Systemic Grammar: a context-based Grammar

1












Systemic Grammar

By

Ukpabi, Benedict Orji
College of Graduate studies
(M.A) Graduate Seminar
University of Port Harcourt

2014









































Abstract
This paper discussed systemic grammar by first, tracing the developments of grammar models that gave rise to systemic grammar model. It looked at the merits and demerits of these grammar models and showed that systemic grammar is a context-based grammar. It concluded by showing the difference between systemic grammar and the transformational generative grammar.







































1. INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
There were other grammar models that existed before the systemic grammar.
David Eka (2004) and M. T. Lamidi (2008) show that English grammar was formally written for the purpose of teaching the classical languages (Latin and Greek) hence, the early English grammar model known as the classical or Traditional Grammar was patterned after the model of Latin and Greek grammar. The traditional grammar model was prescriptive in nature with inflexible rules. According to M. T. Lamidi (2008), "when scholars prescribe, they inevitably proscribe" p. 2. Some of the grammatical rules of the traditional grammar model include the following:
The use of shall for the first person and will for others in normal utterances, for Example: I shall go
We shall go
(I will go & we will go) are considered to be emphatic according to classical grammar.
A sentence must not end with an infinitive / a preposition, for example:
She was the lady I spoke to.
He knows the man he works with. Etc.
A sentence must not begin with a conjunction like, because and but.
An infinitive "to" must not be separated from its verb as in the following examples:
She wants to quietly shut the window
He wants to wisely talk to the man.
According to traditional grammar, the adverbs, quietly and wisely should not divide the infinitive to from its verbs shut and talk. However, the sentences (a) and (b) are grammatical correct.
Traditional grammar made a watertight compartmentalization of word classes by defining them as parts of speech with inflexible definition of terms. For example, a noun was defined as a name of person, place or thing. A verb was defined as an action word (Lamidi 2008, p. 5). The traditional grammar did not consider abstract nouns like weight, Red, darkness, beauty which cannot be placed as a person, object, place or thing. A sentence like:
William watered the flowers in the morning
Chinwe chickened out of the competition.
In these two sentences, water (a noun) has undergone a morphological change which converted it to a verb in the sentence. Also, chicken (a noun) experienced the same morphological change which converted it to a verb in the sentence. On the other hand, the criterion of action in the definition of verb is not true for all verbs. For example:
James weighs 60 kilograms
The bag belongs to Nneka.
Patrick killed the goat
The boy away
While action criterion is noticed in sentences (iii) and (iv), no action-taking is noticed in sentences (i) and (ii).
Merits of Traditional Grammar
It provides the basis or foundation for other models of grammar
The inflexible rules insist on producing utterances based on rule of acceptability and intelligibility. David Eka (2004, p. 17).
The subdivision of a sentence into subject and predicate and formation of parts of speech are credited to traditional grammar.

The shortcomings of Traditional Grammar
The approach was not scientific to study the form and content of language.
It was incapable of analysing features of language
It was prescriptive and the rules were inflexible. These shortcomings or inadequacies led to the second grammar model known as the Structural Grammar model.
1.2 The Structural Grammar Model
The structural Grammar came to remedy the inadequacies of the traditional grammar. There were two major groups in the development of the structural grammar. The first began in Europe with the posthumous publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de Linguistigue Generale (Course on General Linguistics). Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the concept of langue and parole, synchronic and diachronic approach to the study of language. The concept of langue and parole posits that there is an abstract relational underlying form to actual utterances. The second group of structuralists developed in America and notable in this group was Leonard Bloomfield. Bloomfield saw language from the perspective of human behaviour (behaviourist theory of language study). The structural grammar model adopts a scientific method to the study and analysis of language. They designed structural forms for identifying lexical items and their classes. Major in the structural grammar was their formulation of combinatorial rules that make certain lexical items to come together in their linear sequence to form a meaningful utterance. For example,
The Rector bought a new car
*Bought new a car Rector the
*Car new a bought the Rector
According to David Eka (2004), "Its notion may best be understood through an explanation of the term Constituent Grammar. Utterances were put under lexical grouping as words, phrases, clauses, and sentences.
However, structural grammar model did not pay attention to meaning or the study of semantics but to a structural representation of Parole or utterances.
According to Borsley (1991) in Lamidi (2008), "such grouping is generally known as constituent structure". For example:
The woman travelled to Owerri
S

