formed by combining parts of
two words, usually the beginning of one word and the end of another (cf. Godby et
al,. 1982). For example, smog (smoke + fog), brunch (breakfast + lunch), heliport
(helicopter + air- port), motel (motor + hotel), FORTRAN (formula translation), etc.
Notice that enough of each word is normally retained so that the complex whole
remains fairly readily analyzable.
Following is a partial list of other common blends: breathalyzer (breath +
analyzer), electrocute (electro + execute), Eurovision (European + television),
multiversity (multiple + university), newscast (news + broadcast), paratroops
(parachute + troops), telecast (television + broadcast), travelogue (travel +
catalogue), telex (teleprinter + exchange). According to Quirk et al. (1985),
acronymy, clipping and blending are three highly productive ways in which
abbreviation (i.e., the shortening of words) is involved in English word-formation.

D. Borrowing
Borrowing is the process whereby new words are formed by adopting words
from other languages together with the concepts or ideas they stand for E.g.,
tango, mango, taco, burrito from Spanish; fiancé, very (adapted from Old French
verai), garage from French; pizza, mafia from Italian; and so on. Usually, the pro-
nunciation and morphology of the borrowings (borrowed terms or loanwords)
are adapted to the phonology and morphology of the host language (i.e., the
language which adopts the terms); e.g., guerrilla \ (English), (Spanish); banana
(English), \ba"nana\ (Spanish); mango (sing), mangoes (pl.) (English), mangos

93
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
(Spanish).
It is important to remark that, in many cases, words are borrowed due to historic
occurrences, such as conquests and invasions, or to geographical proximity. The
borrowed term may substitute for a native term or may live along with the native term
in different social contexts. E.g., beginning and début (French), donkey and burro
(Spanish). However, the most common reason for a language to borrow words is to
fill lexical and semantic gaps, i.e., to express new concepts and ideas for which
the borrowing language has no terms, such as in the fields of science, politics,
culture (esp. cooking and music); e.g., guerrilla, taco, tango, piano, junta, matador,
arena, cole slaw (Dutch), alcohol, radio, etc.

E. Back- formation
Back-formation is the process by which new words are formed by the deletion of
a supposed affix from an already existing word (cf. Quirk et al., 1985; Fromkin &
Rodman, 1983; Richards et al. 1985). For example, the verbs peddle, edit, hawk,
enthuse, stoke, swindle, televise, donate, sculpt, buttle have been created form the pre-
existing nouns peddler, editor, hawker, enthusiasm, stoker, swindler, television,
donation, sculptor and butler, respectively. The nouns have been thought to be
derivatives of verbs on the analogy of cases such as revision, creation, formation,
transmission, to name a few, which are true derivatives form the verbs revise, create,
form, transmit, respectively. Notice that this process normally involves the
transformation of one part of speech into another.

F. Word Coinage
Word coinage (or invention) is the process whereby new words are created
outright, either deliberately or accidentally, to fit some purpose. Usually, words are
coined to ex- press new ideas, processes, products, etc. in the language. For
example, brand names such as Xerox, Kodak, Exxon, Kleenex, Nylon, Dacron, etc.;
pooch, snob, nerd, blurb, googol,
etc.

94
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
It is worth pointing out that the invention of new words is sometimes based on
existing words, such as Jell-o on gel, Kleenex on clean. Many acronyms such as
Cobol, laser, etc. are based on phrases for which they stand. However, words are
more often created out of thin air, i.e., without basing on any other pre-existing
word.
G. Functional shift
Functional shift (conversion or zero derivation) is the process by which new
words are created by using a word in new functions (i.e., by shifting, changing or
converting its original grammatical class to another class), without any change in its
form . For example, when the word water is used in the following sentence Give me
some water, please it is used as a noun, which is probably its original (and more
common) use. But when water is used in the sentence The children water the plants
every morning, it is used in a new syntactic function, namely, as a verb, and no
change in spelling or pronunciation has been made. In other words, the grammatical
category of the word water has shifted from noun to verb.
Another example of this process is the use of the word walk in the following
sentences:
a. If the shop isn't too far away, we can walk over there.
b. I take a walk around the block every evening.
In (a), walk is used as a verb (probably its most common use); in (b), it is used as
noun. As we can see, the very same word walk, without undergoing any change in its
spelling or pronunciation, passed from verb to noun.
Among the changes in pronunciation are the following:
1. Voicing of final consonant sounds. The final consonant sounds in some
nouns, usually the unvoiced fricatives \f, ,s\, are voiced to \v, ,z\, respectively, in
the corresponding verb forms. For example:

Noun → Verb Noun → Verb

advice /-s/ advise /-z/ shelf /-f/ shelve /-v/
house /-s/ house /-z/ thief /-f/ thieve /-v/
95
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Shift of stress and vowel reduction. When two- (or three-) syllable verbs are
converted into nouns, the primary stress is sometimes shifted from the second to the
first syllable.

ABSTRACT CONFLICT DECREASE

accent conscript dictate
address consort digest
combine construct discard
compound consult discount
compress contest discourse
concert contrast envelop
conduct convert contest
confine convict escort

Other Cases of Conversion

Following are some other common cases of conversion (cf. Quirk et al., 1985):
1. Conversion to noun
a. From verbs: answer, attempt, bet, blow-out, bore, catch, cheat, coach, cover,
de- sire, dismay, divide, doubt, drive-in, fall, find, hand-out, hit, laugh, lay-
by, lift, love, raise, release, retreat, rise, search, show-off, shut-down,
smell, stand-in, swim, taste, throw, turn, walk, want, wrap, walk-out,
wrench, etc.
b. From adjectives (1): bitter (type of beer), comic, daily (newspaper), final
(race), marrieds (married people), natural (a naturally skilled player), roast,
red, regular (customer), wet, etc.

c. From adjectives (2):10 (the) ignorant, (the) poor, (the) poorest, (the) rich,
(the)
wealthy, (the) wealthier, (the) wicked, etc.
d. From closed-class words: buts, downs, how, ifs, a must, ups, why,
etc. e. From affixes: isms.
96
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
f. From phrases: also-rans, been-to, do's and don'ts, down-and-out, free-
for-all, has-been, high-ups, know-it-all, low-down, etc.
2. Conversion to verb
a. From nouns: baby, bicycle, boat, bottle, brake, butter, canoe, carpet,
catalogue, cash, chaperon, coat, commission, core, corner, cripple, elbow,
father, fiddle, finger, floor, garage, glue, grease, group, gut, hand, knife,
mail, mask, mother, motor, muzzle, nurse, oil, parrot, peel, pit, pilot, plaster,
porch, position, rack, shelve, skin, etc.
b. From adjectives: calm, calm down, dirty, dry, empty, humble, lower,
narrow, sober up, smooth out, soundproof, weary, yellow, etc.
3. Conversion to adjectives from nouns: (in both predicative and attributive
position) brick, cotton, nylon, reproduction (furniture), wool, Worcester
(porcelain), etc.

H. Morphological Misanalysis

Morphological misanalysis (or false etymology) is the process whereby new

morphemes or words are introduced into the language due to an erroneous analysis of
the structure of some words, in which the language speaker seems to see or hear
familiar elements (For example, the suffix –burger results from misanalyzing the
word hamburger as if it were composed of the word ham plus –burger. In fact,
the word hamburger is a one-morpheme word and is short for Hamburger steak.
The "suffix"–burger has since been used to form new words which refer to
other types of food; namely, cheeseburger, pizzaburger,
salmonburger, steakburger.
Similarly, the word alcoholic has been misanalyzed as if it contained the
suffix -(a)holic, and this has been used in the formation of words such as
workaholic (= addict to work), sugarholic. In a like manner, the word bikini has
been misanalyzed as if it had the prefix bi-, as in bipolar or binational, plus the
"suffix" –kini. This misanalysis has given rise to the word monokini, which

97
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
contains the prefix mono- as in monophonic or monogamy. The word bikini
comes from the name of the Bikini Atolls in the Marshal Islands, near New
Zealand.
I. Eponymy
Eponymy is the process by which a number of words for places, inventions,
activities, etc. have been derived from (or based on) the proper names of persons
somehow connected with such places, inventions, activities, etc. For example,
Washington, D. C. has been named for George Washington and District of
Columbia for Christopher Columbus. Other name words are kaiser and tsar for
Julius Caesar; ohm for George Simon Ohm;

watt after James Watt; sandwich after the 4th Earl of Sandwich; jumbo (jet) after
the name of a huge elephant taken to the US by P. T. Barnum; denim for de Nimes
(France), Picasso for the famous painter Picasso, and so on.

98
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1. Suffixes that change the grammatical class of the words they are
attached to.
Noun-forming suffixes: Adjective-forming suffixes:
v + ~ = n v + ~ = adj.
assist + -ance = assistance eat + -able = eatable
assist + -ant = assistant reduce + -ible = reducible
confide + -ence = confidence differ + -ent = different
confide + -ent = confident signify + -ant = significant
permute + -ation = permutatio act + -ive = active
compete + -ition = competitio compuls + -ory = compulsor
attend + -tion = attention
confess + -ion = confession n + ~ = adj.
adhere + -sion = adhesion fashion + -able = fashionable
employ + -ee = employee respons + -ible = responsible
work + -er = worker magic + -al = magical
act + -or = actor planet + -ary = planetary
beg + -ar = beggar affectio + -ate = affectionat
develop + -ment = developme disease + -ed = diseased
observe + - = observator gold + -en = golden
close + -ure = closure Burma + -ese = Burmese
break + -age = breakage picture + -esque = picturesqu
type + -ist = typist peace + -ful = peaceful
survive + -al = survival dictator + -ial = dictatorial
poet + -ic = poetic
adj. + ~ = n child + -ish = childish
young + -ster = youngster tree + -less = treeless
industri + -ist = industrialis god + -like = godlike
crude + -ity = crudity coward + -ly = cowardly
dry + -ness = dryness poison + -ous = poisonous
free + -dom = freedom quarrel + -some = quarrelsom
praise + - = praisewort
dust + -y = dusty
Brazil + -ian = Brazilian

Verb-forming
v + ~ = v n + ~ = v
blac + -en = blacke beauty + -ify = beautify
solid + -ify = solidif comput + -ize = computeri
length + -en = lengthen

99
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2: Prefixes that change the grammatical class of the words they are
attached to.

~ + n = v
~ + n = adv.
be- friend befriend
a- + bed = abed
en- + danger = endanger
em- + power = empower
~ + v = adv.
a- + sleep = asleep
~ + adj. = v
a- + singin = a-
g singin be- little + belittle
en- + large = enlarge
g

Table 3: Suffixes that do not change the grammatical class of the words they
are attached to.
n + ~ = n Meaning of Morpheme
lemon + -ade = lemonade
Mexico + -an = Mexican
Africa + -ana = Africana ‘collection of facts,
discipline + -arian = disciplinaria objects, etc.
‘practice of’
function + -ary = functionary
director + -ate = directorate
boot + -ee = bootee ‘diminutive’
mountain + -eer = mountaineer ‘person concerned with the
philosophy + -er = philosopher ‘practicer of’
fish + -ery = fishery ‘place where an action is
cook + -ery = cookery carried
‘art of, practice of’
snob + -ery = snobbery
rival + -ry = rivalry ‘state, quality, character of’
journal + -ese = journalese ‘in the (literary) style of’
n + ~ = n Meaning of Morpheme
lion + -ess = lioness ‘female of n’
cigar + -ette = cigarette ‘diminutive’
usher + -ette = usherette ‘female’
flannel + -ette = flannelette ‘imitation’
hand + -ful = handful ‘amount that fills’
boy + -hood = boyhood ‘status, rank, condition of
mathematic + -ian = mathematicia ‘specialist in’

music + -ian = musician

dog + -ie = doggie ‘pet name or familiar
pig + -y = piggy
hero + -ism = heroism ‘showing qualities typical
Buddha + -ism = Buddhism ‘specific doctrine,
principle or
100
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
drama + -ist = damatist ‘agent of an –ize verb’
king + -dom = kingdom (e.g.
‘domain’
pound + -worth = poundsworth ‘using the amount of’
tobacco + -ist = tabacconist ‘person concerned with a
Labor + -ite = Laborite spe-
‘follower, devotee of a
pig + -let = piglet person
‘diminutive’
duck + -ling = duckling ‘diminutive’
hire + -ling = hireling ‘person connected with’
country + -man = countryman (used
‘dweller in’
milk + -man = milkman ‘somebody connected by a
fish + - = fishmonger spe-
‘somebody who deals in’
song + monge
-ster = songster ‘somebody connected
land + -scape = landscape with the of scenery’
‘a stretch
friend + -ship = friendship ‘a state of being, status,
musician + -ship = musicianship ‘skill, proficiency as’
photograph + -y = photography ‘system of’

adj. + ~ = adj.
outer + -most = outermost ‘superlative of adj., very’
two + -fold = twofold ‘of (so many) parts’
red + -ish = reddish ‘somewhat, near to’

