Lecture 2
Dimensions and levels of linguistic analysis: syntagmatic
and paradigmatic relations between lingual units.
Hierarchical structuring of language system.
. When elements combine with others along a horizontal dimension,
they enter into syntagmatic relations. Syntagmatic relations are
immediate linear relations between lingual units of the same level in a
segmental sequence. Let’s consider an example:“A beautifully dressed girl is
talking to my brother in the yard.” In this sentence words are connected
syntagmatically within the word-groups:
beautifully dressed; my brother;
a beautifully dressed girl; is talking to my
brother;
a girl is talking; is talking in the
yard.
Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically. E.g.:
beauti/ful/ly, dress/ed, talk/ ing, etc. Phonemes and graphemes are
syntagmatically connected within morphemes and words.
The combination of two words or word-groups in a segmental
sequence, one of which is modified by the other, forms a unit which is
called a syntactic “syntagma.” There are four main types of notional
syntagmas:
1. Predicative syntagma, which represents a combination of a subject
and a predicate. For instance: A girl is
talking.
2. Objective syntagma, which represents a combination of a verb and
its object.
For instance: is talking to my brother.
3. Attributive syntagma, which represents a combination of a noun
and its attribute. For instance: a beautifully
dressed girl; my brother.
1
4. Adverbial syntagma, which represents a combination of a modified
notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or
adverb, with its adverbial modifier.
For instance: is talking in the yard (a verb with its adverbial modifier
of place);
beautifully dressed (an adverb with its adverbial
modifier of degree).
The other type of relations, which is opposed to syntagmatic, is called
paradigmatic. Elements enter into paradigmatic relations when they have
the same potential to appear in the same context and functionally
substitute each other. We have syntagmatic elements in a sequence
along the horizontal dimension, while along the vertical dimension, we
have paradigmatic elements in substitution (Haspelmath 2002: 165). For
example:
Nick was offensive.
The word on the wall was offensive.
The politician’s speech was offensive.
His manner was offensive.
All these expressions, and infinitely many more, can combine with the predicate -
‘was offensive’. So they all have the same syntagmatic relation with the rest of
the sentence, as they can all figure in the same position in its structure, i.e. they
all have the equivalent function that of a subject as a constituent in sentence
structure. In this respect, they can all be classed paradigmatically as noun
phrases.
Paradigmatic relations between lingual elements are especially
evident in classical paradigms of categorical forms of parts of speech.
The minimal paradigm consists of two oppositional forms and because of this it is
called a binary paradigm (e.g. singular and plural of nouns: boy – boys; box –
boxes, etc. or the category of case: common case and possessive case: boy –
boy’s; children – children’s, etc). The grammatical category of the degrees of
comparison of adjectives is represented by a ternary paradigm (სამწევრა
პარადიგმა) that of the positive, comparative and superlative degrees, such as:
large – larger – largest; tall – taller – tallest; beautiful - more beautiful – most
2
beautiful, and quaternary paradigms (ოთხწევრა პარადიგმა) are observed with
verbal categories:
play – plays – played – will play;
play – is playing – was/were playing - will be playing;
Hierarchical structuring of language system
In modern linguistics, language is regarded as a system of signs
that is organized by the principle of hierarchy of levels of lingual units.
The peculiarity of this hierarchy lies in the fact that units of any higher
level are formed of units of the immediately lower ones. Thus
morphemes are formed of phonemes, words of morphemes, sentences
of phrases and words, and so on.
The lowest level of lingual units is a phonemic level which is formed
by phonemes. Phonemes are not signs yet as they have no meaning. They serve
as material elements to build the higher-level segments – morphemes and words.
Their function is purely differential, as they differentiate morphemes and words
from each other. For instance: bad [bæd] and bed [bed]; pork and fork; sheep
and ship; cat and cap, etc. Phonemes are represented by graphemes (i.e.) letters
in writing.
Units of the higher levels are meaningful, therefore they represent
signs.
The level located above the phonemic is a morphemic or
morphological level. The morpheme is the smallest meaningful
component of the word. It is built up by a sequence of phonemes or even by
one phoneme if it has a meaning. For instance, the words ros-y; come-s, and boy-
s, consist of two morphemes one of which is the root morpheme which is built up
by a sequence of phonemes, whereas the other morpheme is an affixal inflexion
represented by a single meaningful phoneme, respectively indicating the
3
grammatical meaning of quality in – ros-y, present tense, third person and
singular number in – come-s, and the plural number in – boy-s.
The third level in the lingual hierarchy is the lexemic level
represented by words as lexical items or lexemes. The word is built up by a
sequence of morphemes or one morpheme and it is the smallest designating
(naming) unit of language: it designates things (dog, woman, table, book,
river, etc.), qualities (quiet, beautiful, round, interesting, deep, etc.), actions,
states or processes, etc. (bark, laugh, stand, read, crawl, and so on.).
The fourth level in the hierarchy of language system is the syntactic
level the main unit of which is a sentence. The sentence is an elementary
full sign as it not only designates a certain target situation or event but
performs the communicative function as well, transmitting a completed
piece of information. For instance, the sentence – “The American delegation
arrived in Tbilisi for a three-day visit.” – on the one hand, designates a particular
target event of objective reality and on the other hand, transmits the
corresponding information about it, on the other.
However, the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of
levels. The highest level of lingual units is the textual level represented
by a text. Traditionally, from the structuralist viewpoint, text can be
defined as a sequence of thematically interrelated sentences that form
a meaningful whole. According to the structural definition, the lower
border of the text is restricted as it implies a sequence of at least two
sentences. However, the structuralist approach to text definition leaves
its upper border open because of the varying diapason of the theme.
On this basis, linguists differentiate structural types of texts into
microtexts and macrotexts. In microtexts sentences centre around one
concrete theme while in macrotexts - microtexts are united by a
hypertheme which is derived from the constituent microthemes.
For instance, in the text given below all the sentences are thematically
interrelated under the headline “Kate Middleton and Prince William’s
Relationship”.
Kate Middleton and Prince William’s
Relationship
4
Kate and Will’s romance blossomed at University, where they regularly
saw each other in lectures and tutorials and around the University Halls.
The couple connected through their love of sport and gap year
experiences.
By the time they entered their second year at University, Kate and Will
had moved in together, as flatmates, but insisted they were
only friends. However, the pair soon became closer and started
developing feelings for each other.
Kate and Will tried to keep their relationship a secret from the press, but
when they were spotted kissing on the slopes of the Alps whilst on a
skiing holiday in Switzerland, they could no longer hide.
In this example, we can clearly see that text is actually a communicative unit
of the highest rank. This text, for instance, contains considerable and interesting
information about Kate Middletone and Prince William’s relationship. The
informative potential of any text is determined by the fact that, unlike a
sentence, it can designate a whole set of extralinguistic events or situations
which constitute the target (i.e. referential) space of the given text.
But there exists another interpretation of the notion of text. From the
functionalist viewpoint, a lingual unit of any length, be it a sequence of
thematically interrelated well-formed sentences, one simple sentence,
or even a word, can be defined as a text if it performs a communicative
function. This definition explains the existence of such small-scale texts
as: “Fire!”; “Help!” and many others, that are restricted (determined)
by the setting of the corresponding speech act.
Thus, we have discussed the dimensions and levels of linguistic analysis that
imply syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between lingual units, on the one
hand, and hierarchical structuring of language systems, on the other hand.
