The reason why I think the classical scientific grammar was a significant breakthrough in the sphere of the description of the grammatical system is that when it appeared in the end of the 19 century it did not only satisfy the need in the descriptive and explanatory grammar, which was pressing that time, but it has also become some sort of a springboard – the founders of this type of grammar were the first to describe the English grammatical phenomena not using the Latin one as a basis. Thanks to such researchers as H. Sweet, L. G. Kimball, C. T. Onions, etc. a new approach to describing the English grammar was born.
I'm interested in this part of the grammar, because Prescientific grammar helped me understand how to develop grammar. It was very interesting for me. I learned a lot of about the history of grammar. For example, the history of Grammar can be divided into: the first period (the end of the 16-th century – 1900) – Prescientific grammar and the second period (20-th century). And as on the scientific of the most popular Latin grammars written in English. I would like to continue to study the development of English grammar and the scientists who have studied this important part of the English language.
The theory of transformational-generative grammar is a most remarkable one to my mind. Unlike the structural grammar, which only deals with grammatical structures isolated from any kinds of meaning, Chomsky's theory includes both the study of meaning and its connection and representation in the visible structure. The reason it is remarkable is that Chomsky tried to make his theory applicable to any language in the world, which is one of the modern grammar's most complicated unresolved problems. Though, decoding the meaning of the deep structures is still quite subjective. The meaning depends vastly not only on syntax and lexis, which had been studied by transformational-generative grammarians the most, but also on paralinguistic factors, that are not particularly being taken into consideration so far.
In my view, the structural grammar is more interesting than others types of grammar. The transformational method, which had such scientists as L. Bloomfield and C.C Fries, attracts us. C. C. Fries wanted to distribute words of the same parts of speech if they could fill the same set of position in a sentence. The words which could be transformed words in different positions and finally formed four "word classes". It was a good way to describe grammar in that time (in 1950's), but there were people, who criticized the scientists that they did not pay attention to the mraning of words, which they changed.
To my mind, the chosen topic is a very pressing one. This period, scientific grammar, was very important for grammar and it influenced grammar a lot. To begin with, scientific grammar was the first to undermine the strictly structural concept of a clause as of a syntactic unit containing a subject and a predicate, created by prescriptive grammar. Apart from that, this grammar retained the traditional grammatical system and thus was understandable and acceptable, reflecting the needs of that period. Moreover, such great scientists as O. Jespersen, H. Sweet, E. Kruisinga and many other outstanding ones made a great input that encouraged grammar's emergence.
Фаттахова Миля I drew my attention to the Prenormative grammar, because it is the first type of English grammar. Its remarkable feature was that it suffered from considerable influence of Latin grammar, because Latin at that time was the official language at church and schools.The most interesting fact is that William Lily published one of the earliest and most popular Latin grammars in the first half of the 16th century. Moreover he presented standards for similar arrangement of the English grammatical material proceeding from Latin paradigms and using the same terminology as in Latin grammar. And it is very important to say that Prenormative grammar is the most outstanding and fascinating grammar to learn.
Юля Дементьева Otto Jespersen made a great contribution in the development of the Classical Scientific Grammar. He divided all parts of speech into five categories, they are not used in modern grammar but they asserted influence over the modern system of parts of speech. Professor Jespersen also created the system of cases. The Noun has nominative and objective case. The Pronoun has common and genitive case. His contribution encompasses not only morphology but syntax too. He assisted into creating the concept of context. He added such definitions as nexus and junction. They brought the concept of context to the forefront of the attention of the world of linguistics.
From my point of view, text linguistics tend to be the most remarkable way of studying linguistics, because all our knowledge is involved in the understanding and production of a whole text. It analyzes the relationship between language and speech, also it allows us to see it through the text. I consider that the most important role in the development of this linguistics occupies an identification of seven principles of the textuality, which were defined by Beaugrande and Dressler. According to these principles we analyze all the aspects of the text. Text linguistics certainly does not claim to solve all the problems regarding the stude of language, but it does claim that it can help considerably to solve many problems that have to do with the way language is used to communicate.
Personally I belived that the Prescriptive grammar was one of the most important stages which marked the beginning of the English grammar. Let’s consider some pros and cons of it.It is true that the authors of this level believed that their task was not only to prescribe to provide rules for distinguishing what is right from what is wrong, but also to proscribe expressions which they considered to be wrong. On the other hand, we can observe that they used a lot of Latin grammar as a basis. But despite this, such great scientists as R.Lowth, Charles Batter and Ben Jonson made a great contribution to the development of the English language.