The woman travelled to Owerri

The analysis above does not show the relationships that exist between a lexical item and the others adjacent to it. In a bid to create or show these relationships among lexical items, a new approach known as the immediate Constituent grammar rules were developed. Chomsky explained that phrase structure rules are basically rewriting rules as follows:
S NP, VP. S
In this rule, a sentence can be rewritten as a noun phrase and a verb phrase.
NP VP
Starting with this base, we can build rules that will allow us to generate infinite number of sentences.
NP (Det.), (Adj.) N
VP V, (NP) (PP)
PP P, NP
Therefore the sentence below can be group into constituents as follows:
Subject - Predicate
The teacher taught in the class
S



The teacher taught in the class



The aim of the I.C grammar is to segment or analyse the constituents of constructions into categories until the point where segmentation becomes impossible. Thus, using a tree diagram, the above sentence could be analysed further into categories as follows:
S

NP VP

Det. N V PP

P NP

Det. N
The teacher taught in the class
However, the I.C grammar does not have the ability to solve the problem of ambiguity. Thus in a sentence like:
She called Barnabas a boy.
The I.C grammar can analyse it as follows:



















S


NP VP


VP NP


Pr V NP Det N

N
She called Barnabas a boy

The analysed sentence could mean as follows:
She belittled Barnabas by calling him a boy.
She called a boy for Barnabas.
The Merits of Structural Grammar
It makes the analysis of language easier than earlier grammar model.
It shows the relationships that exist between lexical items in an utterance by grouping constitutes into categories where they grammatically belong.
Limitations:
Its inability to solve the problem of ambiguity and to analyse mirror sentences.
Its inability to relate two structures, namely active and passive sentences.
Its inability to handle more than one item at the same time.
It does not account for differences in meaning. (Lamidi 2008). This is because it does not pay attention to semantics.
Like the traditional grammar, it does not help us to predict what a sentence could be. (Lamidi, 2008 p. 16). The limitation of the structural grammar made for the introduction of transformational Generative Grammar.
2. TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR (TGG)
The Transformational generative grammar is a model of generative syntax which uses the Transformation rule (T-rule) to change, restructure or reorder our sentences. Transformation is to change or to represent our expressions in another form. This model of grammar was introduced by Noam Chomsky in 1957. It is 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 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. The WH sentence formation rule explains this further. The rule is that in English language, WH word occupies sentence initial position in the surface structure but middle or final position in a sentence at the deep structure.
Example: What is her name? (surface structure). In the deep structure, the question will be "Her name is what?" 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 TGG is mentalistic as it investigates the innate mental lexicon in the human mind and how we can general infinite sentences from one single utterance.
3. SYSTEMIC GRAMMAR
3.1. A General overview of Systemic Grammar
Systemic grammar, as stated by David Eka (2004) was propounded by Michael A. K. Halliday. According to him, Halliday's systemic grammar was built on the foundation of the works of J. R. Firth, the founder of the London School of linguistics, whose theory was generally summarised under the context of situation; hence, systemic grammar is referred to as neo-Firthian grammar. The model was structured at the surface grammar and a system of semantic features at the deep grammar.
According to another source,
It is part of a social semiotic approach to language called systemic functional linguistics. In these two terms, systemic refers to the view of language as "a network of systems, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning"; functional refers to Halliday's view that language is as it is because of what it has evolved to do. Thus, what he refers to as the multidimensional architecture of language "reflects the multidimensional nature of human experience and interpersonal relations." Wikipedia, 2014.
M. T. Lamidi (2008), traces systemic grammar to a major reaction to structural grammar and transformational generative grammar. He says that the structural grammar claimed that meaning had no place in grammar. This claim was attacked by Firthian grammar which states that "grammatical expressions have meaning since they are context-based" p. 16.
Within the systemic grammar framework, there is hardly any ideal native speaker who uses language perfectly rather language becomes useful or meaningful according to the context of use. The issue of grammaticality is not the concerns of systemic grammar but the sociological use of language. Part of the tenets of systemic grammar is that it is not necessary for a structure of language to be grammatical but for speakers to use language as a medium of exchange of ideas.
The concern of systemic grammar is "acceptability" based on social context rather than on grammaticality. For example:
How's things?
How far now?
These expressions are acceptable in the social context of usage as far as systemic grammar is concerned.
M. A. K. Halliday is associated with further development of systemic grammar from the foundation laid by J. R. Firth. Systemic grammar pays attention to semantics and pragmatics or social meaning of language and it is concerned with how language is used in every daily experience in the society.
Systemic grammar postulates four theoretical categories of grammar – unit, structure, class, and system.
(1) Unit: the unit carries grammatical patterns. The term, Rank scale is used to name the hierarchical relationships among the units. What constitutes a unit include the morpheme, word, group (phrase), clause and sentence. Each of these grammatical items has a structure that patterns it according to its unit. For example:
Morpheme: un+condition+al+ly = unconditionally.
Boy+s = boys;
Knock+ed = knocked.
Word: pen, book, table, desk, etc
Group or phrase: a house; the basket; a tall man; a fat woman, etc
Clause: (i) when she came in. (ii) Before she stopped.
(2) Sentence: (i) John has arrived. (ii) The doctor treated the sick woman
Structure: this is used in the analysis of all the units in the grammar, except the smallest morpheme that has no structure. In a nominal word group, the structure is MHQ (Modifier or words that occur before the head of the phrase; Head: the keyword of the phrase. For noun phrase NP, the head is a noun. For Adjective phrase AdjP the head is an adjective. For a verb phrase VP the head is a verb. Qualifier: word(s) that come(s) after the head of the phrase). In English language the sentence structure is SPCA (Subject, Predicate, Complement and Adverb or Adjunct) but due to the mobile nature of the Adjunct, it can occur at any position in a sentence. For Example:
If you observe carefully, you will understand the techniques.
She won a prize because she sang wonderfully well.
(3) Class: a class refers to members of the same unit. These include the noun, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions. The verbal group forms the predicate of a sentence while noun is the head of a nominal group.
System: by this term, we mean the of one item instead of another from among a number of similar events. For example, a choice has to be made for predicate within the following systems:
Voice: active or passive voice
Tense: present or past tense.
Aspect: progressive or perfective
Plurality: a noun can be singular or plural. Because these systems are interrelated, they are said to be in a network of interrelationships.
There are three scales of abstraction which link the categories to one another and to the language. They are:
Rank scale: this is the hierarchical ordering of units recognized in the description of a language. Starting from the lowest we have the morpheme, word, group, clause and sentence.
Delicacy: In systemic grammar, delicacy refers to the level of differentiation or depth of detail in an analysis. When a description is so generalized or an analysis that is not properly detailed, it is said to be less delicate. For example, a verb group may be analysed to have the auxiliary and the head (xh) but a more detailed or delicate analysis may show various kinds of auxiliaries such as modal auxiliary, perfective aspect, progressive aspect, passive voice. Example: the sentence below is analysed as shown.
She has eaten the food
S

