Basic Tenets of Metaoperational Grammar Theory General ... · Genesis and Development of Metaoperational Grammar FIRST STAGE: The discovery of the Scope of ING in BE+ING utterances

Basic Tenets of MetaoperationalGrammar Theory

General Lecture (CM)By

Prof. Kpli Jean François

LICENCE

UE: LING6205: Linguistique générale

LING6205.1 : Les fondamentaux de la Grammaire

métaopérationnelle

Semestre 5 –AMPHI N

Course Objectives

General Objectives

Introduce the discourse analysis theory entitled: Metaoperational Grammar

Define the basic tenets of the Theory

Discuss some applications of the Theory

Course Objectives

Specific Objectives

• Present the genesis and development of

MOG

• Define each basic tenet/principle and show

how meaning is constructed in every day

communication

• Present some specific applications

Expected Skills to be Developed Students must be able to understand the overall basic

theoretical principles.

They must be able to analyze utterances and determinethe specific linguistic operations that have lead to theproduction of utterances.

Students are expected to define the systemic value oflinguistic operators.

At the end of the course students should have a clearidea of the systematicity and coherence of languagegrammar.

Genesis and Development of

Metaoperational Grammar FIRST STAGE: The discovery of the Scope of ING in BE+ING

utterances

SUBSEQUENT STAGES:

Setting up of the basic principles: Language is a System The Invariant Value The Concept of Relation The Theory of the Natural Metalanguage The Extralinguistic vs Metalinguistic fields Utterance vs Sentence The Theory of Contrastivity Linear Order and Systemic Order (system of phases) The Role of the speaker in his utterance

Genesis and Development of

Metaoperational Grammar

FIRST STAGE: The discovery of the Scope of ING

in BE+ING utterances

The SCOPE OF –ING is the WHOLE verbal group not

on the verb ALONE - “invisible parenthesising”

Ex. 1. I leave tomorrow

2. I am leaving Tomorrow

Representation: I leave tomorrow

I am (leaving tomorrow)

FIRST STAGE: The discovery of the

Scope of ING in BE+ING utterances

The status of “TOMORROW” is not the same in utterance (1) as in utterance (2)

TOMORROW in (1) belongs to AN OPEN PARADIGM. One could have said tonight or Monday

In (2) TOMORROW is blocked, [CLOSED PARADIGM]. The scope of –ING is the complex verb LEAVE TOMORROW and not the verb alone.



As Henri ADAMCZEWSKI the Founding Father of Metaoperational Grammar claimed that:

“This simple analysis puts an end to three centuries of ‘progressive form’”

Consequences of that discovery:

a. The BE+ING utterance is made up of a BINARY

RELATION = [I] R [LEAVE

TOMORROW]

The operator BE links two members of the underlying predicative relation and allows us to date that relation:



I was leaving tomorrow but now I won’t

Is perfectly grammatical whereas

* I left tomorrow

Is ungrammatical

b. The ORIENTATION of the utterance is not

the same. In (2) the target of the –ING

predicate is the grammatical subject “I”



I am leaving tomorrow

This orientation produces the meaning of that utterance which is clearly a way of apologizing

Utterance (1) is oriented to the right, that is to say on the date which is a result of the paradigmatic choice.

I leave tomorrow


Scope of ING in BE+ING utterancesOther examples:

3. Mary resembles her mother

4. Mary is resembling her mother more and more

In (3) “Mother” belongs to an open paradigm, there were other possible choices, for instance “father”.

In (4) –ING applies to the complex verb “resemble her mother”and it is this nominalized predicate (the resemblance to the mother) which is being qualified by “more and more”



more and more

[Mary]R [resemblehermother]

A. (Nurse to director): Mrs Smith says she has seen a ghost.

B. Oh, well, Mrs Smith is always seeing ghosts !

The “irritability” meaning proposed by traditional grammarians is due to this binary relation created by -ING and the scope of “always”.



OUTCOMES of the discovery

1. Meaning should be considered as the result of

linguistic operations

2. The linear chain is misleading

3. We should find a single value for grammatical operators

4. We should consider language as a consistent whole, a

coherent system

5. Producing meaning is a matter of building RELATIONS

Etc. A THEORY IS GENERATED with the following

basic tenets.

P1. Language is a System

Since Ferdinand de SAUSSURE, language is

defined as a system, a consistent whole,

that is a set of interrelated units.

Each unit holds its position by contrast

with the position of other units of the

system in such a way that no two units

are equal. Each unit has its own

distinctive value.(See picture)


This means that linguistically two words can have the same meaning but not the same value. As Zgusta puts it: “Every word has …something that is individual, that makes it different from other word” (1971:67)

Ex. Is “Perhaps” = “Maybe” ?

Is Shall = Will ?

P1. Language is a System Why would language use two units to play the same role ?