101
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4: Derivational prefixes that do not change the grammatical class of the
words they are attached to.
a- ‘not, without’: amoral; aseptic; atheist (n.).
ante- ‘in front of’: anteroom; ‘before, previous to’:
anti- 1. ‘opposed to, against’: antisocial; antiseptic;
arch- 2. ‘instead
‘first, chief, head’: archetype; archbishop.
audio- ‘of hearing, of sound’: audiovisual; audio-
be- 1. (~ + v = v) ‘all over, all around, in all
directions’: bedeck;
bi- 1. ‘occurring twice in a period’: bi-monthly; bi-
annual. 2.
by-, bye- ‘of secondary importance; incidental’: by-
co- election; bye-law;
‘together, jointly, equally’: cohabit; co-author;
de- co-operate;
(used with a v.) ‘the negative, reverse, opposite
dis- of’: depopu-
(used with a v.) ‘the negative, reverse, opposite
equi- of’: disbe-
‘equal, the same’: equidistant; equivalent.
ex- 1. ‘out, out of, from’: exclaim; extract. 2. \eks-\
extra- ‘former,
1. at beyond’: extra-marital, extrasensory.
‘outside,
fore- 2. ‘very’:in front of’: foretell; foreground.
‘before,
hyper- ‘to a large or extreme degree’: hypercritical;
in-, il-, 1. (~ + v = v or n) ‘in, on’: intake; imprint. 2. (~
im-,
inter-ir- + adj. = from one to another’: international;
‘between,
intra- interplane-
‘inside’: intravenous; intra-uterine; introspection.
in-
mal- ‘bad, wrong, not’: maladjustment; malnutrition.
mis- ‘bad, wrong, not’: misconduct; misdirect; mistrust.
multi- ‘many’: multistage; multicolored.
neo- ‘new, revived, later’: neologism; neo-classical.
non- ‘bit’: nonsense; non-stop.
out- 1. ‘located outside’: outhouse; outpost. 2.
‘surpassing to a
over- 1. ‘across, above’: overland; overhead. 2. ‘to

102
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
much’: overcharge; overwork. 3. ‘with the various
pan- senses of
‘all, throughout’: panchromatic; Pan-African.
photo- 1. ‘of light’: photoelectric. 2. ‘of photography’:
physi(o)- photocopy;
‘of the body, of living things’: physiotherapy;
poly- ‘many’: polygamy; polysyllabic.
post- ‘after’: postcript; posthumous; post-graduate.
pre- ‘before’: prefabricate; premature; pre-recorded.
pro- 1. ‘supporting, in favor of’: pro-Chinese; pro-
proto- revolutionary.
‘first, original, basic’: prototype; protoplasm.
pseudo- ‘false, fake’: pseudonym; pseudo-intellectual.
psycho- ‘of the mind’: psychiatry; psycho-analysis.
quasi- ‘almost, seemingly’: quasi-serious; quasi-
re- ‘again’: re-echo; reinstate.
retro- ‘backwards, behind’: retrospective; retro-rocket.
self- ‘of one’s self, alone’: self-taught; self-service.
semi- ‘half, partially, midway’: semi-circular;
sub- semi-detached;
1. ‘under’: subway; subsoil. 2. ‘secondary, lower
in rank’:
super- 1. ‘above, over’: super-structure; superimpose. 2.
trans- ‘superior
1. ‘across’: transatlantic; trans-continental. 2. ‘to
tri- a changed
‘three’: triangle; tricolor.
un- 1. (used with an adj. or n.) ‘not’: unable;
under- untruth. 2. (used
1. ‘located beneath’: undercurrent;
undergrowth. 2. ‘not
uni- ‘one, the same’: uniform; unisex.
up- ‘to a higher or better state’: uphill; upgrade.
vice- ‘somebody who is next in rank to and may act for
ultra- another’:
‘beyond; to excess’: ultraviolet; ultra-liberal.
well- (~ + pp. of v. = adj.) 1. ‘fortunately’: well-born. 2.
‘properly,

103
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5: Derivational prefixes that change the grammatical class of the words
they are attached to.
a- 1. (~ + n. = adv.) ‘in’: abed; ‘on, at’: afield; ashore.
2. (~ + v. =
be- (~ + n. or adj. = v) ‘make, become’: befriend; belittle.
en-, 1. (~ + n. = v) ‘put in, on’: encase; endanger;
em- enplane. 2. (~ +
Table 6: Derivational prefixes that are attached to bound roots to form content
words.
ab- ‘from, away from’: absent;
ad- ‘to, towards’: advance; adjoin.
aero- ‘of aircraft’: aerodynamics;
ambi- ‘both, double, two’: ambiguous;
an- ambi-
‘not, without’: anaesthetic;
anthropo ‘of man; of mankind’:
-astro- anthroopoid; an-
‘of the stars, of outer space’:
biblio- astronomy;
‘of books’: bibliography;
bio- ‘of life, of living organisms’:
centi- biography;
‘a hundred, a hundredth’:
chrono- centigrade;
‘of time’: chronology;
con-, ‘with, together’: conduct;
col-,
contra- collaborate;
‘against; opposite to’:
demi- contraception;
‘half, partly’: demimonde;
di- ‘twice, double’: dilemma; dioxide.
dia- ‘through, across’: diameter;
electro- diagonal;
‘concerned with, caused by
geo- electricity’:
‘of the earth’: geography;
hemo- ‘of the blood’: hemoglobin;
,hetero- hemor-
‘the other, the opposite,
omo- different’:
‘the same’:het-
homogenous;
hydro- ‘of water’: hydrant; hydro-
macro- ‘relatively large;
matri- extending’:mat-ricide.
‘mother’: matriarch;

104
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
mega- 1. ‘large’: megalith. 2. ‘one
micro- million’:
1. ‘relatively small’: micro-film;
micro-

milli- wave. 2. ‘ofpartexamining

‘a thousandth or
of’: milligram;
mono- milli-
‘one, a single’: monosyllable;
neuro- ‘of the nervous system’:
ortho- neuralgia; neu-
‘correct, standard’: orthodox;
paleo-, orthopae-
‘of ancient times’: paleolithic;
pa- laeo-
patri- paleon-
‘father’: patriarch; patricide.
phono- ‘of sound’: phonetic; phonology.
socio- ‘of society’: sociology; socio-
sym-, ‘sharing with, together’:
syn-
techno- sympathy;
‘of appliedsyn-
science’:
tele- technocracy; tech- distances’:
‘of linking across
theo- telepathy;
‘of God’: theocracy; theology.
thermo- ‘of heat, of temperature’:
thermostat;

Table 7: Derivational suffixes that do not change the grammatical class of the
words they are attached to.
-ade lemonade
-ana, ‘collection of facts, objects, etc.; relating to’: Africana
iana
-arian ‘practicer of’: disciplinarian; vegetarian.
-ate directorate
-cide ‘killing, killer’: suicide; insecticide.
-cracy ‘government or rule by, class characterized by’:
-crat democracy; ar-
‘member or supporter of a –cracy’: democrat;
-(a)cy ‘condition, quality’: accuracy; infancy; supremacy.
-ee ‘diminutive’: bootie; coatee.
-eer ‘person concerned with the n’: auctioneer;
-er ‘practicer of’: astronomer; philosopher.
-ese ‘in the (literary) style of’: journalese; officialese.
-ess ‘female’: lioness; actress; mistress.
-ette 1. ‘diminutive’: cigarette; kitchenette. 2. ‘female’:
-fold usherette;
1. suf- by’: tenfold; hundredfold. 2. ‘of (so
‘multiplied
-form many)
‘havingparts’:
the shape or character of’: uniform;
105
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
-gamy ‘of marriage’: monogamy; polygamy.
-gon ‘angles, corner’: polygon; pentagon.
-gram ‘something written down or drawn’: telegram;
-graph monogram; dia- down, of writing’: autograph;
‘something written
- calligraphy; orthography.
-ful ‘amount that fills’: handful; mouthful; spoonful.
-hood ‘status, rank, condition of life’: boyhood;
-ian 1. ‘belonging to’: Brazilian; Shakespearean. 2.
-ics ‘specialist
‘science or in’:
specific activity’: physics; politics;
-ide ‘chemical compound’: chloride; sulphide.
-ie, -y ‘pet name or familiar name’: piggy; doggie; Susie.
-ish ‘somewhat, near to’: reddish; twentyish.
-ism 1. ‘showing qualities typical of’: Americanism;
-ist heroism.
1. ‘[Link]‘spe-
an –ize verb’: dramatist; publicist. 2.
‘follower,
-ite 1. ‘follower, devotee of a person or organization’:
-itis Laborite. 2. of’: appendicitis; tonsilitis.
‘inflammation
-let ‘diminutive’: piglet; booklet.
-ling 1. ‘diminutive’: duckling; fledgling. 2. ‘person
- connected with
‘something spoken’: dialogue; monologue;
-logy ‘branch of learning’: biology; sociology.
-man 1. ‘dweller in’: Irishman; countryman. 2. ‘somebody
connected
milkman.
-mania ‘abnormal behavior, excessive enthusiasm’:
-manic kleptomania; bib- by a –mania’: kleptomaniac.
‘somebody affected
-meter 1. ‘a means of measuring’: speedometer; kilometer.
- 2. ‘a part ofwho deals in’: fishmonger;
‘somebody
monge
-most scandalmonger.
‘superlative; very’: inmost; outermost.
-oid ‘resembling in shape’: asteroid; rhomboid.
-osis ‘a process, change’: hypnosis; metamorphosis.
-phile ‘lover of something in excess’: Anglophile;
-philia ‘excessive love of’: Anglophilia; bibliophilia.
-phobe ‘fearer of’: xenophobe.
- ‘excessive fear of’: claustrophobia; xenophobia.
-phobic ‘fearful in excess of’: claustrophobic; xenophobic.
-phone ‘means of reproducing a sound’: megaphone;
-phonic ‘relating the means of reproducing sounds’:
-scape ‘a stretch of scenery’: landscape; moonscape.
-scope ‘means of observing or showing’: microscope;
-ship 1. ‘a state of being, status; office’: friendship;
-sphere ownership; profes-
‘spherical, of a sphere’: hemisphere; atmosphere.
-ster 1. ‘somebody connected with the n’: songster;
106
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
-tude ‘condition’: magnitude; exactitude.
-ule ‘relative smallness’: capsule; globule.
-worth ‘using the amount of’: poundsworth; daysworth.

107
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER SEVEN
Immediate constituent analysis or IC Analysis
In linguistics, Immediate constituent analysis or IC Analysis is a method of sentence
analysis first explicitly introduced by American linguist Leonard Bloomfield in his
book Language in 1933. It is a major feature of Bloomfieldian structuralist linguistics.
In IC analysis, a sentence is divided up into major divisions or "immediate
constituents", and these constituents are in turn divided into further immediate
constituents, and this process continues until irreducible constituents are reached, i.e.,
until each constituent consists of only a word or meaningful part of a word. The end
result of IC analysis is often presented in a visual diagrammatic form that reveals the
hierarchical immediate constituent structure of a sentence. For sentences whose
structures are unusual, this diagramming may become excessively complex; in such
cases verbal description is used.
For example, the sentence "The girl is happy" can be divided into immediate
constituents "The girl" and "is happy". These in turn can be analyzed into immediate
constituents (the+girl) and (is+happy), and so on . Also , “The old man ran away,” the
first division into immediate constituents would be between “the old man” and “ran
away.” The immediate constituents of “the old man” are “the” and “old man.” At the
next level “old man” is divided into “old” and “man.” .

All grammatical constructions can be analyzed into Immediate Constituents (ICs).

In the case of grammatical coordination, constructions may have three or more ICs.
The construction pie, cake, cookies, and candy, for example, has four ICs and the
coordinating conjunction and to connect them. Except in such cases, structural
grammar analyzes syntax by dividing grammatical constructions into exactly two ICs.

108
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
More complex structures can be analyzed by means of "Chinese boxes."

Structural grammar analyzes the syntax of a sentence by dividing the whole sentence
into its ICs, and then dividing those ICs into their ICs, and so on--until the analysis
reaches the level of individual words.

A more perspicuous way of diagramming this same structure uses a "tree."

Here the "equals" sign ( = ) indicates grammatical coordination.

The concept of the Immediate Constituent (IC) is one of two fundamental concepts in
the structural analysis of syntax. The other fundamental concept is the concept of the
Grammatical Tie.

109
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Direct Object

The direct object is perhaps the most familiar complement. Here, the object of the
verb--a noun, a pronoun, or a construction that functions like a noun--"receives the
action" of the verb.

The direct object is indicated in diagramming by labeling the complementation with C,

and then writing DO under the word or construction that serves as the direct object.

The Direct Object with Indirect Object

In the kind of complementation called direct object + indirect object, the verb has two
complements--nouns, pronouns, or constructions that function like nouns. Both objects
"receive the action" of the verb, though in different senses.

The direct object + indirect object construction is indicated in diagramming by

labeling the complementation with C, and then writing DO under the direct object and
IO under the indirect object.

The Objective Complement

As with the direct object and indirect object, in the case of the objective complement
the verb has two complements. One of the complements functions like a direct object--
it is a noun, a pronoun, or a construction functioning like a noun. The objective
110
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
complement itself might be either another noun or pronoun, or it might be an adjective
or a construction functioning like an adjective. The notion is that the objective
complement of the verb functions to provide information about the object of the verb.

The objective complement is indicated in diagramming by labeling the

complementation with a C, and then writing OC under the word or construction that
serves as the objective complement.

The Retained Object

Historically, the construction called the retained object comes from archaic
constructions such as Him was given a gift, in which gift is the subject of the verb was
given, and Him is its object. Since the usual order of English sentences, however, is
subject-verb-object, speakers tended to "correct" the object form of the pronoun (him)
to the subject form (he): He was given a gift. The gift, then, is retained as the apparent
object of the [Link] retained object is indicated in diagramming by labeling the
complementation with C, and then writing RO under the word or construction that
functions as the retained object.

