THEME 3. MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

Plan

1. The traditional division of grammar into two parts: Morphology and Syntax.
2. The definition.
3. Other approaches to the principles of grammar division:

a) B.A. Ilyish

b) H. Paul

c) O. Jespersen

This is a traditional division of grammar in two parts. But the contents of each part and the principle of the division are different in various schools of grammar. We shall follow the tradition established in this country and in many grammar schools abroad.

Morphology is a part of grammar dealing with the structure, classifications, distribution and grammatical categories of the word.

Syntax is the other part of grammar treating of the structure, classifications, combinability and various phenomena of the sentence. In the terms of Karl Bühler, morphology is dedicated to the field of the word and syntax – to the field of the sentence. We are used to such a division as we follow it in practical school grammar at school and at the university (in Russian, English and German).

There are numerous other approaches. For example, here are two different principles of grammar division:

1. According to a very old tradition originating from Greek and Latin grammars, morphology comprises only the description of the forms (declensions and conjugations) making no mention of their meanings and functions, the latter being described in the syntax (H. Paul, H. Sweet, A. Green, I.F. Buslayev). The morphology in classical grammars is named ‘etymology’ and syntax is named ‘accidence’.

2. A number of scholars consider that morphology and syntax describe the same grammatical phenomena and laws, only from a different angle: morphology proceeds from form to meaning, and syntax, the other way round, from meaning to form. In other words, morphology is the treatment of grammar from the listener’s viewpoint and syntax – from the speaker’s. The listener hears a form and is to interpret its meaning whereas the speaker knows the meaning he wants to express and is to find some form for this meaning.

This division is kept to by Otto Jespersen in his seven-volume A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. The first five volumes describe different grammatical meanings and the ways they are expressed. For example, the meaning of the plural may be expressed by the endings –(e)s /s, z, iz/ (cats, dogs, asses), -en (oxen), Ø – zero (sheep, deer), sound alternation (geese, mice), etc. The meaning of necessity is rendered by the modal verbs shall, should, must, ought, their equivalents have to, to be to, be forced, be compelled, etc. These five volumes are the syntax.

In the sixth volume Otto Jespersen returns to what he has already mentioned and discusses it again from the standpoint of the form. Thus he shows different meanings expressed by the endings –(e)s: plural (sons), the possessive case (the son’s book), the 3rd person singular of the present indicative in verbs (he runs), the stem-building adverb suffix in sometimes, afterwards. The word should may be employed in expressing future-in-the-past, the suppositional mood, the conditional mood. It may be a modal verb in the past indicative or non-past subjunctive II.

Note: V.F. Bulygina sums up various approaches to the division of grammar in morphology and syntax in the following table:

According to the tradition, morphology = 1, 3 and syntax = 2, 4. However, in the works of young grammarians (H. Paul and others) morphology = 1 and syntax = 2, 3, 4. According to O. Jespersen, morphology = 1, 2 and syntax = 3, 4.

Though the difference and the boundary between morphology and syntax seem obvious enough, it might be a difficult task to draw a clear-cut line between them in a given language.

The definitions given above are based on the assumption that we can clearly distinguish between words and phrases. This, however, is far from being the case. Usually the distinction between the two is patent enough. E.g. uninterruptability is obviously a word, long as it, whereas come here, short as it, is a phrase and thus belongs to syntax. But when it comes to the thing like ‘ has been found ’, it is evidently a phrase since it consists of three words and thus it would seem to fall under syntax, but it is also a form of the verb ‘to find’ and thus it would seem to fall under morphology.

Actually many more examples of a phrase like that might be given. It is obvious that we have here a kind of overlapping of syntax and morphology. It seems most advisable to include all such cases under the heading of morphology, considering the syntactical side of the formation to have been put, as it were, at the disposal of morphology.

The problem becomes more complicated still if one considers such formations as ‘ has been often found ’, where the word ‘often’ comes to stand between two elements of the form of another word (‘to find’). Such instances should be considered both under morphology and under syntax. All this testifies to the fact that in actual research we do not always find hard-and-fast lines separating one phenomenon from another, such lines as would make every single phenomenon of group of phenomena easy to classify. So, the peculiar difficulty inherent in the treatment of analytical verb forms mentioned above, lies in the fact that they have both a morphological and a syntactical quality. They are morphological facts in so far as they belong to the system of the verb in question, as the auxiliary verb adds nothing whatever to the lexical meaning expressed in the infinitive or participle as part of the analytical form. But the same forms are facts of syntax in so far as they consist of two or three or sometimes four elements, and occasionally some other word, which does not make part of the analytical form, may come in between them. B.A. Ilyish notes that in Modern English such insertions are not many, yet they do exist and must be taken into consideration.

The inevitable conclusion is, then, that ‘ has come ’ and other formations of this kind are simultaneously analytical verb forms and syntactical unities. So, this obviously means that morphology and syntax overlap here.

We should like to end this short lecture by mentioning that Ferdinand de Saussure and his numerous followers, who are often named structuralists (L. Hjelmslev, American descriptivist), do not divide grammar at all, i.e. there is neither morphology nor syntax in their works.

References:

1. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка: Учеб. пособие. / Л.С. Бархударов. – М.: Высш. шк., 1975. – 156 с.
2. Биренбаум Я.Г. Philosophy of Grammar: Учеб. пособие. / Я.Г. Биренбаум. – Киров: Изд-во КГПИ, 1994. – С. 31-34.
3. Блох М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учеб. – 4-е изд. испр. / М.Я. Блох. – М.: Высш. шк., 2003. – 423 с.
4. Булыгина Т.В. Проблемы теории морфологических моделей. / Т.В. Булыгина. – М.: Наука, 1977.
5. Ильиш Б.А. Строй современного английского языка (Теоретический курс): Учеб. пособие. / Б.А. Ильиш. – М.-Л.: Просвещение, 1965. – С. 14-16.
6. Chalker, Sylvia; Weiner, Edmund. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. / S. Chalker, E. Weiner. – N.Y.: Oxford University Press Inc., 1996. – P. 248-249.

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: