Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory (Linguistische Arbeiten) 3484302267, 9783484302266

Table of contents :
Introduction
Grammars at the Interface of Language, Linguistics, and Users
Linguistic Pragmatics and its Relevance to the Writing of Grammars
Functional Grammar and its Relevance to Grammar Writing
Cognitive Linguistics and Pedagogic Grammar
Modern Praguian Linguistics and its Potential Implications for the Writing of Grammars
Grammar and Text
Towards a Pragmatically Founded Grammar
Language Description and General Comparative Grammar
Core Grammar versus Variety Grammar – the Case of English
On Linguistic Theory and Spanish Grammars
Integrational Grammars: An Integrative View of Grammar Writing
Generative Grammar and Descriptive Grammar: Beyond Juxtaposition?
A Communicative Approach to Syntax
Teacher Training Grammar and Scientific Grammar
Name Index

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

226

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Herbert E. Brekle, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Christian Rohrer, Heinz Vater und Otmar Werner

Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory Edited by Gottfried Graustein and Gerhard Leitner

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1989

CIP-Titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory / cd. by Gottfried Graustein und Gerhard Leitner. -Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1989 (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 226) NE: Graustein, Gottfried [Hrsg.]; GT ISBN 3-484-30226-7

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen 1989 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich gcschiltzt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Druck: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt

CONTENTS

Introduction Grammars at the Interface of Language, Linguistics, and Users G. LEITNER, G. GRAUSTEIN

VII

1

Linguistic Pragmatics and its Relevance to the Writing of Grammars J. VAN DER AUWERA

21

Functional Grammar and its Relevance to Grammar Writing S.C. DIK

33

Cognitive Linguistics and Pedagogic Grammar R. DIRVEN

56

Modern Praguian Linguistics and its Potential Implications for the Writing of Grammars L. DU§KOVÄ

76

Grammar and Text G. GRAUSTEIN

90

Towards a Pragmatically Founded Grammar L. HOFFMANN

111

Language Description and General Comparative Grammar CH. LEHMANN Core Grammar versus Variety Grammar - the Case of English

133

G. LEITNER

163

On Linguistic J.M. LICERAS Theory and Spanish Grammars Integrational Grammars: An Integrative View of Grammar Writing H.-H. LIEB

184 205

Generative Grammar and Descriptive Grammar: Beyond Juxtaposition? F. STUURMAN

229

A Communicative Approach to Syntax J. TARNYIKOVA

255

Teacher Training Grammar and Scientific Grammar W. THIELE

273

Name Index

285

VII

INTRODUCTION The revolutionary rise of linguistics of the late 50s and 60s was due mainly to the

success

of

the

Chomskyan

paradigm.

But

there

were

also

and

naturally many institutional reasons that made its acceptance relatively easy, a s Newmeyer has pointed out. The s u c c e s s of linguistics led to f a r - r e a c h i n g expectations a s to its u s e f u l n e s s for language teaching, machine translation and similar activities.

But despite an enormous amount of manpower

and

money that was spent on 'translating' its insighte into the applied field moet hoped-for benefits

did not materialize and linguistics

was at the r i s k

of

being considered an eeoteric and irrelevant discipline. The editors

feel that it is about time to reconsider its u s e f u l n e s s in the

light of recent promising developments. The particular f o c u s that we propose is the writing of scientifically valid descriptions of particular l a n g u a g e s that can be used a s a b a s i s for derivative, pedagogic grammars or dictionaries for language Reference

teaching

Grammar,

and

the

like

(Leitner,

G., ed.,

1986.

The

Englieh

Tübingen: Niemeyer). In designing the volume we were

guided by such questions a s these: - What does

linguistic

typology

have to

o f f e r to influence

or

even

to

reshape the organization of syntax in grammars of particular l a n g u a g e s ? - Although

the

'war

of

theories'

of

the

60s

and

70s

is

over,

new

developments in generative grammar, functional grammar and other theories look promising

but their

likely impact

on grammars

has not yet

been

discussed. What is it? - Linguistic

pragmatics

may cover

a wide r a n g e of phenomena.

To what

extent should pragmatic information be included in grammars and does it affect their s t r u c t u r a l organization? Does it endanger the traditional formbased organization and provide a new scientific b a s i s for the inclusion of notional information?

VIII

- Variation studies are of interest in two areas: the description national varieties

of

pluricentric

languages,

such

as

English,

of

'new'

Spanish,

Portuguese and the study of pidgins and Creoles. What is their impact on grammar writing? Do variation studies suggest ways of writing

polylectal

grammars for particular languages? The contributions to this volume provide a stimulating discuBBion of these themes and suggest a new consensus for scientifically valid descriptions of languages. It overcomes the limitation of grammars to syntax, morphology and form-function relationships. There is a need to incorporate typological and comparative

statements;

categories, in addition grammars to the text

to

base

grammatical

descriptions

to formal ones; to enlarge and even

on

the scope of

notional reference

the communicative situation, thus making

room for a broader view of pragmatics; and, finally, to be sensitive to the emerging national varieties of pluricentric languages. This collection

is based

on a round table

on "Linguistic

Grammar Writing" that was held as part of the

14th

Theorizing

International

and

Congress of

in August 1987. While we have not included all contributions, we

Linguists

felt f r e e to add one paper that was not presented at the round table itself. All

of

the

papers

have

been

revised

extensively

for

the

purpose

of

publication. We would like to thank here the organizing committee of the national

Congrees

Deutschen to

the

of

Linguists,

Demokratischen continuing

i.e. the Akademie

Republik

encouragement

particularly grateful to Frau

der

14"

March 1989

der

and CIPL, for their support. Thanks go by

Professor

Winter, who prepared

R.H.

Robins.

We

the final version

extreme care and expertise.

