A Three-Dimensional Model of Grammar. [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

A three-dimensional model of grammar. Form. Meaning. Use. Pragmatics. Most analyses of language arrange the subsystems of language in an acscending hierarchy: phonemes, morphemes, words, syntax, and so forth. Such an arrangement is understandable, because phonemes are constituitive of morphems, which are constituitive of words, and so on. Nevertheless, some linguists have decided to present the parts in a nonhierarchical fashion because they want to emphasise the dynamic interplay of the subsystems. They treat the morphological and syntactic subsystems as a resourse for making meaning in a context-sensitive manner. The first dimension. Form. The first dimention, the forms of language, consist of the visible or audible units: the sounds ( or signs in sign language), written symbols, inflectional morphemes, function words and syntactic structures. The second dimension. Meaning. Semantics. The second dimension is meaning. Semantics is the study of meaning encoded in language; we may think of it here as the essential denotation of a decontextualised form, what we will learn about a particular form if we were to consult a dictionary. Although the expression of meaning is distributed across all three dimensions, its prototipical units are words ( lexemes), derivational morphemes such as non-, and multy-word lexicogrammatical units – multiword strings that are semantically complete but have fused into a single form, such as “and so forth” Some language teaching syllabus developers might want to include general categories of meaning, called “notions', in this dimension as well. Notions deal with, for example, space ( location, distance, motion, size) and time ( indications of time, duration, sequence). It may be more helpful also to think of semantics as the study of meaning potential, because we are well aware that the meaning of a word or lexicogrammatical string that is actually realised in communication may be quite different from its dictionary definition. For instance “Good Morning” is typically a pleasant and appropriate greeting in the morning. If you were to use “Good morning” to greet someone in the afternoon, someone might think you committed a semantic error, because you shoud have said “Good afternoon”. However, the meaning in a word or lexicogrammatical string is only a potential meaning. We could have deliberately used the same greeting of “Good morning” in the afternoon, fully aware of the time, but using it nonetheless to teasingly greet a person who has just got up. Using the greeting as mild sarcasm illustrates the third dimension of language, pragmatics.

Pragmatics is not the meaning encoded in the language, but what people mean by the language they use. The units in this dimension are social functions ( such as promising, inviting, agreeing, disagreeing, and apologising) and discourse patterns ( such as those that contribute to the cohesion of texts) Thus, being able to use grammar structures does not only mean using the forms accurately; it means using them meaningfully (semantics) and appropriately (pragmatics) as well. Knowledge that there are three dimensions enriches our understanding of language in communication. Linguists now make a convincing argument for grammar to be seen as a skill rather than, purely, a competence. They call this skill – grammaring exploiting the grammatical resource to match the meaning, the dynamic process of relating form and structure to meaningful units. The selection of one construction over another is informed pragmatically. In situations of contrast between native and non-native speakers of a language, pragmatic errors are insidious in that they often lead proficient speakers of a language to misjudge the intentions of less proficient speakers. Particularly if the speakers are fluent and accurate, listeners do not realise that a pragmatic error has been committed, instead misconstruing what was intended by the speaker and sometimes judging the speaker as a result, making false inferences about the intentions of others. Some examples of pragmatic effect of grammatical choice: Consider the following short dialogue: Anne: Jane has just bought a Volvo John: Maureen has one. Anne: John, you've got to stop talking about Maureen as if you were stil going together. You broke up three months ago! One pragmatic effect of grammatical choice is that we convey a particular attitude depending on the grammatical forms ( among other things) that we choose to use. Johb could have stated the same propositional content using the past tense, even though the case may be that Maureen still owns the Volvo. If he had done so, he might have avoided the rebuke from ann because his use of past tense would have made the relationship with Maureen appear psycologically distant. Either the past tense or the present tense is “correct” here, but deciding which to use, while not necessarily a conscious choice, can clearly have an impact on one's listener. Take, for example, the passive voice. The form and the meaning of the passive should not be difficult to learn. Many languages haveways to shift the focus in an utterance, and the passive exists just to do the same in English, shifting the

focus from the agent of the action to the receiver. This leaves us with the use dimension. The greatest challenge is learning to use the passive voice appropriately. The passive can sound more impersonal that the active which can be a good or a bad thing, depending on your intentions. Compare the two sentences: You told us there would be a bigger discount. We were told there would be a bigger discount. They are both “correct”, but the second one sounds less confrontational. One more example – english existential ”there”. The name of the structure gives us a clue about its meaning. It is used to introduce new information. Knowing this explaines why, if you asked someone for a writing implement while you were on the pnone, you would be pleased to hear There is a pencil on the table because you would have received the information you needed in an appropriate form, but you wouldn't be pleased to be told A pencil is on the table because with this form comes the pragmatic inplication that this is not new information and that you shouldnot have had to be told. It would be as much irritating as helpful, although both sentences are grammatically “correct”