123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627-

Speech Acts
Language Change
Functionalism
Pragmatics
Performatives
Linguistic Stylistics
Rhetoric
Transactional Conversation
Interactional Conversation
Conversational Structure + Conversational Analysis
Interruptions Vs Overlap
Language Variation
Tag Questions
Register
Langue & Parole
Polyglot
Cognates
Symbols

Levels of Linguistic Analysis

Stylistic Analysis + Merits and Demerits + Approaches
Stylistics + Aims of Stylistic Analysis
Turn Taking + components of turn taking
Discourse + Discourse Analysis + various approaches
Speech Acts
Aphasia
Pragmatics + its important
Explain in detail the different distinctions between spoken and written discourse.
Support your answer with sufficient examples.
28- Give an account of Chomskys idea of Generativism and Transformational
Generative Grammar (TGG).

29- Ferdinand de Saussure (Structuralism)

Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss linguist who laid the foundation on the
ideas of structure in the study of language. His Book
Course in General Linguistics
that was published in 1916 has detailed all that he claimed to be his views.
In his book Saussure shows us a clear reaction against many of the ideas
raised and he emphasizes the importance of seeing language as a living
phenomenon as against thehistorical view, of studying speech, of analysing
the underlying system of a language in order to demonstrate an integral
structure, and of placing language firmly in the social
milieu. Saussures theoretical ideas are a must read and his
influence has been unparalleled in European Linguistics since and, it had a
major formative role to play in the shaping of

linguistic thoughts in Europe. Saussures

Object of Study
theorised his structuralist view of language and shows how his essay forms
the basis of structuralist theory. Saussure equipped his essay with a theory
and a method of linguistic analysis from the structuralist point of view.
Saussure in his essay discusses the linguistic structures as only to be a part
of language even though it is an integral part of it. The structure of a
language is both the social product and the body of necessary conventions
adopted by society to enable members of society to use their language
faculty. It comprises in various domains and it is purely physical,
psychological and physiological. It is for the individual and for the society.
The language faculty of the both rest upon the structure of the language and
there cannot be a proper classification for that as such language has no
proper distinctions. The linguistic structures are that faculty in the study of
language by which the articulating words,natural or not, are put in use only
by means of linguistic instruments that are created and provided by society.
The language itself is a structured system and a self contained whole and
principle of classification.
Structuralism and Saussure
1. Structuralism and Saussure
2. Structuralism as a philosophical stance Structuralists are interested in the
interrelationship between UNITS ( also called "surface phenomena," ) and
RULES (the ways that units can be put together. ) In language: units are words and the
rules which are the forms of grammar which order words. In different languages, the
grammar rules are different, as are the words, but the structure is still the same in all
languages: words are put together within a grammatical system to make meaning.
3. an example of this using literature Three characters: princess, stepmother, and prince a
princess is persecuted by a stepmother and rescued (and married) by a prince Cinderella
units are:princess, stepmother, and prince "rules" are: stepmothers are evil,
princesses are victims, and princes and princesses have to marry. that's exactly what
structuralist analyses of literature are analyzing.
4. Structuralist notions on units and rules Structuralists believe that the underlying
structures which organize units and rules into meaningful systems are generated by the
human mind itself, and not by sense perception. As such, the mind is itself a structuring
mechanism which looks through units and files them according to rules. So structuralism
sees itself as a science of humankind, and works to uncover all the structures that underlie
all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel
5. Structuralist analysis posits these systems as universal Every human mind in every
culture at every point in history has used some sort of structuring principle to organize
and understand cultural phenomena. Every human culture has some sort of language,
which has the basic structure of all language: words/phonemes are combined according to
a grammar of rules to produce meaning. Every human culture similarly has some sort of
social organization All of these organizations are governed, according to structuralist
analyses, by structures which are universal.
6. A more formal definition : a structure is any conceptual system that has the following
three properties: Wholeness . This means that the system functions as a whole, not just as
a collection of independent parts. Transformation . This means that the system is not
static, but capable of change. New units can enter the system, but when they do they're

governed by the rules of the system. Self-Regulation . This is related to the idea of
transformation. You can add elements to the system, but you can't change the basic
structure of the system no matter what you add to it. The transformations of a system
never lead to anything outside the system.
7. Saussureideas on linguistics I: THE NATURE OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN
Language is based on a NAMING process, by which things get associated with a word or
name. The linguistic SIGN (a key word) is made of the union of a concept and a sound
image. A more common way to define a linguistic SIGN is that a SIGN is the
combination of a SIGNIFIER and a SIGNIFIED. Saussure says the sound image is the
SIGNIFIER and the concept the SIGNIFIED.
8. The SIGN , as union of a SIGNIFIER and a SIGNIFIED, has two main characteristics.
The SIGN, as union of a SIGNIFIER and a SIGNIFIED, has two main characteristics.
This principle dominates all ideas about the STRUCTURE of language. It makes it
possible to separate the signifier and signified, or to change the relation between them.
The second characteristic of the SIGN is that the signifier exists in TIME, and that time
can be measured as LINEAR.
9. II: LINGUISTIC VALUE Thought is a shapeless mass, which is only ordered by
language. One of the questions philosophers have puzzled over for centuries is whether
ideas can exist at all without language. No ideas preexist language; language itself gives
shape to ideas and makes them expressible. The VALUE of a sign is determined,
however, not by what signifiers get linked to what particular signifieds, but rather by the
whole system of signs used within a community. VALUE is the product of a system or
structure (LANGUE), not the result of individual relations (PAROLE).
10. III.SYNTAGMATIC AND ASSOCIATIVE RELATIONS The most important kind of
relation between units in a signifying system, is a SYNTAGMATIC relation. This means,
basically, a LINEAR relation. In spoken or written language, words come out one by
one .Because language is linear, it forms a chain, by which one unit is linked to the next.
An example The cat sat on the mat The mat sat on the cat English word
order :SVO Japanese word order:SOV etc.
11. SYNTAGMS Combinations or relations formed by position within a chain are called
SYNTAGMS. The terms within a syntagm acquire VALUE only because they stand in
opposition to everything before or after them. Each term IS something because it is NOT
something else in the sequence. SYNTAGMATIC relations are most crucial in written
and spoken language, in DISCOURSE, where the ideas of time, linearity, and syntactical
meaning are important.
12. ASSOCIATIVE Signs are stored in your memory, for example, not in syntagmatic
links or sentences, but in ASSOCIATIVE groups. quot;Education" "tion":education, relation, association Similar associations: education, teacher,
textbook, college, expensive. Random set of linkages: education, baseball, computer
games, psychoanalysis ASSOCIATIVE relations are only in your head, not in the
structure of language itself, whereas SYNTAGMATIC relations are a product of
linguistic structure.
13. Conclusion: Saussure's structuralism is based upon three assumptions the systematic
nature of language, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts the relational
conception of the elements of language, where linguistic "entities" are
defined in relationships of combination and contrast to one another the arbitrary nature of
linguistic elements, where they are defined in terms of the function and purpose they
serve rather than in terms of their inherent qualities.