111
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

The Subjective Complement

In the case of the subjective complement, the idea is that the complement of the verb
functions to provide information about the subject of the verb. The verb is then
thought of as functioning to "link" its subject with its complement. We talk about the
"copula" to be and all of its forms (am, is, was, were, have been, being, and so on),
where copula is a Latin word meaning "link," and we talk about the "linking verbs"
such as to become, to feel, and so on, that in some sense function to link the
complement to the subject.

The subjective complement is indicated in diagramming by labeling the

complementation with C, and then writing SC underneath the word or construction that
functions as the subjective complement.

112
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Diagramming Constructions: Some Problems

As all honest grammarians and this Website point out, no grammar yet discovered is
perfect. Structural grammar models the natural language as though speakers construct
sentences by rationally combining binary pairs of ICs. But obviously that model--like
all models--oversimplifies the reality it attempts to describe.

The result is that not all diagrams of sentences look like the neat trees that this Website
uses to illustrate the principles of a structural syntax. The purpose of this section of the
Website is to illustrate how to deal with some common constructions that might not
neatly yield to the model, or might not necessarily match our intuitions about how an
English sentence is in fact constructed.

These problems are dealt with under several headings, in no particular order, according
to the list below. Click on each item for a discussion of that problem

• Articles (a, an, the)

• Negations (not, the contraction n't)
• Sentence modifiers (words or constructions modifying an entire clause--
including but not limited to introductory adverbs, introductory participles,
introductory prepositional phrases, interjections, nouns of direct address,
introductory subordinate clauses)
• Verb phrases (dress up, get up, run through, etc.)
• Verbs with auxiliaries (including infinitives)

Diagramming Articles

The function words often called articles (a, an, the) work as modifiers in constructions whose heads
are nouns. What is not so easy to see, sometimes, is how to analyze a construction beginning with an
article.

Normally, the first cut in such a construction is taken between the article and the rest of the
construction. That is, the ICs of a construction beginning with an article are (1) the article, and (2) the

113
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
rest of the construction. In diagramming, then, the article is placed "outside" the rest of the
construction. Here are some examples.

Diagramming Negations
Negations in English sentences normally involve the use of auxiliary verbs, and
bridging is often required in the diagramming because the verb is separated from its
auxiliaries by the negating word (usually, the word not).

For the treatment in this diagram of does . . . know and has been working, see the
discussion of diagramming verbs with auxiliaries. The negating word not is treated
here as a modifier of the predicate (does know, plus its complement).

With negative imperatives, the negating word can modify the whole construction
(which normally consists of a verb with its complements and modifiers, since the
"understood" subject you is normally omitted in imperative sentences).

114
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
For the treatment of the infinitive to do, see the discussion of verbs with auxiliaries
.Sometimes, it can be tricky deciding exactly how much of a construction is negated.
Here are a couple of sentences in which a comma makes an important difference in the
meaning by indicating the structure of modification--indicating, that is, how much of
the construction the not modifies.

In this sentence with the comma, a reader is meant to infer that the speaker did not
attend the party in question, and that gin was not served at the party. That is, the
reason that the speaker did not attend the party was that the speaker's favorite beverage
was not available there. The comma indicates that meaning by indicating that the
because-clause is movable--that is, the clause modifies the whole predication I did not
go to the party by giving a reason why the predication is true. Another way to put this
is to say that the not modifies only the predicate of the main clause, and the subordinate
clause modifies the whole main clause.

Contrast the preceding sentence with the following sentence, which has no comma.

Here, a reader is meant to infer that the speaker did attend the party, and that gin was
served there. The sentence means to indicate that the availability of gin was not the
reason that the speaker attended the party, even though the speaker does like gin.
115
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Another way to put this is to say that the subordinate clause (the because-clause)
modifies only the predicate of the main clause, and the not modifies the predicate of the
main clause with all of its modifiers (including the because-clause).

Dealing with the contractions that are often involved in negations requires dividing
constructions written as individual words.

Diagramming Sentence Modifiers

Sometimes modifiers can modify not just the nouns or verbs that are the heads of their
constructions, but entire sentences. An obvious example is the introductory subordinate
clause, which in the syntax of English always modifies the whole main clause. The
comma that always follows the introductory subordinate clause conveys precisely this
information about the structure of modification: the comma indicates that the
introductory clause is movable in the sentence, and therefore modifies the whole main
clause--not just some particular part of it.

Single words can function the same way as introductory subordinate clauses--that is,
can function to modify the whole main clause of the sentence. In the traditional
grammar, such single words are often called "introductory adverbs" (though they are
not adverbial in form), and they should not be confused with coordinating conjunctions.
116
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Words that are adverbial in form, or also prepositional phrases, can modify whole
sentences. Note that the introductory words or phrases set off by commas in the
following sentences are, like introductory subordinate clauses, movable in the sentence.

Nouns of direct address and interjections may also be treated as sentence modifiers, as
follows.

In all of the examples so far, the sentence modifiers have come at the beginning of the
sentence. The sentence modifiers, however, are movable--that mobility is implied, in
fact, in the notion of the "sentence modifier." When a sentence modifier comes
somewhere in the middle of the sentence, it is necessary to draw a bridge in
diagramming, as in the following examples.
117
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Diagramming Verb Phrases

Sometimes, English verbs have attached to them other words that, in other contexts,
function as other parts of speech--for example, prepositions or adverbs. But in these
cases the words function with the verb to create an idiom, a specialized meaning that is
not just the sum of the dictionary definitions of the verb and the other word. In such
cases, normally the two words are treated in diagramming as a single unit.

In these examples, dressed up and got up are idioms, and not just dressed and got
modified by up. Note that sometimes the element that accompanies the verb is
separated from the verb, as in the second example. Diagramming such constructions
requires drawing bridges.

Sometimes, a sentence that "looks" grammatically the same as another will be

diagrammed differently, depending on the meaning of the idiom. Such pairs of

118
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
sentences illustrate the general principle that syntax cannot be completely separated
from semantics.

In the first example, ran through seems to function as an idiom that means something
like "explicated" and that takes a direct object. In the second sentence, through seems
to function as a preposition in a phrase that modifies ran.

Diagramming Verbs with Auxiliaries

Verbs in English often take "auxiliaries" (often, forms of the verbs to be, to do, or to
have). Normally, in diagramming, a verb with its auxiliaries is treated as a single unit.

In these examples, the auxiliaries had and will have been are used to express tense and
voice (active or passive). In the first example, had repeated is called the "past perfect"
tense, and in the second example, will have been sold is called the "future perfect
passive." English also has so-called "modal" auxiliaries (would, should, ought, must,
might, and so on), and "progressive" tenses expressed by auxiliary verbs (in the
following example, going to be).

Participles, gerunds, and infinitives, as verbals, can also have auxiliaries. Infinitives
(the to-form of the verb) are treated as single units.

119
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Sometimes, modifying elements come between the auxiliary and its verb, or between
the to and the verb in an infinitive (the dreaded "split infinitive," which in some
constructions nowadays is more widely tolerated than it used to be). This kind of
construction requires bridging in diagramming.

The auxiliary to do, like the auxiliary to have, is used to form questions. To do also appears in
negations

120
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER EIGHT
Phrase Structure Grammar
Views on traditional grammar began to change toward the end of the 19th century, and
much of the motivation for this change was the result of interest in American Indian
tribal languages. Native Americans largely had been ignoredafter the great Indian wars,
but they became the focus of much scholarly attention when anthropologists began
perceiving that the distinctive characteristics of these indigenous people were vanishing.
An intensive preservation program started, and researchers such as Franz Boas began
efforts to record the details of the tribal cultures, particularly their languages.
A few early missionaries had produced some records of these languages, but they were
not systematic and lacked the rigor necessary to preserve the languages for the future. In
addition, these missionaries used traditional grammar in their efforts, with less than
satisfactory results. In his introduction to the Handbook of American Indian Languages,
Boas (1911) lamented the fact that the descriptions were distorted by the attempt to
impose traditional grammar on languages for which it was inappropriate. Trying to get
these languages to fit traditional gram- mar was the linguistic equivalent of forcing a
round peg into a square hole.
Tense again provides an interesting illustration. Many Indian languages have only one
tense, usually the present, yet they were described as though they have three tenses, like
Latin. In some cases, to ensure that the description was congruent with the Latin model,
those describing the languages would produce a construction that did not naturally
occur among native speakers. These were instances in which the grammar drove the
language to such an extent that the finished description did not reflect the way people
used the language. As more data were collected, the number of such incompatibilities
grew, and researchers were at a loss. When confronted with different dialects of the
same language, they could not decide which was “correct” because there was no
standard by which to make a judgment. There were no texts, and the number of native
speakers was shrinking rapidly, making it difficult to locate an informant who could
offer advice. Eventually, scholars like Boas concluded that the goal of traditional
grammar, prescription based on a literary model, was inadequate.

121
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Now known as structuralists, these scholars, led by Boas and later by Leon- ard
Bloomfield, worked for several years to develop a new grammar, one that did not make
the same assumptions about linguistic universals that were inherent in traditional
grammar. They called this grammar Immediate Constituent Analysis (ICA), a term that
was so awkward that, in 1957, when Noam Chomsky dubbed ICA “phrase-structure
grammar” the name stuck.
The differences between phrase-structure grammar and traditional grammar are many,
but for our purposes we only need to focus on a few distinctive features. One of the
more important was that the new grammar subordinated many of the notions of
linguistic universals and opted instead to advocate the idea that every language is
unique, with its own structure and its own grammar. Universals were considered in a
relatively abstract way: All languages have subjects, all languages have ways of
counting and thus making plurals, and so on. This reorientation reflected a fundamental
shift in the way American linguists saw the study of grammar, a shift associated with
different philosophies and worldviews. Traditional grammar was based largely on
rationalism, which proposes that human knowledge is not based on the senses or
experience. Rationalism can be traced back to Plato, who argued that the world of
experiences is merely a shadow of a transcendental reality that can be known only
through the powers of the intellect, guided by philosophy. The senses are incapable of
revealing more than a distorted semblance of reality, an idea that Plato developed with
memorable effect in The Republic through his allegory of the cave.
Transcendentalism can provide a workable model of reality with respect to certain
concepts, such as geometric figures and justice. A circle, for example, is defined
mathematically as a plane figure composed of a series of points equidistant from a
center point. Drawing such a figure, however, is impossible owing to the problems
associated with exact measurement. Thus, a perfect circle exists only in the mind. One
likewise can propose that true justice exists only in the mind because the mundane
reality of our court system is that it readily sacrifices justice for the sake of expediency.
Nevertheless, in both cases the transcendental model is sufficiently close to reality to
make a comparison possible. Thinking about a perfect circle can lead to the production

122
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
of a circle that is a very close approximation of the mental model.
This approach does not work with language. The structuralists found that
transcendentalism was so far removed from their experiences with actual language that
a comparison was not possible. Just thinking about grammatical forms never would
allow someone to develop a correct description of the tense system in Cherokee. Such a
description required data collection, analysis, interpretation, and rule formation. It
required, in other words, an empirical approach to language. The orientation of the
structuralists therefore was the antithesis of their predecessors, for whereas rationalism
proposes that all knowledge comes from reflection rather than from the senses,
empiricism pro- poses that knowledge comes from the senses rather than from
reflection.
Linked to this view was an equally important shift in the grammar away from
prescription to description. Matters of correctness were replaced with what Bloomfield
(1933) referred to as acceptability, which is determined on the basis of context. Thus, an
utterance or a written statement might be grammatical but unacceptable. On this
account, grammaticality judgments are linked to attested utterances, not to a literary
norm. An immediate consequence of this view is that grammaticality becomes largely a
matter of word order, not usage conventions. Consider the following sentences:

• ?He don’t got no money.

• He doesn’t have any money.
• *Doesn’t money any he have.
The first two sentences are grammatical in this view because both conform to the
subject-verb-object (SVO) word order of English. The third sentence is
ungrammatical because it does not conform to that word order. The first sentence is
nonstandard, however, so in those situations that call for Standard English it will be
deemed unacceptable. It is reasonable to assume that the same would apply to the
second sentence, that in those situations that call for nonstandard English—for
example, a conversation in the home of a nonstandard speaker—this sentence would
be unacceptable. There are occasions in which that assumption is correct, but we

123
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
cannot say that it always is correct or even mostly correct. In general, nonstandard
speakers are not critical of standard speakers, even in those situations in which
nonstandard English is the norm. Standard speakers, on the other hand, generally are
critical of non- standard speakers in all situations and seldom will accept
nonstandard English, regardless of the context.
The goal, then, of phrase-structure grammar is to describe how people use language.
Grammatical sentences are those that conform to the standard word order of English,
SVO or subject-verb-complement (SVC), which is the second major sentence pattern
in English. It does not take a prescriptive stance regarding language use but instead
assesses language on the basis of acceptability, or what in previous chapters was
referred to as appropriateness.
The emphasis on description has led to widespread misunderstanding of the goals
and principles of phrase-structure grammar. The popular perception is that the
grammar takes an “anything goes” approach to language. The distinction between
grammaticality and acceptability, which is the distinction between grammar and
usage, clearly does not endorse such an approach. But the long-standing association
between grammar and logic, as well as the pejorative connotations of the expression,
“ungrammatical,” make it hard for many to embrace the idea that nonstandard
English can be just as grammatical and logical as Standard. The message inherent in
phrase-structure grammar is that it is quite difficult for native speakers of a language
to produce ungrammatical sentences. This message, as we shall see, has significant
implications for teaching grammar and writing.
APPLYING KEY IDEAS
Observe how you change your language on the basis of context. Chances are that your
language is more formal in the classroom than it is at home or in the school cafeteria.
Using a small recorder, tape your conversations in two contrasting settings and then
analyze your speech in a couple of paragraphs that ex- plain how it differs by context.
Look at word choice, sentence length and structure, and degree of repetition. Does your
language vary by context? If so, what does this tell you about appropriateness
conditions and acceptability?