Gottfried Graustein Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig

Inter-

Wissenschaften

Gerhard Leitner Freie Universität Berlin Berlin

are with

Grammars Language,

at

the

Interface of

Linguistics,

and

Users1

Gerhard Leitner Gottfried G r a u s t e i n

1. The context of g r a m m a r s Unlike 'ways of t a l k i n g ' a b o u t a l a n g u a g e a n d a b o u t p e o p l e ' s communicative behaviour,

which

d e s c r i p t i o n s of regular

cultural

i s the

languages

concern and

occupations.

of

the

the writing There

are

ethnography

of s p e a k i n g ,

of r e f e r e n c e materials

hundreds

of

languages

are of

not

which

dictionaries, g r a m m a r s and phonologies have n e v e r been written. The a p p e a r a n c e of grammars seems to r e q u i r e a p a r t i c u l a r , but a s y e t little u n d e r s t o o d , s e t of external conditions. Multilingualism, a s a matter of life or a s a desirable generally

goal, which

sufficient,

is one of

in many

parts

of

the

major f a c t o r s

the world,

today, i s

not even

not a

a neceesary

precondition. In India, f o r i n s t a n c e , it was not t h a t a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g p a r t of reality that

led to g r a m m a r s

and

the linguistic

s t u d y of

language.

"The

original inspiration f o r l i n g u i s t i c s . . . w a s " , a c c o r d i n g to Robins (1979:136), "the

need

that

was

felt

to

preserve

certain

transmitted t e x t s coming from the Vedic period 1

ritual

and

religious

orally

(c. 1200-1000 B.C.) ... from

T h a n k s a r e due to C. Feagin (Washington, D.C.) a n d W. Thiele (Leipzig) f o r commente on earlier d r a f t s of the p a p e r . We a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n d e b t e d to C.-J. Bailey (Berlin) for v e r y detailled s u g g e s t i o n s e v e n though he may d i f f e r with u s s u b s t a n t i a l l y on a number of i s s u e s .

the

effects

prescribe,

of a

time."

given

The

state

2 to

desire

in the

preserve,

development

and,

of

a

by

implication,

language

for

to

cultural

purposes has been a much s t r o n g e r motivation behind linguistic descriptions at all times. The grammars of American Indian or of Australian

Aboriginal

languages come to mind. It is true that they were the expression of research i n t e r e s t s of American were

also

inspired

structuralism

by

the

wish

or other to

linguistic

preserve

theories,

records

of

but

they

languages

and

c u l t u r e s that were threatened by extinction. There have been o t h e r motivations too. For one, the desire to demonstrate the maturity classical

and value

model

communicative

or

a

of a nation's foreign

domains

at

mother tongue

language

the

expense

that of

as against

monopolized

the

native

an older,

many

language

official and

its

s p e a k e r s . The Renaissance grammars of English, F r e n c h , or German tried to achieve

this

deliberate

end

vis-b-vie

language

Latin.

Closely

standardization

and

related

to

this

modernization

motivation

policies

in

p a r t s of the world of today, witness Israel, Indonesia, India and

are

various Tanzania,

and finally, there a r e the needs of foreign language teaching, mother tongue teaching,

and

of

translation.

Summer I n s t i t u t e

Missionary

attempts,

one

may

think

of Linguistics as a case in point, resulted in

of

the

grammars,

dictionaries and even writing systems for these purposes all over the globe. Practical needs of a different kind were e.g. decisive for establishing

the

Greek grammatical tradition between the fourth c e n t u r y B.C. and the second c e n t u r y A.D. The s h e e r requirement to have a l a r g e number of ' s c r i b e s ' , i.e. people who could write down the rhetoric of politicians and legal or business matters,

necessitated

'transcriptions'.

And

the fixing of rules the

first

need

to be obeyed

was,

of

course,

by them in to

these

produce

rule

descriptions that could be learnt readily and applied for these purposes. The scholastic philosophers - to take another example - were interested in grammars

as

a

tool

for

analysing

the

structure

of

reality,

and

they

deliberately attempted to relate the categories of grammar to those of logic, epistemology, and metaphysics. Whatever the motivations behind these and o t h e r types of grammars (or, for that matter,

other

kinds

of r e f e r e n c e

materials),

they have one thing

in

3 common: a p r a c t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l , f o r social g r o u p s o r

even

nations. T h e y a r e means to some e n d , a n d not e n d s in t h e m s e l v e s . T h e y a r e not meant to be i n n o v a t i v e l i n g u i s t i c a l l y a n d to p r o v i d e new views a b o u t the n a t u r e of l a n g u a g e . E v e n if the g o a l s of g r a m m a r s d i f f e r from the c o n c e r n s of

(theoretical)

theoretical,

linguistics,

concepts

they

have

to

rely

on

some,

at

least

quasi-

a b o u t the n a t u r e of l a n g u a g e a n d t h e l a n g u a g e

to b e

d e s c r i b e d . T h o s e c o n c e p t s a r e normally ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' in the s e n s e t h a t were d e v e l o p e d question.

independently

These

present the

concepts

relevant

of, a n d

must

f a c t s of

be

p r i o r to, t h e p a r t i c u l a r

suitable

to

the l a n g u a g e

the

in a

they

grammar

grammarian's

need

form a p p r o p r i a t e

to

in to the

p u r p o s e a t hand a n d c o m p r e h e n s i b l e to, a n d u s a b l e f o r , t h e t a r g e t a u d i e n c e . If t h e y a r e not, he will h a v e to modify them a n d p e r h a p s draw eclectically on d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c t r a d i t i o n s . As a r e s u l t of the i n t e r a c t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c d e v e l o p m e n t s , c o n s i d e r e d

'modern'

a t each s t e p in the h i s t o r y , with t h e c h a n g i n g aims f o r which g r a m m a r s a r e written

(Robins

1979;

1985),

several

grammaticological

traditions

have

d e v e l o p e d o v e r the millenia. The G r a e c o - L a t i n t r a d i t i o n of g r a m m a r - w r i t i n g the

oldest

method,

and

most

phonetics,

structuralism and based traditional

deeply

rooted

one.

neogrammarianism

generativism grammar

But

and

also have

the

the

is

historical-comparative various

had t h e i r

of the l a t e 19th c e n t u r y ,

branches

impact.

of

The

sentence-

t h e modern

sentence-

b a s e d o n e s a n d , f i n a l l y , the t e x t - o r d i s c o u r s e - b a s e d

grammars

have

been

the r e s u l t (Leitner 1984; 1986a). But the evolution of l i n g u i s t i c t h i n k i n g

has

not been the only i n f l u e n c e on the s t r u c t u r e a n d c o n t e n t of g r a m m a r s .