Example with the sound system of language:The sounds (/p/) and (/b/) have the same point of articulation. They are pronounced with the lips (labials), but they have two distinctive features:

(/p/) is -V (voiceless)(/b/) is +V (voiced)

From these distinctive features we create hundred and thousands of words pig/big, etc.


Importance of the concept of system: Language should be regarded as

COHERENTA Grammar theory should not leave room for

exceptions

See (Kpli) Yao Kouadio: A Grammatical Exception as a Construct, Cahiers ivoiriens de Recherche Linguistique (CIRL), N° 26, Oct. 1992, ILA.

P2. The Invariant value The Invariant Value vs Speech Effects Invariant

Is the core value, the kernel value of any linguistic unit. The value that remains constant at each contextual use of the unit. Some linguists calls it the “Intimate value”. That value of the unit is not in contrast with the contextual meanings, it rather allows these meanings.

P2. The Invariant value

Speech effectsThey are meanings derived from

the context of use of the unit.Ex. May is used to express the following:Permission: May I go out Sir ?Eventuality: It may rain tonightAbilityCapacityEtc.


This Invariant value allows the production of these

meanings (functions) according to the context.

Speech effects

Permission

Eventuality

Invariant value Capacity

Ability

The fact is other words (for ex “CAN”) produce the

same kind of meanings in the same contexts


Permission

Eventuality

Can Capacity

Ability

Etc.

Are MAY and CAN EQUAL ?

No. Language is a system, no two words are equal. Only the invariant value (their distinctive feature) helps make the difference.

When do we use May and When do we use Can ?

P3. The Concept of Relation

« La relation est au cœur de toute grammaire humaine »

Adamczewski Henri (1982) : Grammaire linguistique de l’anglais, Paris, A. Colin

F. de Saussure promoted a structuralist view of the concept « les mots acquièrent entre eux, en vertu de leur enchaînement, des rapports qui entraînent l’impossibilité de prononcer deux mots à la fois »


The word « RAPPORT » indicates a surface relationship between words

Ex. Peter +May + Come + tomorrowIl +se+peut + que + Pierre + Vienne

That linear perception conceals an internal functioning that has lead to the creation of that utterance

« May » is not related to « Peter » nor to « come tomorrow »


Why the verb « come » does not carry an « ’s » with the presence of may ?

What is the difference between:

1. Peter may come tomorrow

2. Peter comes tomorrow ?

In (1), the scope of may is on the RELATION between « Peter » and « come tomorrow »

May

Peter R Come tomorow


In (2) there is cohesion between « Peter » and « come ». The result of that compacity is the « ’s » attached to « come »

RELATION reflects a more dynamic view of the relationship between words in a sentence


For L. Tesnière a sentence like:

Alfred parle

There are three elements:

1. Alfred 2. Parle 3. The

Connexion between the two words


That is compared to the chemical formula:

NaCl Na + Cl = Salt

The [+] materializes the RELATION.


RELATION materializes a dynamic

linking operation. It is that operation

that generates meaning.

In the utterance that relation has

several names:

Predicative node, predicative

Relation, Predicative interface


And is represented:

S R P


A RELATION may be dominated by the speaker.

It is the case where the Speaker holds the relation to express his views or emotions or assert the validity of that relation.

Ex. Peter may come tomorrow

The speaker suspends the validity of the relation. He does not asserts it. Hence the following representation:


S

PS


S

S R P

P4. The Concept of Metalanguage

General Definition of Metalanguage

Technical Metalanguage

Conscious Metalanguage

Natural Metalanguage


General definitionA metalanguage is a language inside of the language that is used to describe, talk about the same language or another language. Generally, there are three kinds of metalanguages:technical metalanguage, conscious metalanguage or uncouscious or natural metalanguage.

P4. The Concept of Metalanguage Technical MetalanguageThat concept refers to the language used by the

specialist to analyze his data. For example when a grammarian says:

“eat” is an irregular verbThe description “is an irregular verb” is a

metalanguage and it is technical because of the use of “irregular verb”. When he says again:

“eat” est un verbe irregulierhe is using French as a metalanguage to talk about a

word of English.

P4. The Concept of Metalanguage Each field of knowledge has its own metalanguage.

Conscious MetalanguageWithin the 6 functions of language defined by Roman Jacobson is what is called the Metalinguistic Function. It is the conscious reflection of the speaker on the validity or the non validity of the code.

P4. The Concept of MetalanguageFor example when the speaker says:

Oh ! That’s not what I meant !

By « consistent » I mean « regular »

The sequence « that’s not what I meant » together with « I mean » are part of the conscious Metalanguage. The speaker is consciously describing his own words

Another example is the teacher making remarks on the way students use the language


Natural Metalanguage

Linguists assumed that inside any

language there are words whose

functions are to describe the

language. Speakers talk about their

own language UNCONSCIOUSLY.