124
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

PHRASE-STRUCTURE RULES

The emphasis on description in phrase-structure grammar is important in many ways,

but one of the more salient is its effect on the notion of a grammar rule. In traditional
grammar, rules are essentially inviolable, and we are asked to force language to
conform to the rules. In phrase-structure grammar, the situation is different. The term
“rule” is used very loosely to describe the observed grammatical patterns that exist in a
given language. Consequently, when we use the term “rule” in phrase-structure
grammar, we are not referring to an inviolable statement about language; instead, we
are referring to a pattern of constructions that are characteristic of and that describe a
given language. Another way of ex- pressing this point is to say that phrase-structure
grammar does not have a generative component. The “rules” we use do not produce
sentences; they merely describe them. As a result, the “rules” change whenever we
encounter a real-world utterance that the “rules” do not describe.
A key to understanding phrase-structure grammar therefore lies in being able to look at
a string of words and determine how to describe the string using the grammar. That is
one of the tasks of this chapter. We have already noted that grammatical analysis
focuses on language at the sentence level; in phrase- structure grammar, this focus is
made highly explicit through the kinds of questions it tries to answer and through the
shorthand notation it uses for sentence analysis. We can begin examining both issues by
considering that phrase-structure grammar recognizes that a sentence (S) has two
primary components, a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP). The level of
grammatical analysis, therefore, proceeds on the basis of phrases. The first grammar
“rule” in phrase-structure analysis reflects this basic characteristic:
S ___________NP VP

This expression is read as follows: “S is rewritten as NP VP.” This rule is the starting
point of all grammatical analyses in phrase-structure grammar. Keep in mind that this
statement is not a rule for generating sentences; it simply describes the fact that English

125
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
sentences that we can observe on a daily basis follow this basic pattern. Notice that
phrase-structure grammar focuses on form, not function. In the stated rule, there is no
reference to subject or predicate; instead, it is understood that the NP is the subject and
that the VP is the predicate.
Let’s examine how this rule can describe a sentence that we have seen before:

Dogs bark.

As we’ve already noted, Dogs is a noun phrase, and bark is a verb phrase. Thus, we can
use phrase-structure notation to describe the grammatical structure of the sentences as
follows:

S __________ NP VP

This rule describes the makeup of the sentence, but it is not sufficiently specific because
it does not fully describe the noun phrase or the verb phrase. We can look at the
sentence and determine the composition of these phrases, which in turn allows us to
write additional rules for NP and VP. In this case, the NP is composed of a single noun
(N), and the VP is composed of a single verb (V):

NP __________ N
VP ___________V
To complete the description, we need to assign words to N and V, which results in the
following:

N ____________ dogs

V _____________ bark
Notice how each line of this analysis represents a specific assignment of features
designed to reveal the structure of the various parts of this particular sentence. The

126
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
sentence may consist of a noun phrase and a verb phrase, but what are these phrases
composed of? Each is composed of an individual word, a noun and a verb, respectively.
The final step is to describe the noun and the verb, to list the actual words that make up
the sentence. This set of phrase-structure rules is referred to as a grammar of the
sentence. The process of producing this grammar reflects the procedures that American
linguists used in the 19th century to de- scribe and record tribal languages. It builds a
lexicon—a list of words—while showing how those words fit together to make
grammatical sentences.
The sentence grammar for sentence 1 is pretty simple, but it contains within itself the
power to describe quite complex sentences. The key lies in an important feature of
language that phrase-structure grammar utilizes: recursion. With respect to language,
recursion conveys the fact that complex expressions can be analyzed in terms of their
simpler components. In addition, it bases analysis on knowledge of the expected
outcome. That is, any analysis of a sentence begins with the completed sentence, not
with an abstraction, and not with some unknown endpoint. It is like solving a math
problem while knowing the answer in advance. The goal is not to discover the answer
but to understand the steps leading to it.
The advantages these features lend to analysis become clearer if we look at a series of
increasingly complex sentences and adjust the initial rule in ways that allow us to
describe each of them grammatically:

Fred bought a suit.

The analysis begins with the first phrase-structure rule:

S ________ NP VP

Notice, again, that we are not attempting to show how the sentence ought to fit together
but rather how it does. On this account, our phrase-structure analysis must describe the
existing sentence while generalizing in ways that also al- low us to describe sentence 1.

127
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
First, sentences 1 and 2 reflect differences in the verb phrase—one has an object and the
other does not. We have to conclude that NP is an optional element in the verb phrase.
Second, sentences 1 and 2 reflect differences in the noun phrase. The object NP in
sentence 2 has a determiner (det), the indefinite article (art) a, whereas there were no
determiners in sentence 1, and, indeed, there is no determiner in the subject NP of
sentence 2. We therefore have to conclude that determiners are optional elements.
Phrase-structure grammar uses a convention for optional elements: It places them in
parentheses. With these factors in mind, we can adjust the earlier rules so that they
describe both sentences, as shown here:

S _______________ NP VP
NP _____________ (det) N
VP _____________ V (NP)
det _____________ art
N ______________ Fred, suit
V ______________ bought
art ______________ a
This sentence grammar is more complex than the previous one because
Maria wore an expensive evening gown.

This sentence is interesting because it adds adjectivals to our basic NP VP combination,

and one of them is a noun, evening. We therefore must adjust the phrase-structure rules
so that they will describe all three of our sentences, which means adding a rule for the
adjective phrase (AdjP) that describes both types of adjectivals:

S __________ NP VP
NP _________ (det) (AdjP) N
VP _________ V (NP)
det ____________art

128
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
adj 1
AdjP ___________{Adj}
{N}
N _________________ Maria, evening, gown

V _________________ wore
art ________________ an

adj ____________ expensive

The rule for AdjP introduces another convention—brackets. Brackets indi- cate that one
of the elements, adj or NP, must be chosen.
Let’s take this opportunity to generalize a bit. The rule for AdjP describes all adjectivals
in a noun phrase, but it does not describe predicate adjectives, which we discussed in
chapter 3. The sentence, The tree was tall, illustrates a basic sentence pattern, with tall
functioning as a predicate adjective. Having dis- cussed adjectivals in the noun phrase,
it is a good idea to extend our analysis and adjust our rules here so that they will
describe all instances of AdjP. We can do this by making a simple modification to our
rule for VP:

VP Æ V (NP) (AdjP)

Adjusting the rule for the verb phrase raises an interesting issue with respect to verbs—
the status of particles.. Consider these sentences:
The goons with bow ties looked up the number for Pizza Hut.
Buggsy put the gun on the table.
These two sentences has two prepositional phrases (PP) as parts of two noun phrases,
and it has the verb particle up (prt). Sentence (Buggsy put the gun on the table) has a
prepositional phrase as part of the verb phrase. These structures were not in the previous
example sentences, which means that we must treat them as optional elements.
Adjusting the rules should be easy at this point::
129
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
NP and VP, for example, may have several elements, but they are all optional except
for the core features, N and V, respectively. Perhaps the larger goal of phrase-structure
grammar is becoming clear. Individual sentence grammars are revealing, but the
process of producing a new set of rules for all the possible individual sentences in
English (an infinite number) is not practical. Moreover, it does not provide a coherent
picture of the whole language. The goal, therefore, is to examine a wide range of
sentences to develop a set of highly generalizable statements that describe most (but not
necessarily all) of the grammatical sentences that speakers of the language normally
produce.

TREE DIAGRAMS

Grammar is about sentences—the form of the words and their functions in sen- tences.
Consequently, analyzing individual sentences is a major part of gram- matical study.
Such analysis can provide a great deal of information about language. In the 19th
century, Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg developed a way to diagram sentences in
an effort to make grammatical analysis more re- vealing and meaningful. Many schools
continue to use Reed-Kellogg diagrams today, more than a hundred years later. As the
examples that follow suggest, the Reed-Kellogg approach to diagramming sentences
gets very complicated very quickly. These diagrams have no labels for constituents, so
it is not easy to note at a glance what the constituents are. Understanding the structure
of any sen- tence demands understanding the structure of the diagramming procedure,
which is arbitrary and often counterintuitive.
Let’s consider three simple sentences:

Fred is a good friend.

Running is good exercise.
Buggsy believed that he was a handsome dog of a man.

130
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Fred is a good friend.

Running is good exercise.

The subject Running is a gerund (a verb functioning as a noun) functioning as a

subject—but the diagrams are significantly different. We should expect subjects to have
a similar diagrammatic structure in every situation. .
A more revealing and instructional method of analysis is the tree diagram, in which all
the components are labeled and in which all the grammatical relations are easily
recognizable. Notice how the labels and consistent structure allow us to recognize the
constituents easily. The aim is not to introduce analyses simply for the sake of analysis
but to aid in the understanding of some of the more significant grammatical structures
in English. The diagrams and the rules allow deeper insight into the structure of
language.

131
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Direct and Indirect Objects

We examined direct and indirect objects in chapter 3 as part of the discussion of

transitive and ditransitive verbs. Because the basic sentence pattern in English is SVO,
it is important to consider early on how phrase-structure grammar treats objects. We
already have a phrase-structure rule that de scribes objects:
Buggsy believed that he was a handsome dog of a man.

Fred is a good friend. (Tree diagram)

132
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Running is good exercise. (Tree diagram)

Buggsy believed that he was a handsome dog of a man. (Tree diagram)

VP ________ V (NP) (AdjP) (PP)

133
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

The only thing we have to keep in mind with these rules is that, for indirect objects that
appear as a noun phrase rather than as a prepositional phrase, we add another noun
phrase to the analysis. Consider this sentence:

Fritz sent his grandmother a gift.

This sentence has a verb phrase of the form V_________ NP NP

Buggsy asked a question of the commissioner.

134
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Prepositional Phrases
Prepositional phrases (PP) are interesting structures because they are so versa- tile.
They can function as indirect objects, and they also can function as adverbial modifiers
and as adjectival modifiers. As adverbials, they can function as sentence-level
modifiers, which means that they can modify an entire clause. In chapter 3, we
discussed phrasal modifiers and noted that the prepositional phrase is one of the major
types. As indicated in that discussion, prepositional phrases can appear in the initial,
medial, or final positions. When they appear in the initial positions, prepositional
phrases are sentence-level modifiers. Sentences 11 through 15 illustrate the various
positions and forms that prepositional phrases can take:

The goons put yellow flowers on the table. (adverbial)

Macarena, with a smile, accepted the invitation. (adverbial)
he woman with the red hair drives a Porsche. (adjectival)
In the morning, Buggsy went home. (sentence level, adverbial)

In addition, prepositional phrases can function as complements to certain kinds of

verbs, as in: Fred stepped onto the stool. (verb complement, adverbial)

Usage Note

Before the advent of printing, handwritten books were valued as much as works of art
as storehouses of information. They were beautifully illustrated, and the monks who
produced them took great pride in the quality of their calligraphy. Anyone who views
some of these books in a museum will notice that the calligraphy is so uniform as to
rival mechanical printing. As literacy spread and became more utilitarian during the
15th and 16th centuries, there arose a demand for more readable and less expensive
works. Punctuation emerged as a means of making books more readable, as did a
significant reduction in the amount of artwork. Paragraphs, which were unknown in the
ancient world, also became a means of helping readers process texts.

135
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The lesson we learn from this brief discussion is that punctuation is largely a matter of
convention rather than of rule. Indeed, different conventions govern punctuation in
several contexts. Journalists, for example, follow the Associated Press convention when
using commas with items in a series and do not put a comma before the conjunction
joining the last item; those who follow the MLA and the APA conventions, on the other
hand, do put the comma before the conjunction.
With regard to prepositional phrases, there are two conventions governing punctuation
of phrases in the initial position. One holds that writers should use length as the basis
for deciding whether to set the modifier off with a comma. In this convention, short
structures are not set off, whereas long ones are. Al- though this approach is perfectly
acceptable, it creates problems for teachers whose students want as much consistency as
possible.
Another convention holds that all modifying structures at the beginning of sentences
should be set off with a comma. Many teachers have adopted this convention because it
is easier to teach, or at least it is easier for students to accept. They do not have to think
about length.

Ambiguity

Language is inherently ambiguous, but certain prepositional phrase constructions are

quite obviously so. Under normal circumstances, we use context to disambiguate such
constructions, but it is possible to provide a grammatical analysis that also
disambiguates. Consider the following sentences:

Fred built the bench in the garage.

Macarena put the shoes in the box in the closet.

All ambiguous sentences have two possible meanings. In Fred built the bench in the
garage.
, one meaning could be that the act of building the bench could have taken place in the

136
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
garage. The second meaning could be that the act of building could have occurred
anywhere other than the garage, but the bench is in the garage now. In Macarena put
the shoes in the box in the closet. , the shoes already could be in the box, and Macarena
put those particular boxed shoes in the closet. The other meaning could be that the
empty box already could be in the closet, and Macarena put the shoes in that box.
Fred built the bench in the garage.