As

mentioned a b o v e , intended u s e r s .

t h e y were The y o u n g

also shaped

by

or adolescent

the

pupil

assumed

has

needs

b e e n the

of

their

prototypical

u s e r . Other t y p e s of u s e r s a n d new c o n t e x t s h a v e e m e r g e d s i n c e the middle of

the

last

languages;

century:

the

the l a n g u a g e

(university)

departments

student

at

and

universities;

teacher

of

(modern)

the e x t e n s i o n

of

the

t e a c h i n g of f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e s in s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s from a small s e l f - s e l e c t e d elite to all p e r s o n s t h a t a t t e n d school. The position of g r a m m a r s a t the i n t e r f a c e of l a n g u a g e , l i n g u i s t i c s , and

readers

grammaticography,

defines

a

number

of

interdisciplinary

research

writers, areas

of

which c o n c e r n s i t s e l f with t h e s t u d y of the h i s t o r y of t h e

4 writing of grammars (cf. Leitner 1986b), and of grammaticology, which looks at the principles

(linguistic, user-oriented, or other)

upon which grammars

are based. We will focus here on some sectione of grammaticology close

to

the

especially

concerns

language

of

theoretical

typology,

linguistics

semantics,

and

pragmatics,

its

text

that are

eubdisciplines, linguistics

and

sociolinguistics because developments in these areas are particularly relevant for grammar writing and have been unduly neglected in some of the recent attempts at

grammaticology.

We have

deemphasized

the writer/reader

axis

(see the collection of papers in Leitner 1986b), eince we have no desire to go into the lengthy, controversial and often gratuitous debates of the 60s and 70s on the relationship of (theoretical) linguistics

to language-teaching

methodologies and on the nature of pedagogical grammars. But we reject the confident self-reliance theoretical

approaches

voiced to

in

many quarters

grammar-writing,

of applicational

for

instance

and

by

non-

Strevens

(1978:114): ... in British ELT there was, and persists, a converse tendency to say 'Give them practical techniques and the ideas will look after themselves.' And when a very proper concern with pedagogical professionalism ... is taken to extremes, it can lead to a disdain for theoretical notions of any kind and hence to the establishment of teacher training programmes almost devoid of any intellectual content. Why bother with courses on grammar ... when the nature of English is made plain to all in Hornby's work, together with clear instructions on how to teach the language?

We argue instead for a reasonably close relationship of grammar writing to current

linguistic

theorizing - and

for

a

maximally

homogeneous

linguistic

approach.

2. Three properties of grammars Let us now discuss some of the problems involved in the formulation of such a maximally

homogeneous approach

characteristics grammars human

of

of

grammars.

particular

languages,

we

Starting

languages will

on the

proceed

with

to the to

basis of the

analysis

the

three

general

widely-accepted relationship

of

human

problems

thrown

language up

by

of or the

5 concrete manifestations of languages or, to use a more technical term, the language

varieties,

and

conclude

with

user-oriented,

applied-linguistic

considerations. (1) Grammars of a language are more or less comprehensive and systematic accounts of the major categories, structures, and functions of linguistic expressions found in the language under description. 2 Comprehensiveness and systematicity of data organization must be related to the theoretical

linguistic

notions

of

"grammar

of

language"

and

universal

grammar in several ways. It was argued in early generative grammar that language-specific grammars cover

only

the

idiosyncratic

instantiations

of

languages

and

are

supplemented and constrained by a universal grammar that accounts for the creative resources of linguistic competence. Chomsky made this position more stringent in his Lectures "The

grammar

of

specification of Keenan

a

values of

1987:245>.

expression in

on Government and Binding, where he argued that

particular

He

language

parameters

now

any language

of

envisages as being

can

be

regarded

Universal

Grammar"

the

structure

derived

as

simply

, where

(=

the

the l a t t e r

holder

of

a

is specified

controlled by some

predication. The meaning is defined in terme of a paraphrase to the e f f e c t that xi t h i n k s that the proposition Xi is t r u e . 1 Apart from the details of this e n t r y , which a r e obviously debatable, it will be clear that the predicate frame of believe already contains the essentials 1

The distinction between "proposition" and "predication" in PG is a recent innovation due to Hengeveld (1988).

for building

47 up the predication underlying

(4b). This can be done

b y i n s e r t i n g term s t r u c t u r e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to John to Nairobi

a n d that

Peter

directly had

been

into the a r g u m e n t s l o t s of t h e p r e d i c a t e f r a m e . From t h a t point

o n w a r d s , the r e s u l t i n g p r e d i c a t i o n may b e f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t e d until f i n a l l y a f u l l y s p e c i f i e d u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e i s r e a c h e d , which c a n b e " p r i n t e d

out"

b y the s o - c a l l e d " e x p r e s s i o n r u l e s " , which t a k e c a r e of the form, t h e o r d e r , a n d the p r o s o d i c p r o p e r t i e s of the l i n g u i s t i c e x p r e s s i o n . L e t u s c o n s i d e r some implications of t h i s a p p r o a c h : - The r o l e of the lexicon becomes more i m p o r t a n t in t h e o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e of the

grammar:

it

contains

not

only

the

lexical

material,

but

also

the

" b l u e p r i n t s " f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of p r e d i c a t i o n s . - The p r e d i c a t e

frame defines

both t h e

quantitative

valency

/=number

of

a r g u m e n t ^ / a n d the q u a l i t a t i v e v a l e n c y [ - s e m a n t i c t y p e s of a r g u m e n t s / of the p r e d i c a t e .