Generativism
1. To whom this term GENERATIVISM refer Avram Noam Chomsky Dec 7 1950s
American Linguist, Philosopher, Cognitive Scientist, Logician, Activist Highly credited
for the development of Generativism Has a significant impact on the intellectual
community since the mid 20th Century Development of the Theories of generative
grammar Classification of formal language properties in the Chomsky Hierarchy
Critiques of the school of Behaviorism History What Contributions
3. BACKGROUND & DEVELOPMENT Generativism is rejection of B.F.Skinners
Behaviourism and usually presented as having developed out of and in reaction to the
previously dominant school of post-Bloomfieldian American descriptivism: a particular
version of structuralism. Up to a point, it is historically justifiable to see the origin of
generativism within linguistics in this light. But, as Chomsky himslef came to realize
later, there are many respects in which generativism constitutes a return to older and more
traditional views about language.
4. GENERATIVISM n The term Generativism is being used here to refer to the theory
of language that has been developed, over the years or so, by Avram Noam Chomsky and
his followers. n Indeed, relatively few of the linguists, who were impressed by the
technical advantages and heuristic value of Chmskys system of transformationalgenerative grammar when he first put this forward in the late 1950s, have ever explicitly
associated themselves with the body of assumptions and doctrines that is now identifiable
as Generativism. 7/20/2014 4
5. GENERATIVISM n Chomsky pointed out poverty of stimulus for the acquisition of
language. He was against stimulus play vital role in language learning. n He held
hypothesis that language is free from stimulus control. n He opines that human language
is innate and pre-wired in human brain. n A child acquires language in three years. n
Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is the prime source of learning language. n The
innate body of linguistic knowledge is termed as Universal Grammar (UG). n
Strongest evidence for the existence of UG is simply the fact that children successfully
acquire their native language in a short time. 7/20/2014 5
6. GENERATIVISM 7/20/2014 6 Competence Performance
7. GENERATIVISM n The competence-performance distinction is at the heart of
generativism. n Distinction between competence & performance similar to Saussures
distinction between langue and parole n Chomskyan generativism closer to Saussurean
and Post- Saussurean structuralim 7/20/2014 7 Competence & Performance
8. GENERATIVISM n Creativity, in Chomskys view, is a peculiarly human attribute,
which distinguishes men from machine and as far as we know from animals. n It is rule
governed creativity and this is where generative grammar comes into own. n The
utterances that we produce have a certain grammatical structure: they conform to
identifiable rules of well-formedness. 7/20/2014 8 Creativity & Productiviy
9. GENERATIVISM n Productivitymakes possible exercise of creativity. n Productivity
is not to be identified with creativity but there is an intrinsic connection between them.
7/20/2014 9 Creatiivity & Productiviy
10. GENERATIVISM "Generativism can designate an approach for relating language to
the intuitive knowledge of speakers and to the mental capacities of humans at large.
(Robert de Beaugrande) Mid - Late 20th Century (1960s) 7/20/2014 10
11. GENERATIVE GRAMMAR This term was used in 1950s by Chomsky. n
Generative Grammar is a grammar in which a set of formal rules are used to generate or
define the membership of an infinite set of grammatical sentences in a language. Instead
of analyzing a single sentence, this grammar devises a set of rules of construction that
may help in generating sentences or structures in an infinitely large number. This
grammar attempts to produce all and only grammatical sentences of language. (all and
only means that our analysis must account for all the grammatical correct phrases and
sentences and only those grammatical correct phrases and sentences in whatever

language we are analyzing.) 7/20/2014 11

12. GENERATIVE GRAMMAR n We have a rule such as a prepositional phrase in
English consists of a preposition followed by a noun phrase. We can produce a large
number of (infinite) phrase using this rule. e.g. in the zoo, on the table, near the window
7/20/2014 12 EXAMPLE:
13. BEHAVIOURISM n Behavioural theory remained dominant in the first half of 20th
century. It is an approach to psychology and learning. It stresses on observable and
measureable behaviours. In behaviourism, the learners are viewed as passively adopting
to their environment. n According to the belief of the theory, free will is an illusion. In
other words, human beings are shaped entirely by their external environment. n The
behaviourists, tried to explain learning without refering to mental process. This theory
sees the language learner as Tabula Rasa (blank slate). 7/20/2014 13
14. GENERATIVISM OBJECTS BEHAVIOURISM n Chomsky has done more than
anyone else to demonstrate the sterility of the behaviourists theory of language. n He has
pointed out that much of the technical vocabulary of behaviourism (stimulus,
response, conditioning, reinforcement etc.), if taken seriously, cannot be shown to
have any relevance to the acquisition and the use of language. 7/20/2014 14
15. INFLUENCE OF GENERATIVISM ON LINGUISTICS AND OTHER
DISCIPLINES n Generativism has been enormously influential, not only in linguistics,
but also in philosophy, psychology and other disciplines concerned with language. n
Influence of Chomskyan generativism upon all modern linguistics theory has been so
deep and so pervasive that even those who reject this or that aspects of it tend to do so in
terms that Chomsky has made available to them.
Beginning in the 1950s, Noam Chomsky and his followers challenged previous
assumptions about language structure and language learning, taking the position that
language is creative (not memorized), and rule governed (not based on habit), and that
universal phenomena of the human mind underlie all language. This "Chomskian
revolution" initially gave rise to eclecticism in teaching, but it has more recently led to
two main branches of teaching approaches: the humanistic approaches based on the
charismatic teaching of one person, and content-based communicative approaches, which
try to incorporate what has been learned in recent years about the need for active learner
participation, about appropriate language input, and about communication as a human
activity. Most recently, there has been also a significant shift toward greater attention to
reading and writing as a complement of listening and speaking, based on a new
awareness of significant differences between spoken and written languages, and on the
notion that dealing with language involves an interaction between the text on the one
hand, and the culturally-based world knowledge and experientially-based learning of the
receiver on the other.
There have been developments such as a great emphasis on individualized instruction,
more humanistic approaches to language learning, a greater focus on the learner, and
greater emphasis on development of communicative, as opposed to merely linguistic,
competence.
Opposed to Structuralism we have Generativism with its founder Noam Chomsky who
tackles the study of language from a formal perspective contrasting any other linguistic
trend that priveleges empirical data inductively. He is inspired by models which are, on
the one hand, mathematical and, on the other psychological, considering language as a
chiefly innate faculty with its autonomous organisations which must be studied according
to strictly deductive methods. The generative theory has, however, in almost 40 years,
undergone to continuous change of results and a significative re-orientation which have
slowly changed its order and main categories: from the "standard theory at the end of
the years 60 70 to the so-called theory of Principles and Parameters .