My theme for study was Generative semantics. It`s a school of semantic theory based on the doctrine that syntactic and semantic structure are of the same formal nature and that there is a single system of rules that relates surface structure to meaning. This theory was initiated by the work of various early students of Noam Chomsky: John R. Ross, Paul Postal, and later James McCawley. They took Chomsky's concept of Deep Structure, assuming that deep structures were the sole input to semantic interpretation. The leading idea of generative semantics is that there is no principled distinction between syntactic processes and semantic processes. Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, there were heated debates between generative semanticists and Chomskians. The generative semanticists lost the debate, in so far as their research program ground to a halt by the 1980s.
I found studying about Generative semantics rather interesting because I consider this type of grammar to be an efficient part of the development of grammar and that it has played an important role that has affected the whole grammar system, including the grammar we have now, i.e. its rules, models, etc. The main theoretical assumptions, that we can make after going through works of such outstanding scientists as George Lakoff, Jim McCawley, John Robert Ross who brought a lot of thought to the study of Generative semantics, are, firstly,language consists of finite means that generate an infinite number of sentences, secondly, language is rule-governed, and thirdly, there surely is a place for grammatical well-formedness, structure-dependence principle and autonomy of syntax. Generative semantics brought up the study of grammat to a whole new level and developed into Textual Linguistics.
I think prescriptive grammar is interesting to study, because it deals with the rules of the structure of a language. Unlike a descriptive grammar, it deals with what grammarians believe to be right and wrong. To my mind prescriptive grammar is easier to learn and it certainly gives us confidence to follow the rules. Many of these rules were invented by ancient grammarians. Scholars became preoccupied with the art, ideas, and language of ancient Greece and Rome. The classical period was regarded as a golden age and Latin as the perfect language. For many writers the rules of Latin became the rules of English. Teaching prescriptive grammar is helpful, especially for beginners learners, it is very useful to be taught how a language should be used. I believe that prescriptive grammar has many advantages, but it has disadvantages as well. People who learn prescriptive grammar can't speak or write like a native speaker because they only use standard grammar books and they do not know how the native speakers use the language. They will probably get bored of learning grammar rules, because prescriptive grammar mostly deals with rules.
The reason why I think the classical scientific grammar was a significant breakthrough in the sphere of the description of the grammatical system is that when it appeared in the end of the 19 century it did not only satisfy the need in the descriptive and explanatory grammar, which was pressing that time, but it has also become some sort of a springboard – the founders of this type of grammar were the first to describe the English grammatical phenomena not using the Latin one as a basis. Thanks to such researchers as H. Sweet, L. G. Kimball, C. T. Onions, etc. a new approach to describing the English grammar was born.
ОтветитьУдалитьI'm interested in this part of the grammar, because Prescientific grammar helped me understand how to develop grammar. It was very interesting for me. I learned a lot of about the history of grammar. For example, the history of Grammar can be divided into: the first period (the end of the 16-th century – 1900) – Prescientific grammar and the second period (20-th century). And as on the scientific of the most popular Latin grammars written in English. I would like to continue to study the development of English grammar and the scientists who have studied this important part of the English language.
ОтветитьУдалитьThe theory of transformational-generative grammar is a most remarkable one to my mind. Unlike the structural grammar, which only deals with grammatical structures isolated from any kinds of meaning, Chomsky's theory includes both the study of meaning and its connection and representation in the visible structure. The reason it is remarkable is that Chomsky tried to make his theory applicable to any language in the world, which is one of the modern grammar's most complicated unresolved problems.
ОтветитьУдалитьThough, decoding the meaning of the deep structures is still quite subjective. The meaning depends vastly not only on syntax and lexis, which had been studied by transformational-generative grammarians the most, but also on paralinguistic factors, that are not particularly being taken into consideration so far.
In my view, the structural grammar is more interesting than others types of grammar. The transformational method, which had such scientists as L. Bloomfield and C.C Fries, attracts us. C. C. Fries wanted to distribute words of the same parts of speech if they could fill the same set of position in a sentence. The words which could be transformed words in different positions and finally formed four "word classes". It was a good way to describe grammar in that time (in 1950's), but there were people, who criticized the scientists that they did not pay attention to the mraning of words, which they changed.
ОтветитьУдалитьTo my mind, the chosen topic is a very pressing one. This period, scientific grammar, was very important for grammar and it influenced grammar a lot.
ОтветитьУдалитьTo begin with, scientific grammar was the first to undermine the strictly structural concept of a clause as of a syntactic unit containing a subject and a predicate, created by prescriptive grammar. Apart from that, this grammar retained the traditional grammatical system and thus was understandable and acceptable, reflecting the needs of that period. Moreover, such great scientists as O. Jespersen, H. Sweet, E. Kruisinga and many other outstanding ones made a great input that encouraged grammar's emergence.