137
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Macarena put the shoes in the box in the closet

The sentence I saw the man with the telescope is ambiguous:

.
In this case, ambiguity arises from the fact that there are (at least) two ways to interpret
the sentence’s meaning. The first is the reading in which the speaker has the telescope
(call it reading A), while under the second reading the man the speaker sees has the
telescope (reading B).Phrase structure grammars can capture ambiguity by assigning
more than one structure to a given string. Below are the phrase structure rules that
would license the sentence :

138
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
S _______ NP VP
NP _________ Det N Det ____ the
NP _________ NP PP N _____ man
NP _________ Pro N ______telescope
VP _______ V NP PP P _______ with
VP ________ V NP Pro _______ I
PP _________ P NP V ________ saw

Note that the grammar in Table 1 contains two rules with the category VP on the left.
This means that there are two structures that this grammar can categorize as being VP-
type things. This is where the ambiguity will be captured. To see this in action, consider
the following tree diagrams where the phrase structure rule V ______ V NP PP is used.
In this case, the PP constituent is a top-level sub-constituent of the VP because it is
describing how the V constituent saw happened (using a telescope).

However, the tree in Figure 2 uses the V ! V NP rule, where the NP is the direct object

139
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
to the verb. Here, the NP contains the PP, whose role is to describe something about
the NP (that he has a telescope). So the phrase structure rules here correctly describe
the two ambiguous readings by assigning different structures for the VP. This ambiguity
is an instance of a phenomenon known as “PP attachment ambiguity.”

COORDINATION
Coordination is one of the more common features of language, and phrase- structure
grammar provides a rule that is generally applicable to all coordinated structures. It is
called the Coordinate XP rule, where X is a variable identifying any element, such as
noun or verb, and P is phrase. Coordinating conjunctions are designated by CC. This
rule supplies two pieces of information. First, any phrase can be conjoined to another
phrase of the same form. For example, any two noun phrases can be linked using a
coordinating conjunction. Second, the two conjoined phrases function as a single unit
that has the character of the individual phrases. In other words, two noun phrases joined
by a coordinating con- junction function as a single noun phrase. The rule is shown as:

XP ________ XP CC XP

We can see how the XP rule works in sentences 18 through 20. In 18, the sub- ject is
Fred and Fritz, which exists as a single unit and can be represented by XP. But the
subject consists of the two noun phrases: Fred and Fritz.

Fred and Fritz loved Cheerios.

S _________ NP CC NP VP
NP _________ N
VP ___________V NP

140
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Because language is inherently recursive, we can combine any number of similar

phrases in a single unit, as shown in Macarena danced, laughed, and sang at the party

S ___________ NP VP
NP __________(det) N
VP ___________ VP VP CC VP PP
PP ____________ prep NP

Compound Sentences

The Coordinate XP rule also applies to entire clauses, giving us a way of de- scribing
the grammatical structure of compound sentences. A compound sentence is one that has
two independent clauses. The analysis proceeds in exactly the same way as we saw
earlier, but rather than repeating phrases, the rule repeats sentences.
A goon shot the ATM, so Buggsy made an easy withdrawal.

Because each clause has the structure of a sentence, by convention our gram- mar
would begin with:

S ____________S1 CC S2

What this means is simply that the sentence (S) consists of two clauses (S1 and S2). The
grammatical analysis for 20 then would proceed like those shown earlier:

S1 ___________NP VP
S2 __________ NP VP
NP __________ (det) (AdjP) N
VP _________ V NP
AdjP _________ adj

141
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Tip

Tree diagrams can help students better understand the nature of compound sentences.
The tree of A goon shot the ATM, so Buggsy made an easy withdrawal clearly shows
how the sentence is composed of two equal Ss, or clauses. When students understand
the structure of compounds, they more readily understand how to punctuate them
correctly.
A goon shot the ATM, so Buggsy made an easy withdrawal.

Modals

Some features of mood, such as hypothetical permission, are expressed in words that
are called modals (M). The modals are listed here:

will may must can

Historically, English modals came from a special class of verbs in Ger- manic, the
ancestor of English and the other Germanic languages. Modals have always differed
from ordinary verbs, to the point where they now belong to a special category of their

142
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
own. Modals and verbs differ in the range of forms that they exhibit. English verbs
appear in a number of distinct forms, whereas modals have a single, invariant form. For
instance, modals never end in -s, even in sentences with third-person singular subjects.
To include the modal in our grammar, we simply expand the rule for auxiliary to
account for tense markers (past and present) and modals, as shown:

Aux __________ tense (M)

Fritz may get a promotion.

Analysis of this sentence is shown in the following tree diagram .

A question that often arises in the analysis of expanded verb phrases is why the tense
marker is placed in front of the verb rather than after. The past participle suffix -ed/-en,
after all, comes at the end of a verb, not at the beginning. The answer is that there is no

143
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
simple way to capture schematically the relations among tense, modals, and verbs.
Whenever a verb has a modal, the modal is tensed, not the verb. If our description put
tense after the verb, we would solve nothing—we would still have the question of how
tense jumps over the verb and attaches to the modal. The placement of tense at the head
of the VP is a matter of convention; placing it elsewhere in the VP would not enhance
the description.
What we learn here is that structural analyses are at best an approximate description of
the language we actually use. If we wanted to account for the fact that the past participle
appears at the end of verbs, we would have to develop a special rule for attachment,
which indeed is what linguists have done. Nevertheless, structural analyses reveal much
about the nature of grammatical constructions.

Tense and Its Complexities

When we examine tense closely, it becomes apparent that the relation between tense
and verbs is not a simple one. Tense does not merely indicate when an action took
place, as evidenced in sentences such as Macarena could visit her sick friend in the
morning. The verb visit is not tensed in this sentence; instead, the tense marker is
attached to the modal. But although the modal is in the past tense, the action is to occur
in the future. Many students have a hard time grasping this concept.

Usage Note
Although modals are function words, they nevertheless have a semantic content. Can
and may, for example, do not mean the same thing. Can indicates ability, whereas may
indicates permission as well as a conditional future. With regard to requesting
permission, popular usage has largely eliminated may and replaced it with can. If a
student wants permission to use the rest room, he or she invariably will ask, Can I use
the rest room rather than May I use the rest room. In a department store, clerks will ask,
Can I help you, not May I help you. Formal standard usage, however, continues to
differentiate between these words, which makes helping students understand the

144
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
difference a worthwhile goal. Because may can signify two different meanings, it can
lead to ambiguity. Consider the following sentences:

Fritz can play the piano.

Fritz may play the piano.

Fritz can play the piano. signifies Fritz’s ability to play; Fritz may play the piano can
be understood as giving Fritz permission to play, or it can be understood as a comment
about Fritz’s playing the piano at some time in the future. The condition is uncertain.
We easily can imagine this future conditional if we think of Fritz being at a party. The
following sentence offers another example of may as a future conditional:

Buggsy may take a trip to Las Vegas next week.

It is worth noting that the past tense form of may is might. These words differ in that
might signifies a more uncertain or doubtful future than does may. Thus, the likelihood
of Buggsy taking a trip is more uncertain in Buggsy might take a trip to Las Vegas
next week than it is in Buggsy may take a trip to Las Vegas next week.
Like many other usage distinctions, this one seems to be disappearing. Even speakers
and writers of formal Standard English rarely differentiate the two forms. However,
anyone interested in using language as precisely as possible will, indeed, differentiate
them.
The difference between will and shall is far more complicated, and it, too, has
essentially disappeared in American usage. The traditional distinction maintains that
shall is used to indicate the simple future in the first person, as in I shall go to the
movies. Shall cannot be used in the second and third persons, however, but instead must
be replaced by will, as in They will end the strike soon. The use of will in the first
person does not express simple future but in- stead signifies a promised action, as in I
will give you the loan. The use of shall in the second and third persons signifies a
command, as in You shall stop seeing that horrible woman immediately. Currently,

145
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
there are only two instances of widespread use of shall in American English, even
among Standard speakers: in legal documents and in questions, as in Shall we go now?

Do Support
In English, the word do is used to emphasize a statement, as in these examples:
Fred does like the veal.
Macarena did deposit the check into her account.

Macarena did deposit the check into her account.

When do is used for emphasis, it is referred to as do support. Do is analyzed as part of

146
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
the auxiliary. In Standard English, do cannot appear with another modal, although it can
in Black English Vernacular. We therefore need to change our rule for the auxiliary
once again:

Aux ________tense (M) (DO)

PROGRESSIVE VERB FORMS

The progressive verb form in English indicates the ongoing nature of an action and is
considered to be a feature of aspect. Progressives are formed with be and a verb to
which the suffix -ing is attached. Progressive (prog) is analyzed as part of the auxiliary,
which means that we need to make another adjustment to our phrase-structure rule:

Aux ________ tense (M) (DO) (prog)

prog ______ be –ing

This new rule allows us to analyze sentences like the following:

Macarena was dancing at China Club.
The band members were playing a hot salsa.
They are thinking about the next break.

Progressive Verb Forms and Predicate Adjectives

English presents an analytical problem with sentences like the following:
Raul was running.
His toe was throbbing.
The structure of these sentences seems to be very similar, and, in fact, it may seem
reasonable to analyze them both as having progressive form verb phrases. Such an
analysis, however, is not accurate. Raul was running. indeed has a progressive form
verb phrase, but His toe was throbbing. does not; instead, the VP consists of a linking

147
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
verb and a predicate adjective. The tree diagrams for these sentences clearly illustrate
the difference between the two sentences.
Raul was running

His toe was throbbing.

148
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The key to understanding the difference lies in recognizing the distinct roles the two
subjects have in these sentences. In Raul was running, the subject is an agent
performing an action. In His toe was throbbing, the subject is not an agent, so it does
not perform an action, which means that throbbing cannot describe an action in this
case because no action is performed. Instead, throbbing provides existential in-
formation. On this account, we can say that progressive forms always have an agentive
subject. Whenever the subject is not an agent, the verb phrase consists of a linking verb
and predicate adjective. This analysis is supported by the structures of sentences like
the following:

• Mrs. DiMarco was boring.

• Mrs. DiMarco was boring Raul.

In the first example, Mrs. DiMarco is not an agentive subject, whereas in the second
she is. The difference in function not only results in different grammatical analyses but
also, as we should expect, in different meanings. Further support comes from the fact
that words like throbbing also can function as simple adjectives, as in She had a
throbbing headache. Following are some additional examples for illustration:

• Macarena was jogging along the beach. (progressive verb form)

•The waves were glistening. (predicate adjective)
•Buggsy was watching from the deck of his beach house. (progressive verb form)

149
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER NINE
THE CHOMSKY REVOLUTION

Academics hate theoretical vacuums. Clearly, one existed with respect to phrase-
structure grammar, which, although effective at describing languages, did not have a
theoretical component. Structuralists were interested primarily in application, not
theory. In the mid-1950s, a young linguist named Noam Chomsky set out to fill the
theoretical vacuum by challenging most of the dominant assumptions underlying
phrase-structure grammar.
Examining Chomsky’s approach to grammar and its influence requires that we step
away somewhat from the pragmatic. In the decade between the mid-1960s and
mid-1970s, Chomsky’s ideas about language and grammar had a significant influence
on composition pedagogy, providing the basis for sentence combining and studies of
style and writing maturity in children and promising to give teachers valuable insight
into composing, reading, and language errors and growth. This influence faded,
however. Sentence combining did not survive the shift to process, which focuses on
entire papers rather than individual sentences, and the promised insight never
materialized. Also, there is no denying that Chomsky’s views on grammar and
language are complex and abstract.
Although trained as a structuralist, Chomsky was intrigued by the idea that grammar
could reflect a theory of language and, in turn, a theory of mind. He explored this
idea around 1955 in a mimeographed paper titled “The Logical Structure of Linguistic
Theory,” which formed the foundation for his first book, Syntactic Structures (1957).
In this book, Chomsky argued that phrase-structure grammar was inadequate, and he
proposed an alternative that proved to be so powerful that it revolutionized linguistics.
Many books have explored the significance of Syntactic Structures and related
works, and what follows must, necessarily, be just a short summary. Syntactic
Structures argued that phrase-structure grammar could never be a viable intellectual
enterprise, offered a new grammar to replace it, reasserted rationalism as the sine qua
non of linguistics, and established language study firmly as a branch of psychology. It

150
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
vitalized the emerging field of cognitive psychology, gave birth to a new area of
language study called psycholinguistics, influenced philosophers working in the
philosophy of language, and gave English teachers a new tool for helping students
become better writers. Given such intellectual influence, Chomsky has been, with
good reason, widely hailed as one of the more important thinkers of the 20th century.
Among modern intellectuals cited by other writers, Chomsky ranks eighth .
That Chomsky found phrase-structure grammar lacking is an understatement. But
why? Chomsky had several criticisms of phrase-structure grammar; perhaps the two
most important involved describing and explaining language. Phrase-structure
grammar focused on languages rather than language. Structuralists studied a given
language in order to record as many features of it as possible, building a corpus, or
body, of utterances that formed the foundation of the grammar for that language. These
utterances were sentences and expressions that native speakers actually used, what are
called attested utterances. The corpus was made up only of attested utterances, and the
grammar was constructed so that it described them.
Chomsky argued that this whole approach was misguided. Basing grammar on
attested utterances cannot lead, he claimed, to an adequate description of a given
language for the simple reason that it is based on a finite set of utterances/sentences,
whereas any language is potentially infinite. From this perspective, no matter how
large the corpus, it never can constitute a significant portion of the language.
A related problem is that the resulting grammar may describe the corpus, but it does not
describe all the grammatical sentences of the language. It fails to account for the fact that
language is inherently creative, with few sentences ever being repeated exactly from one
situation to the next. That is, phrase-structure grammar can describe just attested
utterances; it cannot describe the infinite number of grammatical sentences that may
have been uttered before the corpus was compiled, that have yet to be uttered, or that
never will be uttered but are potential utterances. Even though phrase-structure rules
such as those we developed in the array is insignificant in the context of an infinite
number of possible sentences.
The day was hot.