Chomskys antipathy to rhetoric, exemplified by his statement that the best rhetoric is
the least rhetoric, as symptomatic of a wider condition in linguistics, namely a
reluctance to consider linguistic discourse as an object of self-reflexive scrutiny.
Chomskys work is shaped by a continual flight from rhetoric and reflexivity, by the
desire to arrive at a language-independent explanation of language. This denial of rhetoric
proceeds in large part through adoption of a distinctively ocularcentric rhetoric that
privileges transparency and immediacy, and effaces the linguistic and rhetorical
dimensions of knowledge production. He considers what a more reflexive, rhetorically
self-conscious linguistics might look like. He provides three examples of emerging
research in linguistics that are rhetorically self-conscious and attend to the figurative,
suasive and formative aspects of disciplinary discourse. His theory considers strong
and light forms of rhetorical self-consciousness, and describes the possible
implications.

transformational-generative grammar
transformational-generative grammar, linguistic theory associated with Noam Chomsky,
particularly with his Syntactic Structures (1957), and with Chomsky's teacher Zellig
Harris. Generative grammar attempts to define rules that can generate the infinite number
of grammatical (well-formed) sentences possible in a language. It starts not from a
behaviorist analysis of minimal sounds but from a rationalist assumption that a deep
structure underlies a language, and that a similar deep structure underlies all languages.
Transformational grammar seeks to identify rules (transformations) that govern relations
between parts of a sentence, on the assumption that beneath such aspects as word order a
fundamental structure exists. Transformational and generative grammar together were the
starting point for the tremendous growth in linguistics studies since the 1950s.
In the 1950s the school of linguistic thought known as transformational-generative
grammar received wide acclaim through the works of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky
postulated a syntactic base of language (called deep structure), which consists of a series
of phrase-structure rewrite rules, i.e., a series of (possibly universal) rules that generates
the underlying phrase-structure of a sentence, and a series of rules (called
transformations) that act upon the phrase-structure to form more complex sentences. The
end result of a transformational-generative grammar is a surface structure that, after the
addition of words and pronunciations, is identical to an actual sentence of a language. All
languages have the same deep structure, but they differ from each other in surface
structure because of the application of different rules for transformations, pronunciation,
and word insertion. Another important distinction made in transformational-generative
grammar is the difference between language competence (the subconscious control of a
linguistic system) and language performance (the speaker's actual use of language).
Although the first work done in transformational-generative grammar was syntactic, later
studies have applied the theory to the phonological and semantic components of
language.
Transformational grammar, also called Transformational-generative Grammar, a system
of language analysis that recognizes the relationship among the various elements of a
sentence and among the possible sentences of a language and uses processes or rules
(some of which are called transformations) to express these relationships. For example,
transformational grammar relates the active sentence John read the book with its
corresponding passive, The book was read by John. The statement George saw Mary
is related to the corresponding questions, Whom [or who] did George see? and Who
saw Mary? Although sets such as these active and passive sentences appear to be very

