eduzhai > Humanities > Linguistics >

Syntactic relation theory

  • sky
  • (0) Download
  • 20211102
  • Save
American Journal of Linguistics 2014, 3(2): 41-45 DOI: 10.5923/j.linguistics.20140302.02 A View on the Syntactical Relations Narmin Aliyeva PhD in Linguistics, Associate Professor, 16 Oxygen Street, Baku, AZ1018, Azerbaijan Abstract The article analyses the syntactic relationship in traditional and structural linguistics. The syntactic relationship serves to express syntactic attitudes and show the great importance in sentence analysis. The relationship is statistic in traditional linguistics; however, it becomes dynamic in structural linguistics. The syntactical relationship is in a linear order in traditional linguistics, but the relationship in structural linguistics is developed in a hierarchical order. It should also be noted that the view of the syntactical relationship has changed with the development of Lucien Tesnière’s conception of syntax. Despite of the Tesniere applied his ideas to the French language and French and Azerbaijani languages belong to different language families, they follow the same visual rule in the scheme. Thus, we can say that natural languages have the same fiction in deep structure. Keywords Syntax, Coordination, Syntactical processes, Meaning, Relation, Word combination, Sentence 1. Introduction The internal relations between the words are the objective relations which exist in the nature. These relations reflect the objective connection between subjects or subjects and “Language is a system of interdependent terms in which occasions. Since the connections between objects or the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous occasions are different, the meaning relation among words is presence of the others (…)” (Manjali 1994: 86). various and distinguished. Different relations such as, The semantic and grammatical combinations of different featured, quantitative, time, place, directional, reason, words form sentences which constitutes our speech. As a purpose, result, fully, gender-typed and other type of result of morphological changes and syntactical connections meaning relations exist between subjects and occasions. As words are combined together in sentences. These types of these meaning relations are expressed by words, they appear word combinations are called syntactical relation (Modern between the words which are the names of subjects and Azerbaijan language, 1962, 7). occasions as well. The objective meaning relations among “Languages have different domains of application for subjects and occasions are distinguished into two types: 1) different construction, even for equivalent constructions predicate relations and 2) non-predicate relations. As the across languages. What is of greater importance is the same meaning of connection is expressed by words, they discovery of invariant elements of grammar across languages” appeared in the names of objects and events, too. Such (William C., 1990, 15). Words are considered to be the objective meaning of connection between words erupted are building blocks of the sentences and they are the smallest distinguished into two types: 1) predictive relationship, and 2) meaningful unit of a language. Words, which are combined non-predictive relationship. and constitute a sentence, should have some link relations between each other. Usually, the relations between the words 1) The predicate relation in language is the relation are divided into two parts: 1) the internal or the meaning between the subject and the predicate. The predicate relations and 2) external (formal) or grammatical (syntactical) relation appears in place, tense and personal categories relations. of the verb, and predicate, person and number Our aim in this study is to show the differences and categories of nouns. similarities of the syntactical relation in traditional and 2) In non-predicate relation the predicative connection structural linguistics. between words does not exist. There are three types of non-predicate relations between the words: 2. Syntactical Relations * Corresponding author: Rajabova.narmin@gmail.com (Narmin Aliyeva) Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/linguistics Copyright © 2014 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved a) The objective relation – sometimes it is called object connection. In the objective relation the defining word is the object and it expresses the object of the word which defines. b) The attributive relation. The defining member in this connection is an attribute. The defining word determines all the members except the verb. Among 42 Narmin Aliyeva: A View on the Syntactical Relations all world languages an attributive relations appear between the parts of word combinations with different gender categories: in most languages, usually the first part of word combination defines the second part, but in some languages, (e.g., Persian and French) the second part defines the first part (bəradəre “brother” bozorg “elder”). c) The relative relation – the