Фаттахова Миля
ОтветитьУдалитьI drew my attention to the Prenormative grammar, because it is the first type of English grammar. Its remarkable feature was that it suffered from considerable influence of Latin grammar, because Latin at that time was the official language at church and schools.The most interesting fact is that William Lily published one of the earliest and most popular Latin grammars in the first half of the 16th century. Moreover he presented standards for similar arrangement of the English grammatical material proceeding from Latin paradigms and using the same terminology as in Latin grammar. And it is very important to say that Prenormative grammar is the most outstanding and fascinating grammar to learn.
Этот комментарий был удален автором.
ОтветитьУдалитьЮля Дементьева
ОтветитьУдалитьOtto Jespersen made a great contribution in the development of the Classical Scientific Grammar. He divided all parts of speech into five categories, they are not used in modern grammar but they asserted influence over the modern system of parts of speech. Professor Jespersen also created the system of cases. The Noun has nominative and objective case. The Pronoun has common and genitive case. His contribution encompasses not only morphology but syntax too. He assisted into creating the concept of context. He added such definitions as nexus and junction. They brought the concept of context to the forefront of the attention of the world of linguistics.
From my point of view, text linguistics tend to be the most remarkable way of studying linguistics, because all our knowledge is involved in the understanding and production of a whole text. It analyzes the relationship between language and speech, also it allows us to see it through the text. I consider that the most important role in the development of this linguistics occupies an identification of seven principles of the textuality, which were defined by Beaugrande and Dressler. According to these principles we analyze all the aspects of the text.
ОтветитьУдалитьText linguistics certainly does not claim to solve all the problems regarding the stude of language, but it does claim that it can help considerably to solve many problems that have to do with the way language is used to communicate.
Этот комментарий был удален автором.
ОтветитьУдалитьPersonally I belived that the Prescriptive grammar was one of the most important stages which marked the beginning of the English grammar. Let’s consider some pros and cons of it.It is true that the authors of this level believed that their task was not only to prescribe to provide rules for distinguishing what is right from what is wrong, but also to proscribe expressions which they considered to be wrong. On the other hand, we can observe that they used a lot of Latin grammar as a basis. But despite this, such great scientists as R.Lowth, Charles Batter and Ben Jonson made a great contribution to the development of the English language.
ОтветитьУдалитьMy theme for study was Generative semantics. It`s a school of semantic theory based on the doctrine that syntactic and semantic structure are of the same formal nature and that there is a single system of rules that relates surface structure to meaning. This theory was initiated by the work of various early students of Noam Chomsky: John R. Ross, Paul Postal, and later James McCawley. They took Chomsky's concept of Deep Structure, assuming that deep structures were the sole input to semantic interpretation. The leading idea of generative semantics is that there is no principled distinction between syntactic processes and semantic processes. Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, there were heated debates between generative semanticists and Chomskians. The generative semanticists lost the debate, in so far as their research program ground to a halt by the 1980s.
ОтветитьУдалитьI found studying about Generative semantics rather interesting because I consider this type of grammar to be an efficient part of the development of grammar and that it has played an important role that has affected the whole grammar system, including the grammar we have now, i.e. its rules, models, etc. The main theoretical assumptions, that we can make after going through works of such outstanding scientists as George Lakoff, Jim McCawley, John Robert Ross who brought a lot of thought to the study of Generative semantics, are, firstly,language consists of finite means that generate an infinite number of sentences, secondly, language is rule-governed, and thirdly, there surely is a place for grammatical well-formedness, structure-dependence principle and autonomy of syntax. Generative semantics brought up the study of grammat to a whole new level and developed into Textual Linguistics.
ОтветитьУдалитьI think prescriptive grammar is interesting to study, because it deals with the rules of the structure of a language. Unlike a descriptive grammar, it deals with what grammarians believe to be right and wrong. To my mind prescriptive grammar is easier to learn and it certainly gives us confidence to follow the rules. Many of these rules were invented by ancient grammarians. Scholars became preoccupied with the art, ideas, and language of ancient Greece and Rome. The classical period was regarded as a golden age and Latin as the perfect language. For many writers the rules of Latin became the rules of English. Teaching prescriptive grammar is helpful, especially for beginners learners, it is very useful to be taught how a language should be used. I believe that prescriptive grammar has many advantages, but it has disadvantages as well. People who learn prescriptive grammar can't speak or write like a native speaker because they only use standard grammar books and they do not know how the native speakers use the language. They will probably get bored of learning grammar rules, because prescriptive grammar mostly deals with rules.
ОтветитьУдалить