151
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
This sentence reasonably would appear in the corpus of English, as would sentence
The day was very hot.
We might even imagine sentence 1b in the corpus, because it, too, is rather common:
The day was very, very hot.

At some point, however, we reach the limit of the number of verys we can put in front
of the adjective and still be congruent with attested utterances. It is unlikely that anyone
has ever uttered this sentence with, say, 53 verys. Nevertheless, such a sentence would
be grammatical. In fact, we can imagine sentence quite easily (where n equals an
infinite number of iterations of the word( very), and we also understand that it is
grammatical:

The day was very … n hot.

Chomsky correctly observed that phrase-structure grammar did not have the means to
account for our ability to insert an infinite number of adverbial intensifiers (very) in
front of the adjective and still have a grammatical sentence. He concluded that “it is
obvious that the set of grammatical sentences cannot be identified with any particular
corpus of utterances obtained by the linguist in his field work” (1957, p. 15). In other
words, a given body of sentences cannot fully identify a grammar of the language.
Chomsky’s second major criticism focused on our intuitive understanding that
certain types of sentences have some underlying relation, even though they look quite
different from each other. Actives and passive are the most significant examples of
sentences that we intuitively sense are related. The most common type of sentence in
English follows SVO word order, has an agent as the subject, and an object, as in
sentence :. Macarena kissed Fritz. (active)
The passive form of this sentence reverses the order of subject and object, modifies
the verb phrase, and adds the preposition by, converting the subject to an object of the
preposition, as in: Fritz was kissed by Macarena. (passive)

152
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Although these sentences do not look the same, Chomsky argued that they express
the same meaning and that the passive form is based on the active form. Phrase-structure
grammar does not address the connection between such sentences; in fact, it would
assign different sentence grammars to them:
Sentence : Macarena kissed Fritz

S _________ NP VP
VP _______ V NP
Fritz was kissed by Macarena. (passive)
NP be –en V PP
PP ______ prep NP
Prep _________by
In Chomsky’s view, this approach fails to explain what our intuition tells us is
obvious: These sentences are closely related. Macarena kissed Fritz somehow has
been transformed into Fritz was kissed by Macarena. However, the only way to get
at that relation was with a grammar that examined the history of sentences, one
that looked beneath the surface and into what we may think of as mentalese—
language as it exists in the mind before it reaches its final form, before it is
transformed. In other words, Chomsky was keenly interested in exploring how
people produce language, and in this respect he was quite different from the
structuralists.
Chomsky proposed that the ability to look into the history of a sentence gives a
grammar a generative component that reveals something about language production—
about how people connect strings of words into sentences—but it also, he argued,
allows us to understand something about how the mind operates. On these grounds,
Chomsky developed a grammar that claimed a cognitive orientation because it focused
on the transformation of mentalese into actual language. His goal was to develop a
theory of language that provided a theory of mind. His theory of language was
inherent in his grammar, which he called transformational-generative (T-G) grammar

153
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Universal Grammar
The grammar that Chomsky (1957) developed consists of a complex set of trans-
formation rules. The goal of developing a cognitive theory of language necessarily
required that the rules apply to all languages, given that human cognition is the same
regardless of language or culture. Chomsky (1995) therefore argued that the rules were
linked to a universal grammar. We might be tempted immediately to conclude that
universal grammar is identical to the linguistic universals associated with traditional
grammar, but this would be a mistake. There is a connection, but a tenuous one.
Linguistic universals refer to a relatively narrow range of shared features across
languages, such as the fact that all languages have subjects and predicates, kinship
terms, and a means of indicating when actions occur. Universal grammar is different. In
Chomsky’s (1995) words:

The human brain provides an array of capacities that enter into the use and
understanding of language (the language faculty); these seem to be in
good part specialized for that function and a common human endowment
over a very wide range of circumstances and conditions. One component
of the language faculty is a generative procedure … that generates
structural descriptions (SDs), each a complex of properties, including those
commonly called “semantic” and “phonetic.” These SDs are the
expressions of the language. The theory of a particular language is its
grammar. The theory of languages and the expressions they generate is
Universal Grammar (UG); UG is a theory of the initial state … of the relevant
component of the language faculty.

To be fair, we need to remember that phrase-structure grammar grew out of attempts

in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to preserve American Indian tribal languages.
The goal was to preserve the body of the languages as they were spoken—it was not
to develop a theory of language or grammar. In fact, phrase-structure grammarians like
154
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Bloomfield (1933) were wary of universal-grammar claims because in the past they
had resulted in distortions in the records of investigated languages. Nevertheless,
Chomsky’s critique resonated strongly among scholars, in part because the alternative
he proposed was elegant, powerful, and offered exciting new lines of research.
Today, almost 50 years later, the grammar Chomsky proposed to replace phrase-
structure is still vibrant and, indeed, remains a significant factor in American
language study. However, it does not have the same allure that it once had. One
reason is that, over the years, Chomsky revised the grammar numerous times, which
should have been viewed as perfectly reasonable and in keeping with scientific
principles but which nevertheless has often been viewed as quirkiness. In addition,
the revisions made the grammar more abstract and thus more difficult to understand
for anyone without significant training in linguistics.
This chapter cannot provide an in-depth analysis of the grammar and all of its
permutations; instead, it will offer an overview that traces some of the significant
features of the grammar from the initial formulation in 1957, concluding with an
examination of Chomsky’s latest version.

DEEP STRUCTURE AND SURFACE STRUCTURE

In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky (1957) hinted that grammatical operations related to

language production work in the background. We do not really see them at work; we
see only the consequences of their application on an underlying structure. In Aspects of
the Theory of Syntax (1965), Chomsky developed this proposal by resuscitating the
prestructuralism idea that there is something underneath language, some universal
feature of the human mind, such as logic, that determines the substance of utterances.
This argument effectively ad- dressed the problem presented by actives and passives. A
passive sentence like Fritz was kissed by Macarena will have its corresponding active,
Macarena kissed Fritz as an underlying structure. This structure is then transformed to
the passive through a grammatical transformation rule.
Chomsky identified a basic grammatical structure in Syntactic Structures that he

155
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
referred to as kernel sentences. Reflecting mentalese, or logical form, kernel sentences
were where words and meaning first appeared in the complex cognitive process that
resulted in an utterance. However, the overall focus in Syntactic Structures was syntax,
not meaning. In fact, Chomsky indicated that meaning was largely irrelevant, as he
illustrated in the sentence, “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” (1957, p. 15). It
means nothing but is nevertheless grammatical.
As impressive as Syntactic Structures was, the idea that any theory of language
could ignore meaning was difficult to accept. Chomsky (1965) responded to the
criticism in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, in which he abandoned the notion of
kernel sentences and identified the underlying constituents of sentences as deep
structure. Deep structure was versatile: It contained the meaning of an utterance and
provided the basis for transformation rules that turned deep structure into surface
structure, which represented what we actually hear or read. Transformation rules,
therefore, connected deep structure and surface structure, meaning and syntax.
Central to the idea that transformation rules serve as a bridge between deep structure
and surface structure was the notion that transformations do not alter meaning. If they
did, it would be difficult to justify the rules. Not only would they interfere with
understanding, but they also would fail to realize Chomsky’s goal of developing a
grammar that looks into the history of a sentence. Deep structure was a convenient
means of countering an alternative and nagging argument: that meaning is in the
surface structure, that the words we hear and read mean pretty much what the person
who created them intended.
Understanding the consequences of this argument is important. If meaning is in the
surface structure, there is no need for a mediating structure between mind and
utterances. Transformation rules become irrelevant. However, it was clear that some
transformations did change meaning. In the early version of the grammar, negatives are
generated from an underlying affirmative through a transformation rule. That is, the
negative transformation turns a positive statement into a negative one, as in these
sentences:

156
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Maria wanted to dance with Raul.
Maria did not want to dance with Raul.

The deep structure of Maria wanted to dance with Raul. And Maria did not want
to dance with Raul. , and the meanings are clearly different. The question
transformation results in a similar change, turning an assertion into a question.
Sentences like these presented a big problem for T-G grammar. Just prior to the
publication of Aspects, Lees (1962) and Klima (1964) proposed that such difficulties
could be eliminated by specifying certain phrase-structure markers in the deep
structure of sentences like, Maria wanted to dance with Raul. which triggered
transformation. These markers—governing, for example, negatives and questions—
were hypothesized to reside in the deep structure of all utterances and were said to be
activated by contextual cues. Once activated, they triggered the transformation. The
result is that And Maria did not want to dance with Raul a would not have sentence 4
as its deep structure but instead would have sentence :

neg Maria wanted to dance with Raul.

This approach solved the problem in a clever way, and Chomsky adopted it. But the
solution was highly artificial and not very satisfactory. In fact, it created more problems
than it solved. Markers for questions and negatives seem straightforward, but we have
no way of determining what kind of markers would govern such sentences as the
following, which also undergo a change in meaning as a result of transformation:2

• To solve the crossword is difficult.

• The crossword is difficult to solve.

T-G grammar specifies that the second sentence is derived from the first through
what is called the object-raising transformation. (The crossword functions as the
subject in the second sentence but as an object in the first.) In the first sentence, the
157
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
focus is on the process of solving the crossword, whereas in the second it is not. Thus,
the meaning of the first sentence can be generic; in the second, it cannot.
Or consider the following:

• Fritz gave the flowers to Macarena.

• Fritz gave Macarena the flowers.
• Fred cleared the table for his mother.
• *Fred cleared his mother the table.

How would markers account for the fact that the transformation that de- rived the
grammatical Fritz gave Macarena the flowers from Fritz gave the flowers to
Macarena also produces the ungrammatical Fred cleared his mother the table?
Equally problematic is that psychological research on language processing could
find no evidence of markers of any type in language. It also failed to find any evidence
that meaning resides anywhere other than in the surface structure

Let us now assume that we are in the position that Chomsky was in some years ago -
that of a linguist trying to set up a universal grammatical framework. Where should we
begin? One fairly obvious way to get going is to write a grammar of a language we
know, say, English. If we managed to do this adequately, we could then see to what
extent the framework might be used for other languages also. In writing a grammar for
English we would adopt the procedure used by all social scientists: we would make a
guess or hypothesis, in this case about the rules internalized by someone who knows
English. Then we would test the validity of this hypothesis by checking it against some
raw data - the sentences of English. If the rules we hypothesized did not lead to good
English sentences, they would have to be discarded or amended. In doing this, we are
not trying to model the way in which humans prepare a sentence for utterance. A
grammar is above all a device which specifies what is, and what is not, a well-formed
sentence. It encapsulates rules which define possible sentences, but it does not concern
itself with how these possibilities are assembled.

158
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The main task, therefore, is to write a grammar which has the same output as a human
being - though there is no guarantee that it will replicate the rules in a person's mind.
There will probably be some overlap between a linguist's rules and those actually
internalized by human beings, but the mechanisms are unlikely to be identical.
Let us now consider how we might go about forming a hypothesis which would account
for the grammar of English. Perhaps the best way is to start with a very simple
hypothesis - possibly an over-simple one - and see what flaws it contains. Then, in the
light of what we have learnt, we can proceed to a second, more complex hypothesis.
And so on. The simplest possible hypothesis might be to suggest that words are linked
together in long chains, with each word attached to the next. For example, the
determiners the and a might be linked to a set of nouns such as camel, elephant, which
in turn might be linked to a set of verbs such as swallowed, ate, and so on .

But we would very quickly have to abandon such a simple model. Neither English, nor any
other language, works in this fashion. A word is not necessarily dependent on adjacent
words. Often, it depends on another word that is some distance away, as in the sentence:
Either learn to play the trumpet properly or take up yoga.
Sarah fell and hurt herself.

