Methods and Operations of Analysis

Lecture 2

Every method of linguistic analysis is related to the nature of the object

under analysis

• The method of analysis and the object analyzed are two different realities.

• The nature of the method must and will reflect something of the nature of the object.

Synchronic and diachronic approach

• F. de Saussure was for the synchronic approach since it was connected with the structural nature of language

• Until then the diachronic approach was predominant

• In Bulgaria most of the linguists do not oppose synchrony to diachrony so that they are completely excluded

One cannot conceive of synchrony without

diachrony nor diachrony without synchrony

• Language is a system sui generis • It presupposes ideally a synchronic status

• which by no means should be interpreted as static

• Language is basically an open system

• It undergoes changes by definition

Many factors of an extralinguistic nature influence the system

• This influence passes through speech (the system in action).

• Speech → usage.

• Frequent usage → coining of new words.

• Ex. private <= private soldier

general <= general officer

Although the system of language exists as such, it is open to changes

• a characteristic feature of the system: there is a constant tendency for it to change and at the same time to remain the same.

• ‘the same’ in terms of the most general principles

• every change at one and the same time affects the whole system not by fundamentally changing it but by changing some of its features

It does not matter how long it takes for a change to become part of the

system

Sometimes it remains within the boundaries of its functioning

(speech)

Every method, every operation has to be compatible with the nature of

the object under investigation

Immediate constituents analysis

• It is helpful in describing morphemes • The IC analysis cannot reveal word-

formative relations a/ In cases of conversion of the type

a nose and to nose The IC will show exactly the same thing:

nose/0º for both words without any indication of the nature of the first

component.

The IC analysis cannot reveal word-formative relations

b/ In cases of

tell - tale,

advice - advise,

a ‘progress – to pro’gress

where the markers are not of an entirely grammatical nature.

The IC analysis cannot reveal word-formative relations

c/ In cases of words formed by suffixation like:

respectful, hopeless, chatty, The IC analysis will always show that they

consist of

respect-/-full, hope-/-less, chatt-/-y without giving any information as to whether the first element is substantival or verbal in nature.

The IC analysis cannot reveal word-formative relations

d/ In cases of words with common roots like:

horror - horrid - horrify

where the IC analysis will result roughly in the following:

horr-/-or, horr-/-id, horri-/-fy

In order to make sure that one is facing a word-formative model additional testing is necessary.

Substitution

• It can help in finding out the degree of productivity of a given model.

• Ex. girlish

• the IC analysis will show girl-/-ish

• there will be no indications as regards the nature of the first element

If we apply substitution it will reveal the following:

• a/ if we substitute the first element by the morpheme

boy-, child-, baby-,

they will fit into the pattern

boyish, childish, babyish

• b/ if we try morphemes like

table-, chair-, pencil-

they cannot fit into the pattern

*tableish, *chairish, *pencilish

• c/ if we substitute with elements like green-, blue-, dark-

the result is positive

greenish, bluish, darkish

The nature of the first element determines its

position in relation to the second morpheme

• Any morpheme of substantival character and the semantic feature /+animate/ can fit into the pattern.

In girlish the suffix -ish has the meaning ‘having the characteristics of, like’

• In the c/ examples the morpheme -ish has a different meaning 'somewhat', 'rather', 'somewhat like’

• Cases like b/ show that there are semantic restrictions of the pattern

Insertion

• It comes handy in testing whether an item is a morpheme or a word, a compound word or a phrase

• A word is grammatically complete

• Nothing can be added to the word on the morphological level

a compound word vs. a free combination

• stronghold vs. strong hold

• Insertion - the marker for the comparative and superlative degree of the adjective

• we apply insertion of the morphemes

-er and -est

*strongerhold *strongesthold

stronger hold strongest hold

These seemingly identical components have a different status (nature)

• Strong- in stronghold is a dependent morpheme

• Strong in strong hold is an independent word

The operation of insertion is limited in power

• It can be applied efficiently only to morphemes which can potentially become words (belonging to classes with morphological markers)

• It does not work with words without morphological markers (prepositions, conjunctions, certain adjectives and adverbs)

Transformation

• It is connected with the multileveled character of language

• Chomsky's ideas of surface and deep structure and their interrelations

• Example Is there any difference b/n the sentences:

He took off his hat.

He took his hat off.

• These sentences have the same meaning

• They have different arrangements of words

• The difference between the two sentences is apparent at first glance, ‘on the surface‘ → they have different surface structures

• They have the same deep structure

• Surface structure relates to order of elements, and hence to sound.

• Surface structure determines the sequence of sounds which occurs in a phonetic realization of a sentence.

• Surface structure is a dimension with physical associations.

• Deep structure relates to meaning.

• Deep structure is an abstraction.

Chomsky identifies another kind of rule →

an obligatory transformational rule • These rules don’t relate one sentence with another • They relate two stages in the development of the

same sentence

*-ed you smoke? Did you smoke?

*/ hope for to go. I hope to go.

*/ have -en be -ing -wait I have been waiting.

*-ed you smoke? Did you smoke?

*/ hope for to go. I hope to go.

*/ have -en be -ing -wait I have been waiting.

• These rules have the effect of inserting meaningless elements (like do, above), deleting non-occurring items (like for, above).

• In general terms obligatory transformations serve the purpose of generally tidying up the deep structure to conform to the surface structure.

One cannot use one single operation in

discussing the problems of language.

• Depending on the specific problem one or another operation may be more efficient

1. the surface structure => one should begin with

the IC analysis

2. the operation of substitution

3. followed by insertion

4. the deep structure => transformation