The i m p o r t a n t notion of " v a l e n c y "

is thus fully integrated

into t h e g r a m m a r . - The lexicon

can,

with

Bloomfield,

be

seen

as

the

inventory

of

basic

" i r r e g u l a r i t i e s " of the l a n g u a g e s : w h a t e v e r p r o p e r t i e s of lexical items m u s t be l e a r n e d a s s u c h b e f o r e t h e s e items c a n b e p r o p e r l y u s e d , will b e s t o r e d in the lexicon. - The p r e d i c a t e f r a m e i s a p o w e r f u l tool f o r g e n e r a l i z i n g a c r o s s

languages:

although the actual predicates are obviously language-specific, the overall format of

the p r e d i c a t e

frame can

be t a k e n

to b e u n i v e r s a l l y

valid

for

natural l a n g u a g e s .

4.6. The s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g t e r m s J u s t a s the notion of " p r e d i c a t e f r a m e " p r o v i d e s a n u n d e r l y i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n

of p r e d i c a t i o n s

in all l a n g u a g e s ,

so

FG

u n i v e r s a l u n d e r l y i n g schema f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of terms,

has

schema for developed

where t e r m s

a are

defined a s e x p r e s s i o n s which can be u s e d to r e f e r to " e n t i t i e s " in some ( r e a l o r imagined) world. T h i s term schema t a k e s t h e following form:

48 (11) (ίΐχι: φ ι ( χ ί ) : φ a(xj): ... : < Μ * ) ) In this schema, χι r e p r e s e n t s r e f e r e n t of

the "term variable", symbolizing the intended

the term; J1 stands f o r one or more "term operators"

(such as

Definiteness, Number, etc.), and each φ (χι) stands f o r an "open predication in χι" (= a predication

with an unspecified

xi in

one of

its term

which acts as a " r e s trie t o r " on the possible values of xi. These

positions) restrictors

are "stacked" onto each other through the relation " : " , which can be read as "such that". Let us illustrate this by means of some examples: (12) a. the house (dlxi: housen(xi)) b. the two old houses (d2xi: housen(xi): oldA(xi)) c. the two old houses that John bought/bought by John (d2xi: houseii(xi): oldA(xi): buyv ( d l x j : Johni Patient Temporal

> Recipient

> Beneficiary

> Instrument > Locative >

51 This Semantic Function Hierarchy tells u s

that the whole r a n g e of

semantic functions may in principle be selected

these

for s u b j e c t function,

but

that the chances that a language will have this possibility d e c r e a s e s a s we proceed through the hierarchy from left to right. For one rather

extreme

example of the exploitation of these possibilities, consider the following pair of constructions

from Kinyarwanda,

a

Bantu

language

discussed

in

this

respect in Gary and Keenan (1977): (19) a. Yohani John

y-iish-e

impyisi

mw-ishyamba

he-kill-asp

hyena

in-forest

"John killed a hyena in the f o r e s t " b. ishyamba forest

ry-iish-w-e-mo

impyisi

na

Yohani

it-kill-pass-asp-loc

hyena

by

John

"The f o r e s t was-killed-in a hyena b y J o h n " In (19b) the original locative has become the s u b j e c t of the construction: it takes the

subject

position,

triggers

agreement

on the

verb,

and

has

a

number of other properties typical for s u b j e c t s in Kinyarwanda; the v e r b is marked by two "voice" elements, the s u f f i x -mo, which signals that a locative term has received s u b j e c t or object s t a t u s , and the suffix -w-, which s i g n a l s that some term other than the underlying Agent has received the s t a t u s of subject. When, on the b a s i s of the typological hierarchy given in (18), we look back at such English constructions a s (17a-b), we s e e that these a r e much l e s s s t r a n g e than they seem to be at f i r s t 3ight. In fact, we can set up a whole series of English constructions reflecting the Semantic Function Hierarchy: (20) a. John stole the car. / A g S u b j / b. The car was stolen by John. / P a t S u b j / c. Peter was given the book by John. / R e c S u b j / d. Peter was bought the book [for]

by John. / B e n S u b j /

e. Thie ball has been played with b y Pele. / I n e t r S u b j / f. Thie bed has been slept in by Queen Mary. / L o c S u b j / Looking

at

typologically

this r a n g e motivated

of

constructions

Semantic

Function

from the

point of

Hierarchy,

we

can

view of make

the some

52 interesting observations. First, we see that the acceptability of the English passives

decreases

constructions in

as we

through

go

(20) would

the

be considered

the

later

ungrammatical or at least

hierarchy:

some of

sub-

standard by prescriptive grammarians. Second, we see that at a certain point in the hierarchy English starts retaining the preposition which goes with the "underlying" semantic function. This kind of more explicit coding in more difficult or marginal conditions is another phenomenon for which typological parallels

can

be

cited.

In

the

third

place,

a frequency

count

of

the

constructions of (20) would most probably reveal a decreasing text frequency of these constructions as we proceed through the hierarchy. This exemplifies another

quite

interesting

relationship

between

typological

and

language-

internal distribution: what is rare across languages is less frequent within languages.

We

"markedness"

could by

formulate

saying

that

this

principle

typological

in terms

of

markedness

the

notion

correlates

of

with

grammatical markedness. To cite one other example of thie principle: in a number of languages there is a constraint which says that subjects must be definite. Thus, we find a pattern such as the following: (21) a. The man stole a car. b. *A man stole a car. This constraint does not hold for English: (21b) is grammatical. We may be quite certain, however, that a text count will reveal that even in English, constructions such as (21b) will be much less frequent than those of type (21a). In various respects, then, we see our picture of the English passive change as we look at it in the light of general typological data: the fact that pairs such as (16a-b) are usually considered to exemplify the "real" passive can now be interpreted as being due to the fact that the Patient is the first non-Agent subject candidate in hierarchy (18): it is not the only, but rather the first item that yields a passive construction. For

these

various

procedure of

reasone,

FG treats

voice

Subject Assignment, through

distinctions

which the

of

a

Subject function

in

terms

is

assigned to one of the semantic functions in the underlying predicate frame. The predication underlying (16b) will thus take the following form:

53 (22) stealv (dlxi: JohnN(xi))AK (dlxj: cam(xj))patsai>i where

the

Subj

expression rules

function

assigned

which yield

to

the

the passive

Patient

form of

will

later

Agent function of (John) will be expressed in the preposition We can

now

interpret

the assignment

of

Subj

trigger

the

the predicate, while

to a

the

by.

term as

a kind

of

"pointer", which says that the state of a f f a i r s designated by the predication is to be presented from the perspective of the S u b j entity. In other words, an

active

and

a

corresponding

passive

construction

are

regarded

as

designating the same state of affairs, but from d i f f e r e n t points of view. Once thie "perspectivizing" strange

in

the

function of

fact

that

Subject

Subj

can

is recognized,

also

be

there is

assigned

to

nothing

Recipients,

Beneficiaries, and other participants. What needs to be explained is why some of these assignments

are more

difficult, less frequent,

more marked

than

others. Here, the general rule seems to be that the less central a role an entity plays in the state of affairs designated

by the predication, the more

difficult it is to take it as the primary vantage point f o r the presentation of the state of affairs. It is this dimension of "central - peripheral" which we find reflected in the Semantic Function Hierarchy (18). Once

we

have

accepted

that

Subj

assignment

is

a

matter

of

defining

alternative perspectives on the same state of affairs, constructions involving "raising" phenomena become less mysterious than they would appear to be at f i r s t sight. Consider a pair such as: (23) a. It seemed that John was ill. b. John seemed to be ill. Semantically speaking,

the underlying

predication

would appear

to be

the

same in the two constructions: (24) seemv (ei:/ilU (dlxi: John«(xi)) 0 )7(ei)) ( x j ) « « Here, seem is analyzed as a two-place relation between some state of a f f a i r s ei and some unidentified Recipient (or experiencer) xj; the state of a f f a i r e is specified b y the predication saying that John is ill. It may now be assumed that there

ie a certain

preference

for

presenting

a predication

from

the

54 point of view of a concrete entity such as "John" rather than from a more abstract

entity

situation

in

such

which

as

the

"John's Subj

being

function

assigned to the embedded argument argument "John's

being ill".

ill".

This

relevant

John rather

This type

preference

to the

leads

predicate

to

seem

a is

than to the predicational

of Subj assignment will eventually

lead to a construction in which John rather than that John was ill acquires the privileges of the eubject of the main predicate seem.

5. Conclusion The examples given in the preceding sections could easily be multiplied. Each of them shows, I modified

and

believe,

more

that general theoretical insights

adequate

view

of

the

grammatical

may lead

to a

organization

of

particular languages. This is especially so if the general theory of grammar strives

to

attain

determine,

for

a each

generalization and

high

measure

grammatical

the optimal

of

typological

phenomenon,

degree

of

adequacy, the

abstraction.

trying

to

level

of

proper And if

the

general

theory is to help us understand the basic nature of language it should try, wherever this is possible, to integrate the study of form, meaning, and uee in

such

a

pragmatic

way

that

features

of

not

merely

language

the

are

formal,

placed

but

in a

also

the

semantic

more general

and

theoretical

perspective.

References AUWERA, J. VAN DER, L. GOOSSENS, predication. Dordrecht: Foris.

eds.,

1987.

Ins

and

oute

of

the

BLOOMFIELD, L., 1933. Language. New York: Holt. BOLKESTEIN, A. M., et al., 1981. Predication Grammar. London: Academic Press.

and expression

BOLKESTEIN, A. M., et al., eds., 1985a. Syntax and pragmatics Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. BOLKESTEIN, A. M., et al., eds., 1985b. Predicates Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.

in

Functional

in Functional

and terms in Functional

55

DIK, S.C.i 1978. Functional Dordrecht: Foris>.

Grammar.

DIK, S.C., 1980. Studies in Functional

Amsterdam:

North-Holland.

LEITNER, G., G. GRAUSTEIN, 1989. "Grammars at the i n t e r f a c e of linguistics, and users," in: G. Graustein, G. Leitner, eds., Reference and modern linguistic theories. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1-20.

language, grammars

LEITNER, G., U. SCHÄFER, 1989. "Reflections on corpus linguistics: ICAME Conference, Birmingham," CCE Newsletter 3(2). 1-16.

the

9th

LIEB, H.-H., 1989. "Integrational grammars: an i n t e g r a t i v e view of grammar writing," in: G. Graustein, G. Leitner, eds., Reference grammeurs and modern linguistic theories. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 205-228. Longman Macquarie

Dictionary Dictionary,

of Contemporary

English,

1987. London: Longman.

The, 1981. MacMahons Point, NSW: Macquarie L i b r a r y .

182 NIHALANI, P., R.K. TONGUE, P. HOSALI, 1979. Indian and British English. handbook of usage and pronunciation. Delhi: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Oxford

English

Dictionary,

A

1971. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s .

PARASHER, S., 1983. " E n g l i s h : c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s , " English Worldwide 4(1). 27-42.

grammatical,

lexical

and

stylistic

PETERS, P., 1987. " T o w a r d a c o r p u s of A u s t r a l i a n E n g l i s h , " ICAME Journal 27-38. PRIDE, J . , e d . , 1982. New Englishes. RENOUF, Α., 1987. " C o r p u s L o n d o n : Collins. 1 - 2 2 .

11.

Rowley, Mass.: N e w b u r y House.

development,"

in: J .