The or which is intrinsically connected to either appears several words away, not directly
after it. Similarly, herself which is dependent on Sarah is some distance away. Another
problem with the 'chain' model above is that it wrongly regards each word as attached to the
next by an equal bond. The model fails to show that, in the sentence:

The camel swallowed an apple;

the words the and camel are more closely related to one another than swallowed and an.
So this simple model must be abandoned. A somewhat more satisfactory model might be
one which treats sentences as if they had a 'layered' structure .This assumes that languages
have several basic sentence patterns, each with a number of different 'slots' which can be
expanded in various ways. A noun phrase (NP) followed by a verb phrase (VP) is a basic
English sentence type, and this pattern can be expanded in various ways :

159
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

NP VP
Ducks Ducks The bite bite burglars bit
duck the burglar

There seems little doubt that some such expansion mechanism must be built into any
grammar. However, according to Chomsky, such a model is incomplete. It contains at
least two serious flaws. First, we require an enormous number of rules in order to
generate all the sentences of English. Second, it groups together sentences which are
dissimilar, and separates others which are similar. Take the sentences:
Hezekiah is anxious to help.
Hezekiah is difficult to help.
To someone who knows English, these sentences are radically different. In the first one,
Hezekiah is planning to do the helping, and in the other, he is the one liable to be
helped. Yet the 'slot' pattern of both is identical
A similar problem occurs with the sentence:
Hezekiah is ready to eat.
Any English speaker could (with a bit of thought) interpret this sentence in two ways:
Hezekiah is hungry, and wants to have his dinner. Or Hezekiah has perhaps fallen into
the hands of cannibals, and has been trussed up and seasoned ready for consumption.
The slot model, however, cannot easily show the two radically different interpretations.
The reverse problem occurs with pairs of sentences such as:
To swallow safety pins is quite stupid.
It is quite stupid to swallow safety pins.
160
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday it snowed.
It snowed yesterday.
The sentences in each pair would be regarded as very similar by English speakers, yet
this similarity cannot be captured by the model of grammar outlined above, since each
sentence requires a different slot pattern. Chomsky argued that a grammar which
provides only one structure for sentences which are felt to be different by native
speakers, and different structures for sentences which are felt to be similar, was a bad
grammar. A transformational model, he claimed, overcame these problems.
Deep and surface structures
Chomsky's solution to the problem was to suggest that every sentence had two levels of
structure, one which was obvious on the surface, and another which was deep and
abstract. Let us see how this works in connection with the sentences discussed above.
Chomsky accounted for the difference between:
Hezekiah is anxious to help.
Hezekiah is difficult to help.
by suggesting that we are dealing with sentences which have a similar surface structure,
but different deep structures .
A similar deep-surface explanation accounts for the ambiguity in:
Hezekiah is ready to eat.
where two different deep structures are realized by a single surface structure. But the
situation would be reversed for pairs such as:
Yesterday it snowed.
It snowed yesterday.

Transformational grammar
We are now able to give a definition of a transformational grammar. It is a grammar
which sets up two levels of structure, and relates these levels by means of operations
known as transformations. A transformational grammar has (like most other types of
grammar) three major components: a syntactic component (dealing with syntax), a

161
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
phonological component (dealing with sounds) and a semantic component (dealing with
meaning). However, it differs from other grammars in that the syntactic component is
split into two components: the base, and the transformational rules

In the Standard Theory, the base contained phrase structure (PS) rules for the formation
of deep structures, and also a lexicon, from which words were slotted into the output of
the PS rules

Base (simplified )
PS rules Lexicon
S -» NP elephant
VP VP- N king N
>VP NP hit V [ —
NP-»D NP] theD

The deep structures then passed to the transformational rules in order to be converted into the
surface structures. At this point, the surface structure of a sentence was still abstract: it did
not yet have a phonetic form. This was coped with by the phonological component, which
converted each surface structure into a phonetic representation. Meanwhile,
transformations could not change meaning, so the deep structures were fed directly into the
semantic component, which gave a semantic interpretation of each .

162
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________

163
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER TEN
What is semantics?

Semantics is the study of meaning. It is a wide subject within the general study of
language. An understanding of semantics is essential to the study of language
acquisition (how language users acquire a sense of meaning, as speakers and writers,
listeners and readers) and of language change (how meanings alter over time). It is
important for understanding language in social contexts, as these are likely to affect
meaning, and for understanding varieties of English and effects of style. It is thus one of
the most fundamental concepts in linguistics. The study of semantics includes the study
of how meaning is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured, illustrated, simplified
negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased.

Some important areas of semantic theory or related subjects include these:

• Symbol and referent

• Conceptions of meaning
• Words and lexemes
• Denotation, connotation, implication
• Pragmatics
• Ambiguity
• Metaphor, simile and symbol
• Semantic fields
• Synonym, antonym and hyponym
• Collocation, fixed expression and idiom
• Semantic change and etymology
• Polysemy
• Homonymy, homophones and homographs
• Lexicology and lexicography
• Thesauruses, libraries and Web portals
• Epistemology

164
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
• Colour

You will find explanations below of how each of these relates to the theoretical study of
semantics.

Symbol and referent

These terms may clarify the subject. A symbol is something which we use to represent
another thing - it might be a picture, a letter, a spoken or written word - anything we use
conventionally for the purpose. The thing that the symbol identifies is the referent. This
may sometimes be an object in the physical world (the word Rover is the symbol; a real
dog is the referent). But it may be something which is not at all, or not obviously,
present - like freedom, unicorns or Hamlet.

Conceptions of meaning

Words → things: This view is found in the Cratylus of Plato (427-347 BC). Words
“name” or “refer to” things. It works well for proper nouns like London, Everton FC
and Ford Fiesta. It is less clear when applied to abstractions, to verbs and to adjectives -
indeed wherever there is no immediately existing referent (thing) in the physical world,
to correspond to the symbol (word).

Words → concepts → things: This theory was classically expressed by C.K. Ogden and
I.A. Richards, in The Meaning of Meaning (1923). It states that there is no direct
connection of symbol and referent, but an indirect connection in our minds. For each
word there is a related concept.

The difficulty is in explaining what this concept is, and how it can exist apart from the
word. In Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell imagines a society whose rulers remove
disapproved thoughts by removing (from print and broadcasting) the corresponding
words. However there are many real-world examples of concepts which came before
the words which described or named them (hovercraft, Internet) or where the symbols
have changed, but not the concepts they refer to (radio for wireless, Hoover for vacuum

165
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
cleaner). This suggests that the concept is independent of particular language symbols.

Stimuli → words → responses: Leonard Bloomfield outlines this theory in Language

(1933). A stimulus (S) leads someone to a response (r), which is a speech act. To the
hearer the speech act is also a stimulus (s), which leads to a response (R), which may be
an action or understanding.

S → r.................s → R

Jill is hungry, sees an apple (S) and asks Jack to bring it her (r). This new language
stimulus, Jack's hearing her (s) leads to his action (R) of bringing her the apple.
Bloomfield's behaviourist model leads to obvious problems - Jack doesn't bring Jill the
apple because of a quarrel years before, or he brings several apples and a glass of beer.

Words and lexemes

As a lexical unit may contain more than one word, David Crystal has coined the term
lexeme. This is usually a single word, but may be a phrase in which the meaning
belongs to the whole rather than its parts, as in verb phrases tune in, turn on, drop out or
noun phrase (a) cock up.

Denotation

This is the core or central meaning of a word or lexeme, as far as it can be described in
a dictionary. It is therefore sometimes known as the cognitive or referential meaning. It
is possible to think of lexical items that have a more or less fixed denotation (sun,
denoting the nearest star, perhaps) but this is rare. Most are subject to change over time.
The denotation of silly is not today what it was in the 16th century, or even the 18th,
when Coleridge referred to the silly buckets on the deck. Denotation is thus related to
connotation, which leads to semantic change.

Connotation

Theories of denotation and connotation are themselves subject to problems of

166
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
definition. Connotation is connected with psychology and culture, as it means the
personal or emotional associations aroused by words. When these associations are
widespread and become established by common usage, a new denotation is recorded in
dictionaries. A possible example of such change would be vicious. Originally derived
from vice, it meant “extremely wicked”. In modern British usage it is commonly used
to mean “fierce”, as in the brown rat is a vicious animal.

Implication

This is meaning which a speaker or writer intends but does not communicate directly.
Where a listener is able to deduce or infer the intended meaning from what has been
uttered, this is known as (conversational) implicature. David Crystal gives this example:

Utterance: “A bus!” → Implicature (implicit meaning): “We must run.”

Pragmatics

According to Professor Crystal, pragmatics is not a coherent field of study. It refers to

the study of those factors which govern our choices of language - such as our social
awareness, our culture and our sense of etiquette. How do we know how to address
different people like the queen? How do we know how to express gratitude for a gift or
hospitality?

Pragmatics can be illustrated by jokes or irony which rely on the contrast between
expected and subsequently revealed meaning. Consider this example from a 1999
episode of Barry Levinson's TV police drama, Homicide: Life on the Streets. (The TV
audience is assumed to know police procedure for arresting suspects.) An arresting
officer says to a suspect (whose hands are raised, so he is not resisting arrest): “You
have the right to remain silent”. Instead of continuing with the reading of rights, the
officer shoots the suspect. The audience enjoys the wordplay and the dramatic
revelation of the officer's real meaning, because pragmatics tells us what You have the
right to remain silent normally leads to - more words and no bullets.

167
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Ambiguity

Ambiguity occurs when a language element has more than one meaning. If the
ambiguity is in a single word it is lexical ambiguity. If in a sentence or clause, it is
grammatical or structural ambiguity.

We can illustrate lexical ambiguity with an example from Sue Townsend's Secret Diary
of Adrian Mole. Adrian displays a notice in school, advertising a gay society. When a
teacher rebukes him, Adrian asks what is wrong with a club for people who want to be
jolly or happy.

Structural ambiguity can often be seen in punning headlines, like the wartime example
CHURCHILL FLIES BACK TO FRONT. The late polar explorer, Dr. Vivian Fuchs,
was the subject of a similar headline: DR. FUCHS OFF TO ANTARCTIC. In this case,
the structural ambiguity is not present to a reader who knows standard spelling, but
might confuse a hearer, if the headline is spoken aloud. The absence of linking
grammatical words (articles, conjunctions, prepositions) in headlines makes such
ambiguity likely.

Consider this example (from The Guardian's sports supplement, Saturday November 20,
1999): Christie back under ban threat. Is back a noun (anatomy or position in rugby) or
adverb? Is ban a verb, noun or attributive adjective? Is threat verb or noun? The reader's
prior knowledge gives the answer. Christie is the UK athlete, Linford Christie, who has
been threatened with a ban previously. So back is short for is back and ban threat is a
noun phrase, leading to the structural meaning: (Linford) Christie (is) back (=again)
under (=subject to) (the) threat (of a) ban.

A real-life forensic example comes from a cause célebre of the 1960s. Derek Bentley
was hanged for murder after his accomplice, Christopher Craig (too young to hang) shot
a policeman. Bentley allegedly shouted to Craig: “Let him have it”. Did this mean (as
the prosecution claimed and the jury believed) “shoot him” (the victim) or (as the
defence argued) “give it [= the gun] to him [= the policeman]”.

168
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Another example that combines lexical and structural ambiguity is in a joke. Two men
are looking at televisions in a shop-window. One says: “That's the one I'd get!” Around
the corner comes a Cyclops, who thumps him. The lexical ambiguity works best in
speech - if we read it we must “hear” the speech to get the point. If you don't understand
the joke, tell it to some people who may see the point. If you still are puzzled, you may
lack awareness of the denotation of Cyclops. They have only one eye. Get (like git) is
an insult in some regional varieties of spoken English (especially in north-west
England).

Metaphor, simile and symbol

Metaphors are well known as a stylistic feature of literature, but in fact are found in
almost all language use, other than simple explanations of physical events in the
material world. All abstract vocabulary is metaphorical, but in most cases the original
language hides the metaphor from us. Depends means “hanging from” (in Latin),
pornography means “writing of prostitutes” (in Greek) and even the hippopotamus has a
metaphor in its name, which is Greek for “river horse”. A metaphor compares things,
but does not show this with forms such as as, like, or more [+qualifier] than. These
appear in similes: fat as a pig, like two peas in a pod.

Everyday speech is marked by frequent use of metaphor. Consider the humble

preposition on. Its primary meaning can be found in such phrases as on the roof, on the
toilet, on top. But what relationship does it express in such phrases as on the fiddle, on
call, on demand, on the phone, on the game, on telly, on fire, on heat, on purpose? Why
not in? Launch denotes the naming of a ship and its entering service, but what does it
mean to launch an attack, launch a new product, launch a new share-issue or even
launch oneself at the ball in the penalty area?

Personal computing abounds in metaphor, to suggest a semantic relationship with the

real world - thus a user interface has a desktop, wallpaper and Windows, while a suite
of useful programs is called Office. Bundles of data are files. Once they went in
directories but now are grouped in folders. The Windows interface is an environment.
169
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The ideas of waste-disposal and environmental responsibility are both suggested by the
recycle bin - the current metaphor for the program which organizes files after the user
has deleted them temporarily.

A metaphor established by usage and convention becomes a symbol. Thus crown

suggests the power of the state, press = the print news media and chair = the control (or
controller) of a meeting.

Semantic fields

In studying the lexicon of English (or any language) we may group together lexemes
which inter-relate, in the sense that we need them to define or describe each other. For
example we can see how such lexemes as cat, feline, moggy, puss, kitten, tom, queen
and miaow occupy the same semantic field. We can also see that some lexemes will
occupy many fields: noise will appear in semantic fields for acoustics, pain or
discomfort and electronics (noise = “interference”). Although such fields are not clear-
cut and coherent, they are akin to the kind of groupings children make for themselves in
learning a language. An entertaining way to see how we organize the lexicon for
ourselves is to play word-association games.

Synonym, antonym and hyponym

Synonym and antonym are forms of Greek nouns which mean, respectively, “same
name” and “opposed (or different) name”. We may find synonyms which have an
identical reference meaning, but since they have differing connotations, they can never
be truly synonymous. This is particularly the case when words acquire strong
connotations of approval (amelioration) or disapproval (pejoration). We can see this by
comparing terrorist with freedom fighter or agnostic (Greek) with ignoramus (Latin).
Both of the latter terms express the meaning of a person who does not know
(something). A pair which remains more truly synonymous (but might alter) would be
sympathy (Greek) and compassion (Latin). Both mean “with [= having or showing]
feeling”, as in the English equivalent, fellow feeling.

