Jim Miller - An Introduction to English Syntax

Title:
An Introduction to English Syntax
Author:
Jim Miller
Publisher:
Edinburgh University Press
Page:
206
Format:
PDF
Size:
770KB

We study syntax because it enables human beings to compose complex messages. Suppose a disgruntled worker utters the single word idiot! He or she might have muttered stupid, unfeeling, ignorant idiot, with four words combined into a phrase. The speaker might even have said That stupid, unfeeling, ignorant idiot is the new manager!, in which the phrase the new manager and the phrase that stupid, unfeeling, ignorant idiot are combined into a clause by means of is. (For a discussion of phrases and clauses, see Chapters 1, 2, 6 and 7.)

Syntax has to do with how words are put together to build phrases, with how phrases are put together to build clauses or bigger phrases, and with how clauses are put together to build sentences. In small and familiar situations, humans could communicate using single words and many gestures, particularly when dealing with other members of the same social grouping (nuclear family, extended family, clan and so on). But complex messages for complex situations or complex ideas require more than just single words; every human language has devices with which its speakers can construct phrases and clauses. We habitually talk of human languages and their speakers; we ask questions such as ‘How many speakers are there of Chinese/Arabic/ Spanish?’ Nobody ever asks how many writers such-and-such a language has, but the distinction between speaking and writing is crucial and affects the study of syntax. It is therefore surprising that we cannot draw a major distinction between spoken and written language. Instead, the major distinction is between language for which very little planning time is available and language for which much more planning time is available.

Much spoken language is indeed produced with little planning time, but some kinds are planned or semi-planned. A current-affairs report on radio is written but spoken aloud, while lectures in universities have at least an outline script in the form of ‘headlines’ projected onto a screen but require some improvisation. Many types of writing involve planning, such as essays, research papers and books, but other types of written text are typically produced quickly, such as personal letters and e-mail messages to friends or close colleagues.

Many kinds of spoken language, not just the spontaneous speech of domestic conversation or discussions in pubs, have a syntax that is very different from the syntax of formal writing. It is essential to understand that the differences exist not because spoken language is a degradation of written language but because any written language, whether English or Chinese, results from centuries of development and elaboration by a small number of users – clerics, administrators, lawyers and literary people. The process involves the development of complex syntactic constructions and complex vocabulary. In spite of the huge prestige enjoyed by written language in any literate society, spoken language is primary in several major respects. There are, or were until recently, societies with a spoken language but no written language, but no societies with only a written language; children usually learn to speak long before they learn to read and write; and the vast majority of human beings use speech far more often than writing.

The syntax of spontaneous spoken language has been ‘designed’ or ‘developed’ to suit the conditions of speech – little planning time, the possibility of transmitting information by loudness, pitch and general voice quality, and support from hand gestures, facial expressions and so on (what is known as ‘non-verbal communication’). For a particular language, the syntax of spontaneous speech overlaps with the syntax of formal writing; there is a common core of constructions. For instance, The instructions are useless could be spoken or written. However, many constructions occur in speech but not in writing, and vice versa. She doesn’t say much – knows a lot though is typical of speech, but typical of writing is Although she does not say much, she knows a lot.

The special syntax of spontaneous spoken language is not produced just by speakers with the minimum of formal education. One of the most detailed investigations of spoken syntax was carried out in Russia in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The speakers recorded on tape in all sorts of informal situations were doctors, lawyers and academics, but their speech turned out to be very different in syntax from written Russian. Moreover, their syntax had general properties which have turned up in bodies of spontaneous spoken English, French and German.

This book deals with concepts suitable for the analysis of all types of language, from spontaneous unplanned conversation to planned and edited formal writing. The one exception is the unit that we call ‘sentence’. Attempts to apply this unit to spontaneous speech have not been successful; speakers disagree, sometimes spectacularly, on where sentences begin and end in recordings of spontaneous speech in their native language. The sentence appears to be a unit developed for formal writing. It is also appropriate for the analysis of planned speech where the syntax is that of writing.

People learn the syntax and vocabulary of formal writing from books and in school in a process that lasts into the early twenties for university graduates and can continue much longer. In general, the more exposure speakers have to formal schooling, the more easily and frequently they use in speech the syntax and vocabulary that are typical of formal writing. Individuals have choices, however; a highly educated individual may choose to keep to simple language in speech and writing, and individuals with a minimum of formal education but a large exposure to books may use very complex language in all situations.

The concept of a language is not straightforward. People think of themselves as, say, speakers of French or speakers of English, but they can be thought of as possessing a core of grammar and vocabulary and a greater or lesser number of other genres, possibly with special syntactic constructions but certainly with special vocabulary and fixed combinations of words; the language of literary criticism is different from the language of football reports. The syntactic concepts presented in this book apply to all types of English (or French or Chinese), and many of them apply to all languages.

Many differences among speakers come from the distinction between a standard variety and non-standard varieties. The standard variety of a given language is typically the one spoken by the group of people who possess military, political and economic power. In France, this was the group inhabiting the Île de France with Paris at its centre. In England (and later in Great Britain and the United Kingdom), it was the group inhabiting London and the surrounding area. (That last sentence simplifies a very complex historical process.)

Non-standard varieties tend to be spoken only, while standard varieties are spoken and written. Only standard varieties are used in education, in broadcasting, in government documents and in spoken communications from government; non-standard varieties are used at home, in many shops, among certain groups of workers and so on. There never has been a clear dividing line with all activities on one side of the line conducted in a standard variety and all activities on the other side being conducted in non-standard varieties. Many accounts of standard language convey a black-and-white picture, but it is false for spoken language; there are many shades of linguistic grey. Two important points have to be made with respect to standard and non-standard varieties (of English, say). Non-standard varieties have their own regular syntactic patterns, different in many respects from the patterns of the standard variety but nonetheless regular. The syntactic concepts introduced in the rest of this book are just as applicable to non-standard varieties as to the standard.

Syntax is neutral with respect to ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ English, French and so on. Analysts of English aim to cover as much data as possible. They collect samples of current speech and writing and note that examples such as (1) are typical of speech but also occur in writing while examples such as (2) occur mainly in formal writing. That is, they analyse and describe all the data they come across.
(1) Which club did you hit the winning putt with?
(2) With which club did you hit the winning putt?

Other observers of English assume it is their duty to recommend that only (2) be used in writing and preferably also in speaking. They do not just describe; they prescribe certain constructions and they proscribe others. They are likely to disparage (1) as ‘sloppy’ if not downright ‘incorrect’. Careful analysts observe that these judges of usage are like the courtiers advising King Canute to stop the flow of the tide by issuing a command. Like the ebb and flow of the tide, usages of language and changes of usage cannot be controlled by the commands of writer or teacher, and objective analysts must include all the constructions of a given language.

The preceding comments are quite compatible with the view that speakers and writers can produce syntax that is confusing and even wrong. Sentences may be too long or organised with complex phrases right at the beginning, which makes them difficult to interpret. A writer, say someone learning English as a second language, who produces I hope being admitted to Edinburgh University has either not completed the sentence or has used an incorrect construction, that is, one that is unacceptable to many or even most normal adult speakers and writers of standard English. I hope to be admitted … is what he or she should have used.

We said earlier in this introduction that humans need syntax in order to compose complex messages. Messages convey meaning, but elementary syntax books typically begin by stating forcibly one central important point: you cannot analyse syntax coherently and consistently by appealing in the first place to the meaning of words, phrases, clauses and sentences. Here, too, we waste no time but in Chapters 1–3 plunge into a discussion of the concepts required for an analysis of syntax that is not based on meaning.

That said, it would be wrong to deny all parallels between syntax and meaning. For example, the organisation of syntax is not entirely arbitrary. We will see in Chapter 2 that phrases consist of a central word called a head and other words which are said to modify the head. Heads and modifiers occur in regular patterns. In neutral clauses of English (see Chapter 3 on constructions), adjectives precede their head noun – scary ideas – and relative clauses follow their head noun – the letter that she wrote. Some languages, such as Turkish, are more regular than English, and both adjectives and relative clauses precede their head noun. Objects of different kinds (direct, indirect – see Chapter 10 on grammatical functions) follow the verb in neutral clauses.

There are regular patterns of syntax for making statements, asking different types of question and giving commands (see Chapter 3 on constructions). Words in English fall into a number of word classes – nouns, verbs, adjectives and so on. Over the past forty years, textbooks have regularly expressed doubt about the different word classes being connected with differences in meaning. While there is not a perfect match, the system of word classes is now seen to rest on a solid core of differences in meaning; these have to do with the kinds of things denoted by nouns, verbs and so on, and also with what speakers do with them. (See the discussion in Chapter 4 on word classes.)

Finally, there are strong correlations between differences in syntax and differences in meaning in one central area of English (and other languages) – the distinctions between past and present tense, between progressive and simple verbs (was writing vs wrote) and between singular and plural in nouns, between the Perfect and the Simple Past (has written vs wrote), between different moods and modalities. (Ignore these technical terms just now – they are explained in Chapter 13.) As psycholinguists have pointed out, human beings find arbitrary codes difficult to learn and use (random sequences of numbers, say). But similarities in syntax do tie in with similarities in meaning. Children are no better than adults at handling arbitrary codes; if there were no connection between grammar and meaning, they would find it difficult, if not impossible, to acquire their native language.

Language is at the centre of human societies; it plays a crucial part in the organisation of social activities, from government through the workplace to the home. These complex tasks require complex language, and that requires syntax.

For Download: (click on image to download)