defining member in this relation mainly indicates the feature of member (word) expressed by the verb. Therefore, in some linguistics literature this relation is referred as the adverbial modifier relation. There are different views on the syntactical relations (see Bowers J., 2001, Camacho J. 2003; Günthner S. 1996; Haumann D. 1997; Lefèvre M. 2000). "A syntactic relation between syntactical units is the main feature of syntactical structure" (Chesnokova O.2008, 6). Syntactical relation is the mutual connection of elements in syntactical units, for instance, it serves expressing the connections between the words, forms the syntactical structure of sentence and word combinations and creates the appropriate condition for realization of word’s lexical meaning. 1.2. Grammatical relations in Azerbaijani language. In traditional linguistics the external (formal) relationship is called the grammatical connection. It is often called syntactic relations in linguistics. Syntactic relationship is expressed in two forms: 1) Coordinating relations; 2) Subordinating relations. Almost in all languages of the world existence of coordinating syntactic relation is very important. The coordinating relations appear between the words and sentences which relate with each other according to their meaning and grammar, however they do not depend on each other. The coordinating relations between the words and sentences are widely spread in Turkic languages, especially, in Azerbaijani language. In Turkic languages the following types of coordinating relation is mentioned: (the examples will be given in Azerbaijani language). 1) Coordinating relations exist between homogenous subjects in sentence: Ağlayır qoca da, gənc də, qarı da, Ağlayır saçına qara bağlamış Pərişan günəşin saçaqları da (S.Vurghun). Cries the old, the young, the old woman, Cries the fringers of doleful sun That tied up the black to the hair (S.Vurghun) 2) Coordinating relations exist between homogenous predicates in sentence: Atlar, öküzlər kotana gücvurur, Gah yeriyir, gah yıxılır, gah durur (M.Ə.Sabir). Horses, bulls hit the power to the plow, Sometimes walk, sometimes fall down, sometimes stand up (M.A.Sabir). 3) Coordinating relations exist between homogenous objects in sentence: O, çoxdandı, kənddən, ata-anasından, bacı-qardaşlarından, qohum-qonşudan xəbər tutmamışdı. He (she) did not for a long time make inquiries from the village, father and mother, brother and sisters, relatives and neighbors (M.Ibrahimov). 4) Coordinating relations exist between homogenous attributes in sentence: Qırmızı, ağ, sarı, çəhrayı qızılgüllər bağa xüsusi gözəllik verirdi (M.Ibrahimov). The red, white, yellow, pink roses were giving the special beauty to the garden. 5) Coordinating relations exist between homogenous adverbial modifiers (all types) in sentence: Kür çayı yorulmadan gecə də, gündüz də şəhər və kəndlərimizə nur paylayır (M.Ibrahimov). The Kura River distributes the light tirelessly to our cities and villages day and night. 6) Coordinating relations exist between homogenous addresses: Analar, bacılar, bugün biz hamımız cəbhə üçün, qələbə üçün işləməliyik (M.Ibrahimov). Mothers, sisters, today we should work for the war front and for the victory. 7) Coordinating relations exist between the components of double words in sentence: Ata-ana, baba-nənə, qohum-qonşu onun xətrinə dəyməmiş, onu ərköyün böyütmüşdü (M.Ibrahimov). The parents, grandparents, relatives and neighbors did not hurt him (her) and raised him (her) as pampered. 8) Coordinating relations exist between the components of compound sentences: Axşamlar evimizin yaxınlığındakı parkda analar skamyalarda oturub söhbət edir, uşaqlar oynayır, gənclər qol-qola girib gəzişirdi (M.Ibrahimov). The mothers was sitting on the benches and talking, the children were playing, young people were walking in the park near our house at the evenings. There are no special grammatical characteristics for coordinating relation in Turkic and Azerbaijan languages. It is made by intonation or coordinating conjunctions. The components of compound sentences relates with each other by coordinating conjunction, intonation, enumeration connection, clarification connection, cause-result connection, contrasting connection, distribution connection and joining connection. The subordinating relation is widely spread in Azerbaijan language. This relation demands the dependence of one part to the other. In this relation, one of the words depends on other word, explains and clarifies it; the other one subordinates other words independently and produces its own features (Modern Azerbaijani language. 1962, 24). The American Journal of Linguistics 2014, 3(2): 41-45 43 subordinating relation is widely spread in all languages of the world. This relation is used between the components of the word combinations, non-homogeneous members, the components of main and subordinated clauses. We can see this relation in the following sentences: Böyük qardaş həmin görüşdə bu məsələdən ərtaflı danışdı (Elder brother talked about this issue in detail at that meeting). Depending on the form and means of expression in traditional linguistics, there are three types of syntactic subordinating relations between the individual members of the simple sentence: 1) concordance; 2) control; 3) adjoining (Modern Azerbaijani language. 