Sinclair,

QUIRK, R., S. GREENBAUM, G. LEECH, J . SVARTVIK, grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

ed.,

1985. A

Looking

up.

comprehensive

SALEEMI, A.P., f o r t h c . "Native a n d n o n - n a t i v e g r a m m a r s of E n g l i s h , " P a p e r g i v e n a t t h e International Conference on English in South Asia. I s l a m a b a d , P a k i s t a n , 4 - 1 0 J a n u a r y 1989. < P r o c e e d i n g s t o b e e d i t e d b y R. B a u m g a r d n e r > SHASTRI, S.V., et al., 1986. Manual to accompany the Kolhapur corpus of Indian English for use with digital computers. Kolhapur: Shivaji University, D e p a r t m e n t of E n g l i s h . SHASTRI, S.V. 1988. " T h e K o l h a p u r c o r p u s of I n d i a n E n g l i s h a n d w o r k o n i t s b a s i s so f a r , " ICAME Journal 12. 15-26. SHASTRI, S.V., E n g l i s h , " Indian

f o r t h c . "Code-mixing Linguistics.

SINCLAIR, J . , e d . , L o n d o n : Collins.

1987. Looking

up.

in

the

process

An

account

of

of

the

done

Indianization

COBUILD

of

project.

SRIDHAR, K., f o r t h c . " P r a g m a t i c s of S o u t h Asian E n g l i s h : a n e m p i r i c a l s t u d y , " P a p e r g i v e n a t t h e International Conference on English in South Asia. I s l a m a b a d , P a k i s t a n , 4 - 1 0 J a n u a r y 1989. < P r o c e e d i n g s t o b e e d i t e d b y R. Baumgardner> SRIDHAR, S., f o r t h c . " T h e m a k i n g of I n d i a n E n g l i s h : a c q u i s i t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s a n d d e s c r i p t i v e f e a t u r e s , " P a p e r g i v e n a t t h e International Conference on English in South Asia, I s l a m a b a d . P a k i s t a n , 4 - 1 0 J a n u a r y 1989. < P r o c e e d i n g s t o b e e d i t e d b y R. B a u m g a r d n e r > STREVENS, P., 1987. " S t a n d a r d s a n d t h e s t a n d a r d l a n g u a g e , " 2. 5 - 8 . SWAN, M., 1985. "Where i s t h e l a n g u a g e g o i n g , " English WERLICH, Ε., 1976. A t e x t grammar

of English.

Today

English

Today

3. 6 - 8 .

H e i d e l b e r g : Quelle u n d Meyer.

183 WEYDT, Η., Β. SCHLIEßEN-LANGE, 1981. "Wie realietisch sind Variationsgrammatiken," in: Logoa semantikos. Studie linguiatica in honorem Eugenio Coaeriu. 1921-1981, Vol. 5. Berlin: de Gruyter. 117-145.

On

Linguistic

Theory

GrammarB

and

Spanish

1

Juarta M. Lice r a s

Ο. Introduction

The p u r p o s e of this

paper i s to s u g g e s t

relationship between

linguistic theorizing

that an important a s p e c t of and grammar

writing

lies in

the the

evaluation b y grammarians of the proposals of linguistic theory on the b a s i s of their ability to account f o r native s p e a k e r s ' intuitions. A given theoretical a n a l y s i s will be 'intuitively t r a n s p a r e n t ' if it p r o v i d e s the kind of information which is n e c e s s a r y to d e s c r i b e the knowledge that native s p e a k e r s have about their language but cannot formulate in an explicit way. The task

of the grammarian will consist in sorting out available

analyses

in

order

phenomenon. This

to

provide

the

best

possible

description

implies that, in some c a s e s , an a n a l y s i s

o v e r another. However, when alternative a n a l y s e s

competing

of a g i v e n

will be f a v o r e d

of a construction

reflect

d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of native s p e a k e r s ' intuitions, the grammarian should t r y to c a p t u r e the i n s i g h t s of the v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e a n a l y s e s . There

are

no predetermined

procedures

t o evaluate

the

'intuitive

t r a n s p a r e n c y ' of a n y a n a l y s i s . Nonetheless, grammarians h a v e not only been able to c a p t u r e t r a n s p a r e n c y in the proposals of linguistic t h e o r y , but also 1

Research f o r this work was supported b y g r a n t s from the School of Graduate S t u d i e s of the University of Ottawa and the Institute d e Cooperaci6n Iberoamericana of Madrid.

185 to f r e e them from the formalism of modern syntactic theory to present clear, elegant and attractive accounts of a number of syntactic processes. In this paper, I am going to discuss the nature of the relationship between linguistic

theorizing

procedures

which

and

grammar

grammarians

may

writing follow

to

by

investigating

incorporate

the

various

insights

of

linguistic analyses into their grammars. Section I deals with the relationship between

descriptive

grammars

and

theoretical,

comparative

and

applied

linguistics. Taking Quirk and Greenbaum's (1973) notion of 'operator', section II provides

suggestions

to filter

the concepts of linguistic

theory on

the

basis of their ability to account for native speakere' intuitions. Section

III

shows how the notions of 'promotion' and 'demotion' coined by the upholders of Relational Grammar can explain a number of facts about some Spanish

ee-

constructions. In section IV two analyses of Spanish que in oblique and nonoblique

restrictive

relativization

are

discussed

in order

to

indicate

how

grammarians could evaluate the proposals to elaborate their descriptions. section

V

it

is

argued

that

L2

acquisition

data

can

be

valuable

In for

grammarians. Section VI contains some conclusions.

1. The two-way relationship

between descriptive

grammar and

theoretical,

comparative and applied linguistics The only

distinction

'grammar'

is

that

that we

which

want

separates

to establish scientific

with

from

reepect

to the

descriptive

term

grammar. 2

Within the Chomskyan framework, 'grammar' can r e f e r to the 'mental organ' formed by innate principles - Universal Grammar (UG) - which contain open parameters. 3

1

We consider that descriptive grammars are pedagogical grammars in the broader sense. Namely, they have as one of their goals to facilitate the understanding of and the reflection on the rules and principles of a g i v e n language. These descriptive grammars are directed to both native and nonnative speakers and they may (and probably should) contain references to f i r s t and foreign (L2) language acquisition data.

3

See Lightfoot (1982) f o r a detailed account of the possible characteristics of grammar as a 'mental organ'.