NP AUX VP

Pr Tens Perf. V NP

Pres Have-en Det. N
She has eaten the food


Exponence. This refers to elements that are used to realize a category. For example, the exponence of Head (H) in a nominal word group is a nominal or noun.
As much as systemic grammar is a context-based grammar, this paper poises to present various aspects of context as described by Mick O'donnell, (2010, pp. 6-12).

3.2 LANGUAGE AND ITS CONTEXT
In Systemic Functional Linguistics, the appropriateness of linguistic options is conditioned
by the current "context of situation".
Context of situation: the situation in which the language event unfolds, at least those parts of the situation which condition that language use.
Student talking to a teacher E.g.,
Student talking to
a teacher
Statement
Question
Command


Halliday models "context of situation", those aspects of the context relevant to the unfolding language event, in terms of three strands:
– Field: what is being talked about.
– Tenor: the people involved in the communication and the relationships between them
– Mode: what part the language is playing in the interaction (is it accompanying action or ALL of the action), what form does it take (spoken or written).
Example: a recipe in a cook book
Field: cooking (ingredients and process of preparing food)
Tenor: expert writer to a learner, learner is beneficiary of the advice
Mode: written, prepared. Text often read as part of process of cooking.
Field: what the text is about:
Typical fields: science, education, war, medicine, sports, literary text.
Can be more specific:
– Science: biology: microbiology: virology: plant viruses
– Education: Language education: English Language education: Secondary level English Education
Additionally, can be placed on a cline of:
– specialised vs. non-specialised: is the vocabulary specific to the field, or does it use vocabulary common to other fields?
– Specialised vocabulary may be used in other fields but have different meaning in the current field:
"constituent" (politics) : member of a political unit.
"constituent" (linguistics): a syntactic unit.
Tenor: relationship between participants includes:
– Power relations:
Unequal: father/daughter, doctor/patient, teacher/student
Equal: friend/friend, student/student
– Formality: formal/informal
Informal: example: I handed my essay in kind a late coz my kids got sick.
Formal: same statement: The reason for the late submission of my essay was the illness
of my children.
– Closeness: distant/neutral/close:
Mode: what part the language is playing in the interaction:
– Role: Ancillary (language accompanying nonverbal activity, as when we talk as we cook together) or constitutive (the event is defined by the language, as in a speech).
– Channel: written vs. spoken, or some mix.
Projected channel: where the actual channel is not the intended channel: 'written to be spoken' (e.g., a speech), 'spoken as if written' (e.g., recitation).
– directionality: uni-directional channel or bi-directional (unidirectional allows only monologue, while a bi-directional channel allows dialogue)
– Media: +/-visual contact (e.g., -visual for a telephone conversation); use of multimedia (blackboard, PowerPoint, etc.)
– Preparation: spontaneous vs. prepared; rushed vs. time for reflection;