1962, 7). Concordance relation appears almost in most languages of the world in the following grammatical categories: personal, number and gender. The concordance according to the gender does not exist in some European languages, Turkic and Azerbaijani languages (Modern Azerbaijani language. 1962, 6). In the contrary, the concordance according to number and gender exist in Azerbaijani language. For example: mən müəlliməm, sən müəllimsən, o oxuyur, biz oxuyuruq (I am a teacher, she (he) is a teacher, she (he) reads, we read). For formation of adjoining relation there is no any grammatical means. However such a definition is given to this relation: if there is no concordance and control relation between two words, then it is the adjoining relation (Modern Azerbaijani language. 1959, 32). Unlike other grammar books, two types of adjoining relation are shown (Recebli A.2003): complete adjoining and incomplete adjoining. In traditional linguistics there exist multilateral approaches to syntagmatic events and as a result of such approaches; the syntactical relation is considered a complex process which has various features. The following parameters are relevant for the relations’ characteristics: 1) it has an unilateral or bilateral relation; 2) it combines two or more elements; 3) it belongs specifically to the relation or defines the characteristic of the relation; 4) it is realized; 5) it serves as a paradigmatic or syntagmatic; 6) it is assigned as formal, meaning or formal meaning (Sova L. 1969, 244). In order to answer all these questions, it is important to know about static or dynamic relations. In traditional linguistics, these relations are static; however, in structural linguistics it is important to show the dynamic description of static characteristics. 1.3. The comparison of traditional and structural linguistics. The category of "structural rule" and "linear rule" is not accepted by some scholars, but it should be noted that they are not only mutually exclusive, but may complete each other to some extent. A relationship between the elements of a sentence in the speech sometimes can be linear and sometimes not. F.de Saussure noted: "The linearity of speech is the basic principle depend on language mechanism (F.de Saussure. 1999, 80). The structural syntax aims to reveal the reality of deep structure which hide behind of the linear appearance of the language on the speech chain in other words to categorize the words which form the sentence and determine the relations existing between these words (Schwischay B. 2002: 1). The limitations of traditional and structuralist grammars should be clearly appreciated. Although such grammars may contain full and explicit lists of exceptions and irregularities, they provide only examples and hints concerning the regular and productive syntactic processes (Chomsky N. 5) In classical grammar the analysis of the sentence is taken like that: the subject and the predicate are the main parts of the sentence, at the same time the subject is the main, but the predicate is dependent on it. “A clause traditionally has a subject and predicate. But when they ask, how a clause is formed they assume that the traditional distinction should, if possible be unmoved” (Matthew P.H, 2007, 4). There are relationship between attribute and its antecedent, object and predicate and adverbial modifier and predicate. In Tesniere’s grammar the predicate is the highest element in the sentence, subject and object are actants and circumstances are complements. Tesnière’s model is based on the distinction between linear order and structural order of the sentence. The linear order is one-dimensional, while structural order is multidimensional. Tesnière uses “stemma” to visualize the vertical and horizontal relations within syntactic constructions. For Manjali, “While actants are one type of dependents of the predicate (they designate characters in an anthropomorphic sense), the other type called the circumstants designates situations. According to Tesnière, there can be a maximum of only three actants in a sentence while the circumstants may be several.” (Tesniere L. 1988, 86). But we can say that in Azerbaijani language the actants’ number is variable; it can be up to six. 44 Narmin Aliyeva: A View on the Syntactical Relations Let’s review two sentences: 1) Oğlan maraqla səyahətçilər haqqındakı kitabı oxudu (The boy curiously reads a book about the travellers; 2) Səyahətçilər haqqında kitabı oğlan maraqla oxudu (The boy reads a book about the travellers with interest). Both linguistics argue that in these sentences exist the same relations. Complication is the feature of defined according to the word-node which is written in linear order. Therefore, complication is considered the number of words which directly or indirectly related to the one word. If there are many depended words from one word, then the complication size of the word is larger. Complication can be defined in the scheme by the number of units depending of one unit. Branch of unit shows depended word number. 