186 When the p a r a m e t e r s of UG a r e fixed in one of the permitted ways, a p a r t i c u l a r grammar is determined, what I call a 'core grammar'. In a highly idealized p i c t u r e of l a n g u a g e acquisition, UG is taken to be a characterization of the child p r e - l i n g u i s t i c initial s t a t e . Experience - in p a r t , a c o n s t r u c t b a s e d on internal s t a t e g i v e n or a l r e a d y attained s e r v e s to fix the p a r a m e t e r s of UG ... (Chomsky 1981:7) To d i s c o v e r the p r i n c i p l e s of UG will be the main o b j e c t i v e of a scientific grammar.

Within t h i s a p p r o a c h , the term grammar

- this second meaning is

the one s h a r e d by most schools of linguistics - d o e s also r e f e r to the model developed b y the l i n g u i s t to account f o r the a b s t r a c t p r o p e r t i e s which a r e realized in d i f f e r e n t w a y s in the l a n g u a g e s of the world.

Outside of c o r e

grammar t h e r e is a s e t of ' p e r i p h e r a l ' p r o p e r t i e s of the l a n g u a g e which may include relaxations of the s e t t i n g s of core grammar, i d i o s y n c r a t i c f e a t u r e s of the l a n g u a g e , etc. In this r e s p e c t , a n y core grammar is an idealization of what a p a r t i c u l a r

person

may have inside his

head. As Lightfoot p u t s it,

" t h e theory of grammar is a h y p o t h e s i s about the initial s t a t e of the mental o r g a n , the innate c a p a c i t y of the child, and a p a r t i c u l a r grammar conforming to this t h e o r y is a h y p o t h e s i s about the final s t a t e , the grammar eventually attained." enon, a

(Lightfoot derivative

1982:27). Under this view, language concept,

which i n c l u d e s

'mental o r g a n s ' s u c h a s conceptual

knowledge

not only

grammar

or perceptual

Let u s now t u r n to the domain of descriptive terms, can

is a n

grammar

epiphenombut

other

mechanisms.' which, in

general

be defined a s the explicit formulation of the implicit knowledge

that a s p e a k e r h a s of his native l a n g u a g e . According to t h i s definition, the quality of the distinction between scientific and d e s c r i p t i v e grammar can be 4

Lightfoot (1982) s t a t e s that: " t h e mind i s a wider r a n g i n g o b j e c t , encompassing a grammar a s one component. Other components include p e r c e p t u a l s t r a t e g i e s and a n account of knowledge of the world... One might think of t h i s a s t h r e e ( p e r h a p s more) i n t e r s e c t i n g capacities, a s in diagram (5)", which is r e p r o d u c e d here: (5) Grammar Perceptual Mechanisms Conceptual Knowledge

187

established modules

at

two different

involved.

peripheral grammar achieve its goal. I t comprehensiveness

levels: a)

Descriptive

the

grammar

nor isolates

degree

neither

of idealization;

differentiates

core

the from

one among various cognitive capacities

is not the degree of a b s t r a c t e d n e s s that

b)

characterizes

descriptive

but the

grammar

to

need

for

in

this

and,

respect, it is also concerned with language contact. 5 According to the definition presented above, t h e r e is no direct relationship between scientific grammar and descriptive grammar. However, there

should

be a constant feedback between grammarians and theoretical linguists, in the same way that t h e r e has to be a constant feedback between grammarians and socio-linguists, psycholinguists,

comparatists,

and native speakers.

In

fact,

grammarians should, on the one hand, filter data from linguistic theory and other disciplines and, on the other hand, incorporate those data into their grammars in theory, as

such a way that

well a s

for the

their descriptions

various linguistic

are

useful

disciplines.

for

linguistic

This implies

that

descriptive grammars should have the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : a) Comprehensiveness. They should provide a comprehensive account of the different

levels

syntactic,

semantic

of

language

(phonetic,

and stylistic).

about the relevant

registers

phonological,

They should

(colloquial,

formal,

morphological,

also contain unmarked...)

information and

about

the standard dialects of any given language. This does not imply that all the information should be included in a given volume, but r a t h e r that it should be gathered with the same approach and methodology. b) Explicitness.

The

development

of

the

various

linguistic

disciplines

in

recent y e a r s provides both the information and the tools that a r e needed to f r e e many a s p e c t s of language from ambiguity. c) Completeness and clarity. If a descriptive

grammar is to be useful

comparison and c o n t r a s t among languages, it has to contain intended to determine relationship between 5

the

relevant

categories,

heads, specifiers

their

basic

a n d / o r complements,

for

information orders,

the

passivization

By language contact we r e f e r not only to social and dialectal contact also to non-native systems grown in natural o r institutional settings.

but

188 and relativization s t r a t e g i e s , etc. so that both linguists working on formal universale a s well as those working on typological universale can benefit from that information. d) Intuitive

transparency.

alternative

Given the

descriptions

of

a

fact

given

descriptive grammarians

to evaluate

insights

speakers'

about

native

that

linguistic

construction,

it

theory

provides

is

task

the

them in order to incorporate intuitions.

To

conduct

this

grammarians can use information from perceptual mechanisms,

of

their task,

conceptual

knowledge or o t h e r cognitive systems, which will contribute to provide a more a c c e s s i b l e formulation of native s p e a k e r s ' knowledge. e) Challenge and appeal. One of the most valuable a s p e c t s of a descriptive grammar

consists

establishing

in

accounting

relationships

for

between

native

structures,

speakers' making

intuitions

decisions

ambiguities, etc. - in a way that provokes and invites native

about

speakers'

reflection on their own language.