For ex. John was probably hurtThrough this utterance, the speaker is not saying that

« John was hurt » nor that « John was not hurt ». He is making a comment on the connection, the relation between « John » and « hurt ». He suspends the validity of that relation

Similarly in: She has certainly missed the bus

The speaker is making a comment on « she » and « miss the bus ».

P4. The Concept of MetalanguageAll the words or grammatical entities that describe or

comment on the functioning of the language are part of natural metalanguage.

Some grammatical units are called METAOPERATORS because they describe the internal operation they materialize

Ex. The article and the noun: The Dog «The » indicates the status of « noun », it indicates that « dog » is already acquired or otherwise shared by parties to the conversation.

«The » is not a determiner, it is the use of the noun that determines the use of « the ». (see repr.)


As Robert Lafont puts it:

« Le système de la langue tout

entier se décharge de la

production du sens pour décrire

son propre fonctionnement »

Delmas Claude (1987) :

Structuration abstraite et chaîne linéaire en

anglais contemporain,Cedel, Paris

Kpli Y.K. Jean François (2002) :

The Metalinguistic Structuring of the

Paradigmatic Axis, In the Ivorian Journal

Of English Studies (RIVEA) N°3 PP 79 – 88

P5 - The Extralinguistic vs

Metalinguistic fields

In utterances some entities refer directly to the outside world, to events of the real world. These entities belongs to what is called the Extralinguistic field.

Other units of the utterance have the potential to refer, not to the external world, but to operations inside the language. They refer to the coding of the code. They belong to the Metalinguistic field.

Illustration:



A- ILLUSTRATION WITH THE NOMINAL SYSTEM:

NOUN and PRONOUN

Mc Guigan was born in the Republic of Ireland.

He took up boxing at the age of 12.

Mc Guigan refers to the physical person named as such.



It has a direct, tangible reference to the outside world.

He, on the contrary does not have that direct reference. It refers to the nominal form introduced before.

Pronouns do not replace nouns: ex.

When a lizard loses its tail it grows back



Other ex./ Some king of leaves wither and die in winter, they appear in early spring.

B- ILLUSTRATION WITH « DO »

« Do » is a hybrid unit. It has a referential value as well as a metalinguistic value. The referential content refers to the fact of doing something.ex. Alice would always do her homework late at night

« Do » refers to the act of working.



In the following example« Do » does not refer to the act of working but to the

internal linguistic operation.

A. Did you read my paper ?B. Of course I did.

In utterance A, « did » is used to build the question because it is the predicative node that is being questioned ?



In utterance B, « do » works like the

pronoun. It retakes the relation it

materializes

YOU - R - READ MY PAPER



C- ILLUSTRATION WITH the double polarity of adverbs

Adverbs can quantify the semic content of a verb, hence the reference to the extralinguistic world. But they can also refer to the act of producing meaning, namely to the predicative node to ensure its validity.

slowly, he ……………….

Ex. He walked slowly to the door

“Slowly” quantifies the content of “walk”. It refers to the way of walking



In the following utterance, the adverb has

a different scope.

He has visibly been drinking

The speaker asserts the validity of the

relation between

He – R - been drinking



Other ex: in French:

1. On s’est bien régalé l’autre soir

2. Vous êtes bien sur Radio CI, Il est

6h45, le Journal.

« Bien » in 1 refers to the act of « régalé ».

In 2 the speaker guaranties, confirms the

validity of the relation

P6. Utterance vs Sentence

The confusion between what grammarians call

« sentence » has compelled linguists to redefine this

concept. A clear distinction is now made between

Utterance and Sentence.

A « sentence » (Phrase)

is an abstract entity, a theoretical object built to

represent linguistic data. It comprises one or several

propositions, a subject, a verb and an object (SVO)


An « utterance » (énoncé)

Is a sequence actually produced, a particular occurrence of linguistic entities, a natural token.

Ex. Out !

Cannot be a sentence but an utterance

Implication of the distinction: Making analysis using utterances allows to take into account all linguistic productions and therefore to avoid the trap of exceptions


An Utterance is necessarily based on the Meaning Production Context. A sequence like:

A dog is in the garden

Is a grammatically well-formed sentence but cannot be an Utterance because there is no context for producing such sequence. The same is true with the French sequence:

Un chien est dans le jardin


To be an Utterance we need an operator that will indicate à connection to the production context like “there” or “il y a”.

There is a dog in the garden

Il y a un chien dans le jardin

P7. The theory of Contrastivity

We cannot describe the functioning of a language by limiting

ourselves to that language alone. As Adamczewski puts it:

« Toute langue pose la question de l’autre langue »

Languages shed light on one another, that is, one can present an

operation in a more explicit way (see the position of articles

in African languages) and allow the linguist to capture the

internal operation.