170
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Some speakers will not be aware of synonyms, so cannot make a choice. But those with
a wide lexicon will often choose between two, or among many, possible synonyms.
This is an area of interest to semanticists. What are the differences of meaning in toilet,
lavatory, WC, closet, privy, bog, dunny and so on?

Intelligent reflection on the lexicon will show that most words do not have antonyms.
When Baldric, in BBC TV's Blackadder, attempts to write a dictionary he defines cat as
“not a dog” - but the two are not antonyms. A cat is not a fish, banana, rainbow or
planet, either - it is not anything, but a cat! We can contrast simple pairs like fat/thin but
realize that both are relative to an assumed norm. Such lexeme pairs (for example:
big/little, clever/stupid, brave/cowardly, hot/cold and beautiful/ugly) are gradable
antonyms . True and false may show a clearer contrast. Clear either/or conditions are
expressed by complementary antonyms: open/closed, dead/alive, on/off. Another kind
(not really opposites at all) are pairs which go together, and represent two sides of a
relation: these are converses or relational antonyms. Examples would be husband/wife,
borrow/lend, murderer/victim, plaintiff/defendant.

Hyponymy is an inclusive relationship where some lexemes are co-hyponyms of

another that includes them. As cutlery includes knife, fork, spoon (but not teacup) these
are co-hyponyms of the parent or superordinating term. This traditional term denotes a
grouping similar to a semantic field. So cod, guppy, salmon and trout are hyponyms for
fish, while fleet has the hyponyms battleship, aircraft carrier, cruiser, destroyer and
frigate.

David Crystal points out (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language; page 105) that this is a
linguistic, not a real-world, relationship - so it varies from one language to another. In
English potato is a hyponym of vegetable but in German the lexeme Gemüse does not
include Kartoffel (=potato).

Collocation, fixed expression and idiom

Some words are most commonly found paired with other words, to create a semantic

171
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
unit or lexeme. Thus false is often found together with passport, teeth or promise. These
pairs are known as collocations. They are very helpful in establishing the meanings of
the words in the pair. Porn is likely to be followed by film, mag, star or video. It may be
collocated with actor, director or merchant but is less likely to be followed by customer,
operative or minister. After estate you expect agent. How often have you seen whole
new (whole new ball-game) as a collocation (here whole is redundant)? Think of
collocations including these words: American, British, coffee, dirty, first, mad,
millennium, native, Ninja, prime, police, rotten, speed, surf.

When words become grouped in almost predictable ways these are fixed expressions.
Examples include jewel in the crown, desirable residence, criminal mastermind, world
of work, address the issues, I put it to you.

Sometimes, the group is so well rooted in the language that the meanings of the
component words are ignored, or metaphorical meanings (in dead metaphors) are never
visualised. Such a group has a meaning that is not to be found in analysis of its parts,
and is an idiom. Examples include: keep your nose clean, stick your nose/oar in,
beneath your station, bed of roses, load of crap, not my cup of tea, a piece of cake, get
on your high horse, off your own bat (frequent substitution of back shows the speaker is
unaware of the original meaning) or skin of your teeth, get stuffed (what did this
originally mean?).

Semantic change and etymology

Over time lexemes may change their meaning. This kind of change is semantic change.
Perhaps a connotation will take the place of the original denotation. More often a
second (or third) meaning will develop side by side with the original. In time, this may
come to be the primary reference meaning. Gay has both the sense of “happy” and
“homosexual”. In spoken British English today the primary meaning is more likely to
be the second of these. Queer has the sense of both “odd” and “homosexual”, but in
contemporary spoken British English is more likely to have the first meaning. For both,
however, the context of the lexeme may suggest the meaning.
172
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Etymology is the systematic study and classification of word origins, especially as
regards forms and meanings - it is therefore an important concept both for semantics
and the study of language change. The etymology of a given lexeme denotes an account
of its historical-linguistic origin.

We can illustrate semantic change through the etymology of gentle. In the 14th century
gentle had the meaning of “noble”, referring both to social class and to character.
Because a noble person was supposed to be kind and considerate, the adjective today
has the sense of “tender”, “careful” or “delicate”. The older meaning is preserved in
gentleman, genteel and gentility. Until recently public toilets in the UK were designated
Gentlemen or Ladies - where now we usually see a male or female picture
representation. But these meanings live on in spoken English, as when someone says,
perhaps in a public house, that she is off to the ladies’ or he is going to the gents’.

Villain has come to mean a wicked person, especially in drama or literature. Originally,
it meant a person who farmed land under the feudal system. It is thus a class insult
when used of the noble Romeo by Tybalt (“Thou art a villain”), or of the common Iago
by Othello (“Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore”). We may see how this leads
to the modern meaning.

The Old English and (related) Scandinavian words for a town give us modern forms
such as by, burgh, borough and brough. From the German Hamburg came Hamburger,
either a person of the town or a kind of sausage. This name was later used in the USA
for a slice of the sausage in a bread cake. A mistaken belief that the initial ham refers to
pig-meat has led to variants, such as beefburger, cheeseburger and veggieburger. Now
burger alone denotes the food. Its earlier meaning of “resident of a town” is fading.

Holocaust has a fascinating etymology. It is a compound of two elements from classical

Greek - holos (meaning “whole”, as in holistic, hologram) and kaustos (meaning
“burnt”, as in caustic, hypocaust). It was first coined in writing by the translators of the
Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in Alexandria for King
Ptolemy II in the third century BC. In its original context, the noun appears over two
173
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
hundred times to translate Hebrew ’olâ (meaning literally “that which goes up”, that is,
a sacrificial burnt offering). In modern times it has been used to denote the massive
destruction, especially of people, in the world wars of the 20th century. Since the 1950s,
it has been used more narrowly to denote the Nazis' murder of European Jews between
1941 and 1945.

As English contains hundreds of thousands of lexemes, etymology is a vast field of

study, of which any examples will be pitifully few and probably not very representative.
Many dictionaries will give etymological information. You should though be aware of
false etymologies - interesting and plausible stories about word origins: I was told as a
child that a bloke was originally a pregnant goldfish and a git a pregnant camel - but
both accounts are false. There are similar stories told about quiz, of which the
etymology is really unknown. On the other hand, there are some lexemes for which we
have an exact etymology. Robot for example first appeared in 1921, in Karel Capek's
play Rossom's Universal Robots, as the name of a mechanical servant. And Lewis
Caroll made up many words in Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass,
some of which, like chortled, have become established in the language. Use a good
dictionary to check etymologies.

Polysemy

Polysemy (or polysemia) is an intimidating compound noun for a basic language

feature. The name comes from Greek poly (many) and semy (to do with meaning, as in
semantics). Polysemy is also called radiation or multiplication. This happens when a
lexeme acquires a wider range of meanings.

For example, paper comes from Greek papyrus. Originally it referred to writing
material made from the papyrus reeds of the Nile, later to other writing materials, and
now to things such as government documents, scientific reports, family archives or
newspapers.

Homonymy, homophones and homographs

174
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Homonyms are different lexemes with the same form (written, spoken or both). For
example, bank is both an elevated area of ground and a place or business where money
is kept. You may think these are the same words, but this is not so, since the meaning is
an essential feature of a word. In some cases, the same form (as with paper) has the
same origin but this will not always be the case. The etymology of a lexeme will tell us
where it comes from and how it acquired a given meaning.

Identity of form may apply to speech or writing only. David Crystal calls these forms
“half” identical. They are:

• Homophones - where the pronunciation is the same (or close, allowing for such
phonological variation as comes from accent) but standard spelling differs, as in
flew (from fly), flu (“influenza”) and flue (of a chimney).
• Homographs - where the standard spelling is the same, but the pronunciation
differs, as in wind (air movement or bend) or refuse (“rubbish” or “disallow”,
stress falls on first and second syllable, respectively).

Lexicology and lexicography

Lexicology is the systematic historical (diachronic) and contemporary (synchronic)

study of the lexicon or vocabulary of a language. Lexicologists study semantics on a
mass scale. Lexicography is the art and science of dictionary making. Lexicography
also has a history. Although dictionary compilers today, as in the past, wish to create an
authoritative reference work, their knowledge and understanding of language has
changed radically. Different dictionaries serve very different purposes - some only give
information about semantics (word meanings, descriptions or definitions) and
orthography (standard spellings). Others give information about etymology, variants
and change of meaning over time.

An unfortunate by-product of English teaching in the UK is a preoccupation with

standard spelling forms to the exclusion of much else. Children are encouraged to use
dictionaries for spell checking and not to learn about the language more generally. You

175
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
should, with any dictionary, read the introduction to discover which principles have
been used in compiling it, what models of language the compilers works from.

Is it, for example, broadly prescriptive or descriptive? Is it encyclopaedic, or does it

exclude proper nouns? What variety or varieties of English does it include?

In checking an etymology cited above (git) I used three dictionaries - Funk and
Wagnall's New Practical Standard (US, 1946) the Pocket Oxford (1969) and the
complete (1979) Oxford English Dictionary. None of these listed git. Modern
dictionaries may well give a range of world Englishes. Dictionary functions built into
computer software give the user a choice of different varieties - UK, US, Australia/New
Zealand or International English.

Thesauruses, libraries and Web portals

Students of semantics attempt to categorize and explain meaning in language. But there
are other people who face a similar task. A thesaurus is a reference work in which
words are arranged under general, then more specific semantic fields. As with much of
language study there is a problem in making a linear representation of a complex model.

Libraries organize books under categories and sub-categories, the most popular model
by far being the Dewey system named after its inventor. And portal sites on the World
Wide Web organize information and links by (usually) a hierarchy of categories. These
may all be helpful to you, in understanding semantic fields.

Epistemology

This is the traditional name for the division of philosophy otherwise known as theory of
knowledge. Epistemology underlies semantics in a fundamental way. Historically, it has
had a profound influence on how we understand language. For example, a modern
language scientist, looking at the class of words we think of as nouns, might wish to
subdivide them further. But there is no very good reason to split them into those that
denote physical and material realities and those that denote feelings and concepts - that

176
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
is concrete and abstract nouns. This division comes from Plato, who divided things
absolutely into the categories of mind (nous) and matter (physis). It breaks down when
we apply it to modern phenomena, such as artificial intelligence.

Plato also divided things into universals and particulars. Some names represent a
massive category of things, in which countless individual examples are included - boy,
dog, car and cloud. Others are unique to one individual thing - Elvis Presley, Lassie,
New York. In English and other European languages the word classes of common and
proper nouns mark this distinction. In written English we signal that a word is a proper
noun usually with initial capital letters. In written and spoken English, we also show it
by omitting articles or determiners in many (not all) contexts, where a common noun
would have these.

But the distinction does not bear close scrutiny - many nouns which we capitalize stand
for a wide category, not just a single individual, as with VW Beetle or Hoover. And
what of eponyms - words named for a single individual, but now applied widely, as
with sandwich, Wellington, boycott and quisling (look it up)?

At a more fundamental level, epistemology may help us decide whether the concepts of
language are coherent and objective - as with word classes: are the notions of noun,
verb, pronoun, adjective and so on logical as regards their referents?

Colour

David Crystal (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 106) draws attention to the

way the semantic field of colour shows “patterns of lexical use in English”, because the
visible spectrum is a continuum. Crystal points out some interesting features of
languages other than English, in identifying colour, such as the absence in Latin of
lexemes for “brown” and “grey”. He suggests that modern English has eleven basic
colour lexemes - white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange and
grey. You may not agree with this - for example, you may think of orange and purple as
secondary, being mixtures of or intermediate between others. Our sense of primary

177
General Linguistics 2009/2010 Compiled by : Muayad T. Yousif
______________________________________________________________________________________________
colours may come from the world around us - blue for the sky, green for grass and red
for blood, for example.

The lexicon of colour is interesting when we study it historically (what colours are most
frequent in the writings of Chaucer or Shakespeare) or in a special context. What names
do manufacturers of paint or cosmetics favour? For parts of the body (especially hair)
we have a special lexicon - hair is not yellow but blonde (the word indicates both hair
colour or, as a noun, people with this colour of hair), brunette (although brown is also
standard for males) and redhead (where red has a special colour denotation - not the
scarlet or crimson it usually suggests). Another special lexicon (which may preserve
historical differences) applies to horse colours - bay, grey (which denotes a horse more
or less white) and chestnut.

178
References
Aitchison , J. (1999) .Linguistics . 5th edition. London: Hodder Headline, Teach Yourself
Books,
Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures .Mouton: The Hague
Christie, F. (1991) What is functional grammar? in Teaching English Literacy, pp. 106-107
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985b). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold
Quirk et al (1985) . A Comprehensive Grammar of English Grammar . London : Longman
Robins , R.H. (1980) General Linguistics . An Introductory Survey (3rd edition ) . London :
Longman
Todd, L. (1987) . An Introduction to Linguistics . Essex: : Longman .York Press
Williams , J (2005) The Teacher’s Grammar Book (2nd edition ) .London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc
Yule ,G.(1996 ) The Study of Language (2nd edition ) .Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press

Internet Sites :

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]
and_word_formation_processes.pdf

[Link]

[Link]