2. Filtering data from linguistic theory The

characteristics

principles

enumerated

against

which

the

in

eection

proposals

I

of

can

be

linguistic

taken

as

theory

general

are

to

be

evaluated by grammarians. The beet grammatical tradition in English is r e p r e s e n t e d by J e s p e r s e n (1927), whose descriptions a r e clear, explicit, comprehensive, intuitively t r a n s p a r e n t , useful for (1847)

comparison

grammar

is

and

reflexion

Jerpersen's

and,

Spanish

sometimes,

provocative.

counterpart

which,

Bello's

even

now,

constitutes one of the b e s t sources of information for theoretical, descriptive and applied linguistics. J e s p e r s e n ' s and Bello's grammars a r e also a model f o r grammarians because of their appealing formulations of native English Spanish

speakers'

knowledge

grammarians, who

have tried

of

their

respective

to be faithful

languages.

to the

and

More modern

formal proposals

of

a

given school of linguistics, have not been able to excel the work of those two grammarians.

In

fact,

the

proposals

that,

in

my opinion,

represent

189 genuine contributions to the construction of a model of descriptive grammar are those in which

the analyses of linguistic

theory

have been measured

against the intuitions of native speakers by a scholar, the grammarian, who is not constrained by the theoretical framework of the linguist.* An example of the kind of contribution that linguistic theorizing can make to grammar writing and vice versa is found in the notion of 'operator' used by Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) to refer to the unit which takes an active role in the following syntactic processes in English: a) Question formation (1) a. Are you coming? (1) b. Have they told you about it? (1) c. Will he do it? b) Negation (2) a. I don't know (2) b. She isn't coming (2) c. We won't do It c) Tag question formation (3) a. Do it, will you? (3) b. He is coming, isn't

he?

(3) c. They won't do it, will they? The term operator underlies

the

constitutes

proposal

of

an attempt a

to capture

subject-verb

the intuition

inversion

rule

to

which form

interrogatives and tag questions on the one hand, and a rule which places the negative particle besides the node AUX, on the other. Native speakers of English do

know which

word acts as operator

in the

case of

the three

processes described above. Without having to describe the formal aspects of the rules, it becomes apparent that the lexical unit which carries inflexion and tense is the one that acts as operator. Cases such as (3) a. where, * This is so even when, as in our case, we are filtering data from proposals which are based on native speakers' intuitions. Linguists working within the ChomBkyan framework seldom take into consideration intuitions which rely on cognitive systems other than 'grammar' (see note 4 above).

190 unlike t h o s e in (3) b. and c., the affirmative and the i n t e r r o g a t i v e do not contain the same lexical unit a s o p e r a t o r , have to be included to fulfill the requirement of c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s . Both the term o p e r a t o r and the r a n g e of facts

that

it

covere

represent

a

clear

attempt

to

formulate

linguistic

p r o p o s a l s in a clear and comprehensive way.

3. 'Demotion', 'promotion' and S p a n i s h s e - c o n s t r u c t i o n s Within the

framework

of

Relational

Grammar

(Perlmutter

and

Postal

1977)

'promotion* and 'demotion' r e f e r to the c h a n g e of grammatical relation which some c o n s t r u c t i o n s u n d e r g o with r e s p e c t to their initial or basic schema. For the

upholders

which implies

of

Relational

Grammar

grammatical

relations

are

axiomatic,

that our g u i d e s f o r their determination a r e meaning,

form and intuition. ' S u b j e c t of' (SU), 'Direct Object o f

(DO) and

logical 'Indirect

Object of' (10) a r e ' p u r e grammatical relations' b e c a u s e they do not have one and only one semantic content but have r a t h e r neutralized s e v e r a l cases.

7

semantic

SU is grammatical relation 1 b e c a u s e it is the most a c c e s s i b l e to the

application

of

(grammatical

rules,

relation

followed 3). In

by

DO

Relational

(grammatical Grammar

relation

terms,

the

2)

and

10

'corresponding

p a s s i v e ' of the S p a n i s h t r a n s i t i v e sentence (4) is (5), (4) El gobierno

c o n s t r u y d e s o s hoteles 1

en 1900 2

The government built those hotels in 1900 (5) Esos

hoteles

f u e r o n c o n s t r u i d o s por el gobierno 1

en 1900

t

Those hotels were built by the government... The

process

of

what

is

called

'plain

personal

passive'

(PPP)

can

be

r e p r e s e n t e d a s follows: ' SO can be a n ' a g e n t ' a s in "Ana has written that a r t i c l e " , an ' o b j e c t i v e ' a s in "The door opened s u d d e n l y " , an 'instrumental' a s in "That knife c u t s well", a 'locative' a s in "Madrid has a l a r g e population", etc. There is an a n a l y s i s of grammatical relations in S p a n i s h in L i c e r a s (1984).

191

construir

el gobierno

construir

e s o s hoteles

el gobierno

eeoe hoteles

This p r o c e s s involves an advancement rule through whose application

the

Direct Object (initial 2) becomes the s u b j e c t of the p a s s i v e sentence (classic 1). The s u b j e c t of the active sentence (initial 1) c e a s e s to bear a n y term grammatical relation to the v e r b (governor) and becomes a s u b j e c t chomeur (Ϊ). This

is marked a s oblique by the proposition por. The side e f f e c t s of

the rule are: 1) the introduction of the v e r b s e r (to be) in the tense of the active v e r b and agreeing with claBeic 1 (initial 2) in p e r s o n and number; 2) the governor is now in the participle form and a g r e e s in gender and number with the classic 1; 3) the a marking the personal DO is deleted. 8 The proposal is that native s p e a k e r s know that the p r o c e s s of 'promotion' (2 -> 1) and 'demotion' (1 -> T) are inherent to sentence

(5). 'Demotion' can

become 'deletion', a s in the c a s e of (6), where 1 is not present. (6) Esos hoteles fueron construidos en 1900 The so-called

'reflexive passive*

has a

different morphology

because

the

secondary e f f e c t s of the advancement rule a r e not the same, but the same p r o c e s s e s (both 'promotion' and 'demotion') apply to reflexive p a s s i v e in (7), 8

This a marking a p p e a r s regularly in the l a n g u a g e with personal DOs when they a r e /+definite/ - a) v e r s u s b) below - or with non-personal DOs to e x p r e s s affection, a s in c). a) Gl pais no necesita buröcratas /^-definite/ The country does not need b u r e a u c r a t s b) El pais no necesita a e s o s bur