Ex. John did open the gate

Jean a effectivement ouvert le portail

P7. The theory of Contrastivity« Did » has become « effectivement », which

shows that the operation materialized by « do » is that of confirming the validity of the predicative interface.

It also shows that “do” is not an emphatic word as tradition said. The emphasis is a suprasegmentaloperation that goes on « do », the predicative node.

John - did - open the gate.

P7. The theory of Contrastivity

Outcome of the contrastivitytheory:

Metaoperational grammar is the study of the functioning of all languages

P8. Linear Order and Systemic Order

(system of phases)

The linear order is the order of appearance of units on the linear chain. It is the linear successivity of units inside an utterance.

The issue at stake is that although they may appear on the same chain, units do not have the same status: Some refer to sequences mentioned before,

which shows that there is no single orientation of the sequencing process

Ex. I forbid you to say it ! It is infamous ! You’re insulting the Queen


(system of phases)

The First it (“to say it”) refers to a previous

sequence pronounced before. The

orientation of the successivity is therefore

reversed

I forbid you to say it


(system of phases)

Some units are the result of a

paradigmatic choice made by the

speaker

a

the


(system of phases)

Ex. Victoria had decided to leave

Bowater and she had accepted a

job in the Burwale Hotel. She

called the manager and said she

did not want the Job.


(system of phases)

The noun job in [a job] does not have

the same status as in [the job].

Indeed in [a job], job is introduced for

the first time. In [the job], job is

recalled.

It would be strange to introduce that

utterance with [the job]


(system of phases)

[a] indicates a first stage in the structuring process. It presents, introduces a noun in the linear chain

[the] recalls the presence of the noun


(system of phases)

If we have to rank these two units, [a] will be first because it indicates the first introduction of a sequence in the chain, and [the] will be second as it refers to a sequence previously mentioned. Hence, the systemic order:

[a] PHASE 1

[the] PHASE 2


(system of phases)

Other examples of the systemic

order

THIS/THAT

The issue of proximity is a

semantic interpretation.

__Is there life on other planets ?

__ On those nearest to us, probably not


(system of phases)

If This indicates proximity, in this utterance

it should have been used, but it is

that/those instead that has been used

This indicates the origin, points to something

specific in real life, it announces what

follows: ex This card is valid only when

used by the person named


(system of phases)

That retakes a sequence mentioned before or otherwise indicated in the context.

1.(Someone knocks at the door)

__That will be the postman

2.__That cake really was good


(system of phases)

In both cases this would have been

inappropriate:

This will be the postman*

This cake really was good*This PHASE 1

That PHASE 2


(system of phases)

Sometimes the linear order may be iconic to the

systemic order. That is, it may represent faithfully

the systemic order as in:

You don’t like this Phase 1

You don’t like that Phase 2

What on earth do you like ?

------ this ----- that---

P9. The Role of the speaker in his

utterance

The SPEAKER is the producer of the utterance. He is responsible of the choices he makes of units in the utterance. His choice is based on mainly two basic criteria related to the status of the context/situation. He may find the context/situation explicit or not


utterance

When the context/situation

is EXPLICIT

EXPLICIT = OBVIOUS,

ALREADY GIVEN/KNOWN

/SHARED by members of

the conversation


utterance

The SPEAKER will choose an

operator that indicates that

the RELATION is EXPLICIT,

OBVIOUS, ALREADY

GIVEN/SHARED


utteranceExample:

Look ! Philip is leaving the house

The word Look indicates that the Speaker has ALREADY identified in the context the relation [Philip – leave the house]. This gives him a legitimate ground for choosing ING instead of the present simple:

Look ! Philip leaves the house* is not an acceptable English utterance


utterance

When the context/situation is NOT EXPLICIT

NOT EXPLICIT = NOT OBVIOUS, NOT GIVEN/KNOWN /SHARED by members of the conversation. When the SPEAKER feels he needs to provide some information for the first time


utterance

The SPEAKER will choose an

operator that indicates that the

RELATION is NOT EXPLICIT,

OBVIOUS, ALREADY GIVEN

/SHARED


utterance

Example:

1. He stopped to smoke

2. He stopped smoking

In [1] smoke is introduced for the first time. In [2] the relation is presupposed.

Exercises: Answer the following

questions:

1. What is the relationship between the concept of RELATION and the concept of INVARIANT ?

2. What is the metalinguistic value of the operator THE in English grammar ?

3. Determine the semantic difference between the following utterances

a. He has not spoken for 20 mnb. He has not been speaking for 20 mn.

Thank you

Documents

Basic Tenets of Metaoperational Grammar Theory General ... · Genesis and Development of Metaoperational Grammar FIRST STAGE: The discovery of the Scope of ING in BE+ING utterances