different on the surface (i.e., in such things as word order), a transformational grammar
tries to show that in the underlying structure (i.e., in their deeper relations to one
another), the sentences are very similar. Transformational grammar assigns a deep
structure and a surface structure to show the relationship of such sentences. Thus, I
know a man who flies planes can be considered the surface form of a deep structure
approximately like I know a man. The man flies airplanes. The notion of deep structure
can be especially helpful in explaining ambiguous utterances; e.g., Flying airplanes can
be dangerous may have a deep structure, or meaning, like Airplanes can be dangerous
when they fly or To fly airplanes can be dangerous.
The most widely discussed theory of transformational grammar was proposed by U.S.
linguist Noam Chomsky in 1957. His work contradicted earlier tenets of structuralism by
rejecting the notion that every language is unique. The use of transformational grammar
in language analysis assumes a certain number of formal and substantive universals.
TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE GRAMMAR, short form TG. In theoretical
LINGUISTICS, a type of generative grammar first advocated by Noam CHOMSKY in
Syntactic Structures (1957). Since then, there have been many changes in the descriptive
apparatus of TG. Common to all versions is the view that some rules are
transformational: that is, they change one structure into another according to such
prescribed conventions as moving, inserting, deleting, and replacing items. From an early
stage of its history, TG has stipulated two levels of syntactic structure: deep structure (an
abstract underlying structure that incorporates all the syntactic information required for
the interpretation of a given sentence) and surface structure (a structure that incorporates
all the syntactic features of a sentence required to convert the sentence into a spoken or
written version). Transformations link deep with surface structure. A typical
transformation is the rule for forming questions, which requires that the normal subject
verb order is inverted so that the surface structure of Can I see you later? differs in order
of elements from that of I can see you later. The theory postulates that the two sentences
have the same order in deep structure, but the question transformation changes the order
to that in surface structure. Sentences that are syntactically ambiguous have the same
surface structures but different deep structures: for example, the sentence Visiting
relatives can be a nuisance is ambiguous in that the subject Visiting relatives may
correspond to To visit relatives or to Relatives that visit. The ambiguity is dissolved if the
modal verb can is omitted, since the clausal subject requires a singular verb (Visiting
relatives is a nuisance), whereas the phrasal subject requires the plural (Visiting relatives
are a nuisance).

Writing is more explicit than speech. But this is not absolute. Explicitness inwring is
relative. A writer can state something explicitly or infer it dependingon many variables.
Contextualization
It refers to the extent knowledge of context is needed to interpret a text.

View:Writing is more de-contextualized than speech: Speech is more attached tocontext

than writing because speech depends on a shared situation and background for
interpretation.
Spontaneity

View:

a.
Spoken discourse lacks organization and it is spontaneous, whereaswritten discourse is
organized and less spontaneous.
b.
Spoken discourse contains more uncompleted and reformulatedsentences.
c.
Topics can be changed.
d.
Speakers may interrupt and overlap
e.
Spoken discourse is faster.
f.
Spoken discourse is less planned.
Repetition, Hesitation, and Redundancy

View:
a.
Spoken discourse contains more repetition, hesitations, andredundancy because it is
produced in
real time
(i.e. on thespot).
b.
Spoken discourse has many pauses and fillers, such as hhh,er hmmm and you
know.
The following list of dissimilarities between written and spokendiscourse applies
primarily to English
SPOKEN DISCOURSEWRITTEN DISCOURSE1. relatively limitedvocabulary1.
vocabulary maximally varied2. innovative use of words --new words and new senses of
old words (especially slang)2. use of older words -- occasionally, wordsno longer used in
spoken language3. much hedging (speaking ingeneral terms)3. avoidance of hedging
(writing isdefinitive)4. abundance of referentialinexplicitness (using "that" or "those"
rather than morespecifically identifying things)4. no inexplicit references
(specificreferences to things)5. wide use of colloquialisms5. little, if any, use of
colloquialisms6. abundance of contractions6. no contractions, except in
quotedconversation (NB: I disagree with this;authors often use contractions nowadays in
both fiction and nonfiction. ~ Tonya)
7. sequences of coordinatedclauses7. use of interclausal relations and devicesmeant to
expand intonation units (in writtendiscourse, this refers to sentences) -- e.g.,
*nominalizations (noun phrases) prepositional phrasesattributive adjectives participles8.
short intonation units(typically, not longer than 8syllables); no utterance preplanning8.
longer intonation units (mean length = 24words); planned sentences9. much ego
involvement9. little ego involvement10. little coherence (speakersoften go off-topic in
mid-conversation)10. maximal coherence(sentences/paragraphs must logically relateto
each other)
Conclusion
In discourse analysis a distinction is often made between spoken and writtendiscourse.
Although there are typical differences between the two, there isalso a considerable
overlap and a frequent mixture, which has beenaccelerated by new technology. Analysis
of both modes encounters the problem of representing relevant context, but this problem
is especially acutein the analysis and transcription of spoken discourse. At present,
opinion onthe differences between written and spoken discourse is often speculative.