Structural grammar (Structuralism: paradigm shift in grammatical analysis)
Background
The word ‘structure’ means the arrangement of elements in their relationships to each other. By, ‘structure of language’ we mean the interrelationships of linguistic units (such as sounds, morphemes, words, phrases and sentences) at various levels, namely, phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and discourse levels. Structural grammar is thus a grammar concerned with the analysis of linguistic structure, i. e. how linguistic units are related to each other at other various levels of language. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this model of grammar varies in its implications in different contexts.
The ‘structuralism’ can be traced back to Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist. One of his important contributions to linguistics is the concept that language is a system of systems. That is to say, sounds combine to make morphemes; morphemes combine to make words; words combine to make phrases; phrases combine to make sentences and sentences combine to constitute a text. These combinations at various levels obey certain rules and are regular. Thus, they have systems such as phonological, morphological, syntactic and textual or discourse systems. Language is the sum total of all these systems. That is why it is called system of systems.
Structural grammar (or linguistics) has also been known as descriptive grammar. Language keeps on changing constantly. This change is obvious if we look at a language through a long stretch of time. The study of such a linguistic change is called historical or diachronic linguistics. However, if we analyze a language during a relatively short period of time, it will appear to be a stable system. The process of change is slow and minimal and cannot be perceived by speakers. Such a system needs to be distinguished from the system studied by historical or diachronic linguistics. It is studied by a branch of linguistics, called descriptive or synchronic grammar or linguistics. In other words, descriptive grammar studies the system of language as used and perceived by its speakers at a given time. It imposes neither historical changes nor abstract theoretical categories on the system of a language.
What is structural grammar?
Structural grammar is an approach to linguistics which stresses the importance of language as a system. Structural grammar is also called modern linguistics or descriptive grammar. It came as a reaction against traditional grammar. The origin of structural grammar can be traced back to the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (1857-1913). After his death two of his students published the lecture notes in the form of book entitled 'Course de Linguistique Generale' (Course in Linguistic General) in 1916. It was the beginning of structural grammar. This continued up to 1957 AD (starting point of generativism). Structural linguistics was expanded by other linguists like Bloomfield, Hockett, C.C. Fries, etc.
Structural grammar believes that linguistic elements are related to one another in a system. Structural grammar is the result of item – centered view to structure centered view. According to structuralists, individual sounds, words or parts of sentences have no linguistic significance in themselves; they have significance only as they contrast or combine with other items in the patterns of linguistic system. It emphasizes on phonological and grammatical structures of language. It rejects meaning aspect of language. The terms taxonomic grammar, Bloomfieldian grammar and modern linguistics are used synonymously with structural grammar. Structural grammar is concerned with surface structure which refers to a linearly arranged sequence of immediate constituents.
Various dichotomies in language and linguistics
Ferdinand De Saussure who is known as the father of modern linguistics defines language as a system of systems. In addition to this contribution, he suggests various dichotomies in language and linguistics. They are as follows:
i. Dichromic versus synchronic linguistics
dichromic or historical linguistics is the study of the historical development of a language through time. Synchronic linguistics, on the contrary, is the study of a language as it exists at a given time. De Saussure was the first to distinguish synchronic linguistics from historical linguistics.
ii. Langue versus parole
By ‘langue’ he means the underlying, abstract system of regularities and patterns that characterize language. This system exists in native speaker’s brain and enables him to communicate. Parole is, on the contrary, the concrete manifestation of language through speech or writing; it refers to actual sentences. Langue contains regular patterns and it’s shared by all the members of a speech community. According to Saussure, langue is the proper object of the study.
iii. Signifier versus signified
De Saussure observed that a linguistic unit such as a word or sentence is a sign. This sign signifies a particular concept. He refers to the sign as signifier and to the concept as signified. For example, the word ‘book’ is a signifier while the concept it conveys is signified.
iv. Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic relations.
In a sentence, words are arranged in a sequence, e. g. the – book – is – on – the – table. De Saussure refers to such a linear relation among words in a sequence as the syntagmatic relation. Besides this linear or sequential relation, words also hold another type of relation with other words in a specific context, for example, in the context of the phrase ‘the table’, article ‘the’ can be replaced by ‘a’. Thus, these two words are related. Such a relation is referred to as the paradigmatic relation.
Basic assumptions of structural Grammar
1) Priority of the spoken language
Traditional grammarians assumed that the spoken language is inferior to and in some sense dependent upon the standard written language. In contrast, structuralists maintained that the spoken form of language is primary and that writing is essentially a means of representing speech in another medium. They have given the following logic behind the superiority of spoken forms:
· speech is older and widespread than writing
· many languages in the world are in existence without its written forms
· all systems of writing are based on speech
· no writing can represent all the extra linguistic features of speech
· language is primarily speech
2) Linguistics as a descriptive, not prescriptive science
For traditional grammarians, literary language was pure and correct form. They just prescribed the rules to be followed. They resisted change in language. But structural grammarians treated linguistics as a descriptive science. They described the facts of linguistics usage as they are, not as how they ought to be. They accepted change in language.
3) objective treatment of all languages
Structural grammarians treated all the languages equally. They believed in the complexity of structure of language and also that all the languages are adequate to serve the needs of their speech community.
4) Priority of synchronic description
Traditional grammarians studied languages diachronically but structural grammarians were interested in the synchronic study of language. They gave priority to the language at the point of study. They studied language as they existed in the society.
5) The structural approach
Structural grammarians regard language as a system of system (as a system of relations). They are concerned with describing the organization of the pattern of the language for them, the most striking features of language is complexity of their structure.
6) langue and parole
Structural grammarians maintained a clear distinction between langue and parole. Langue is the abstract system of language which underlies the native speaker's knowledge of their language and parole is the concrete manifestation of language by an individual in speed and writing. Parole is the actual concrete act of speaking.
[IC analysis – Bloomfield (1939)
7) Language is a form of behaviour.
As language is a form of behaviour, it must be studied in terms of the principles appropriate to an empirical science.
8) Linguistics is an autonomous scientific discipline.
It has its own goals, procedures, and data. Its data comprises the utterances of a language. It is collected and analyzed by applying a procedure, called discovery procedure. The goal of analysis is to identify elements in a language and classify them. It is taxonomic.
9) Grammatical description must be formal and explicit.
10) Every language has its unique structure. Hence, it must be analyzed in its own terms.
Features of structural grammar
· gives priority to the spoken form.
· believes that all the languages are structurally complex and serve the needs of their speakers
· descriptive in nature
· focuses on structure or system of language
· follows inductive method of scientific analysis
· observable, verifiable and predictable
· believes that language can be analyzed in term of IC
· scientific and precise in its formulation
· scientific, objective and modern in comparison to traditional grammar
· follows taxonomic approach
· ignores semantic aspect
Strengths of structural grammar
· structuralists believe language as a system of structure, primarily speech, linguistics as a descriptive science (still valid)
· provides equal treatment to all the languages
· descriptive in nature
· defines grammatical categories in terms of form, functions and distribution rather than meaning
· accepts change in language
· focuses on the language of the day
· made the study of language autonomous from the part of the philosophy
· paid attention to language varieties
Weakness of structural grammar
Severely criticized by Chomsky and other generativists:
· neglects creativity of mind
· does not give any explanation of ambiguous sentence;
e.g., flying planes can be dangerous.
· ignores meaning aspect of language
· corpus based
· ignores linguistic universals
· fails to establish relation between sound and meaning
· fails to account the difference between 'deep' level and 'surface' level of grammatical structure
· neglects the psychological sociological side of language
· lacks explanatory adequacy