3. Conclusions If we apply syntagmatic principle to these sentences then the difference between their relations is obvious. What is the difference? We can draw the structural line between the segments oğlan ‘the boy” and maraqla səyahətçilər haqqındakı kitabı oxudu“curiously reads a book about the travellers”in first sentence, and between səyahətçilər haqqında kitabı“a book about the travellers” and oğlan maraqla oxudu“curiously reads”segments in second sentence. If the word maraqla“curiously” is not important in the first sentence, then the same word may be excluded in the second sentence as well and the sentence will not be complete. Thus, the analysis of two sentences gives the opportunity to define syntactical relations between them. Each word-unit can be in one part of the scheme. Each scheme has only one peak, it can be only the predicate. There are no round circulation in this diagram, in other words, the A word-unit can rule only B word-unit, the opposite process is not possible. As a result, it should be noted that: 1. The views are different to syntactical relation in traditional and structural linguistics. If in traditional linguistics the concordance, control and adjoining relations prevails, but in structural linguistics control relations are used mostly and all the words depend on verb in this kind of relation. The verb plays the most important key role in the sentence. 2. We’ve widely analysed “Syntactical relations in structural linguistics” in our doctoral thesis. But we can’t completely show the results, because of the bulk of the article. We applied the Tesniere’s ideas to the Azerbaijani language. Although Tesniere applied it to the French language and French and Azerbaijani languages belong to different language families, they follow the same visual rule in the scheme. Thus, we can say that natural languages have the same fiction in deep structure. REFERENCES [1] Aydin I, Topurdag G. Dependency Grammar of Lucien Tesniere in the perspective of Turkish, English and French. Turkish Studies. Volume 8. 2013, p.189-201. [2] Bowers J. Syntactical Relations. 2001 - http://conf.ling.corne ll.edu/bowers/SyntRelCompl.pdf [3] Camacho J. The structure of coordination: Conjunction and agreement phenomena in Spanish and other languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2003. As we know, this scheme is given in the scientific literature as dependency tree, we prefer to call it the scheme. Branches of the scheme directly and indirectly are the units. The scheme reflects many rules, but it also shows whether this rule suits to the unit’s conditions. [4] Chesnokova O.S. The basis of lexicology of Spanish language. Publ. univ. of peoples’ friendship, 2008, 84 с (in Russian). [5] Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. 1965. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Chomsky-Asp ects-excerpt.pdf [6] Günthner S. From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive American Journal of Linguistics 2014, 3(2): 41-45 45 constructions. Arbeitspapier Nr. 75. Konstanz: Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, 1996 [7] Haumann D. The syntax of subordination. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1997. [8] Lefèvre M. (ed.). Subordination in Syntax, Semantik und Textlinguistik [Eurogermanistik 15]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 2000. [9] Manjali F. D. Dynamic Semiotics or the Case for Actantial Case, in Semiotiques, Paris, 1994, Vol. 5-6, p. 85-97. [10] Matthews P.H. Syntactical Relations: A Critical Survey, 2007. [11] Modern Azerbaijan language. Syntax. ALU publications, Baku, 1959, 456 s (in Azerbaijani). [12] Modern Azerbaijan language. Syntax. Azertedrisneshr, Baku, 1962, 271 s (in Azerbaijani). [13] Recebli A. Goyturk syntax. Baku, 2002, 475 s (in Azerbaijani). [14] Sova L.Z. Valency and transitivity from the position and the dualism // Language universals and linguistic typology. М., Nauka, 1969, с.244-250 (in Russian). [15] L.Tesniere. The basis of structural syntax. М., Progress, 1988, 656 с (in Russian). [16] F.de Saussure. Course in General Linguistics; Trans. from French A.Sukhotina. Ekaterinburg. Publication Ural Univ. 1999, 432 с. (in Russian). [17] Schwischay B. “Introduction à la Syntaxe Structurale de L. Tesnière”, 2002 - http://www.home.uni-osnabrueck.de/bsch wisc/archives/tesniere.pdf [18] Williams C. Syntactical Categories and Grammatical Relations: cognitive organization of information. University of Chicago, 1990. [19] Ibrahimov M. Works. II v., Baku, 1978. [20] Sabir M.A. Hoppopname. Baku, 1960 [21] Vurghun S. Works. II v., Baku, 1960.

... pages left unread,continue reading

Document pages: 5 pages

Please select stars to rate!

         

0 comments Sign in to leave a comment.

    Data loading, please wait...
×