LANGUAGE AND ITS CONTEXT: REGISTER
Situation type: a configuration of field, tenor and mode that recurs frequently in our society, e.g.
– 'talking among friends':
(field) not limited
(tenor) Among friends of generally equal status
(mode) spoken spontaneous dialogue with occasional monologue, – 'lecture'.
(field) generally specialised in a particular field
(tenor) generally reasonably formal, power relation of teacher to students
(mode) spoken, mostly monologue, may use audio-visuals.
Register: the set of linguistic options typically associated with a situation type, example:
'talking among friends': use of declaratives and interrogatives, hedging ("I think..."), interruptions, low technicality in lexis, low use of nominalisation, etc. "A register is ... a configuration of meanings that are typically associated with a particular situational configuration of field, mode, and tenor. But since it is a configuration of meanings, a register must also, of course, include the expressions, the lexico-grammatical and phonological features, that typically accompany or REALISE these meanings."

CONTEXT-LANGUAGE: DIALOGIC RELATION
Not only does context condition language, the language we use in a situation help to define the context. The Field is not always defined by the situation, but can be chosen by speakers (e.g., in casual conversation).
– Tenor is often up for negotiation, e.g., a salesman will often try to move from a distant, informal relation with the client, towards a friendlier, closer one (so the client cannot say 'no' as easily). A teacher can choose which Modes he works in: spoken, written, multimodal, monologic or dialogic, etc.
Language Context
Language


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SYSTEMIC GRAMMAR AND TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR
Systemic grammar does not account for creativity in language. as a result of this, the production of new sentences are neither accounted for nor explained. The emphasis of systemic grammar is on raw data which may be full of self-correction, mannerism, backtracking, repetitions slips of the tongue, etc.
Systemic grammar emphasises context-based use of language and acceptability while the transformational grammar is about grammaticality. Systemic grammar is all about performance order than competence as there is no ideal native speaker of a language.
Transformational grammar is mentalistic while the systemic grammar is sociological.
Transformational grammar is scientific. It aims at an objective realization of the meaning intended by the native speaker-rearer without a recourse to context. The TGG is structurally defined. Systemic grammar is based on context of text and context of culture.
Robin P. Fawcett (2004) posits that in a generative Systemic Functional Grammar, the process of generation is controlled by the system networks. According to him, these system networks pattern the meaning potential of the language. This is in agreement with the postulation of Halliday, (1970 p.142), these system network consist of the statement about relationship between semantic features. The problems of (l) getting the elements of the
Structure that the network generates in the correct sequence and (2) ensuring that they are expounded by the correct items is handled in the realization rules and the potentials structures.
The figure below shows (i) the two main component of the grammar (on the left) and (ii) their outputs (on the right). As the labels above the diagram suggest, it is the grammar that specifies the two 'potentials' of a language: one at each of the two level of meaning and form the figure below also shows the outputs – i.e. the 'instances' – that are generated from the potentials at each of the two levels.
























Conclusion
This paper has shown other models of grammar that led to the development of systemic grammar and has shown the difference between systemic grammar and the transformational generative grammar. While transformational generative grammar deals with meaning, and sociological function of language; that is, language is context-based.








References
Eka, D. (2004). Element of grammar and mechanics of the English language.
Uyo: SAMUF (NIGERIA) LIMITED.
Fawcett, R. P. (2004). Systemic functional grammar as a formal model of
Language: a micro-grammar for some central elements of the English
clause. Cardiff University: retrieved from,
http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/institutos/incihusa/ul/webhelpcatedra/Fawcett 2004.doc on 27th August 2014.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J.
(ed) 1970. New horizon in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lamidi, M. T. (2008). Aspects of chomskyan grammar. Ibadan: University Press PLC.
O'donnell, M. (2010). Language, Function, Cognition Part 2: systemic functional
linguistics. Retrieved from
http://web.uam.es/departmentos/filoyletras/filolesa/Courses/LFC-SFL/LFC-SFL-2010.pdf
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2014). Systemic function grammar. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/systemic functional grammar on 30th August 2014.