Difference between revisions of "Stratificational Grammar"

From Glottopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
(added a cross-ref link)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
A ''network'' is a type of structure like a tree, except that where a tree can only branch in one direction, a network branches into both directions -- so you can have paths that first branch and then come together.  If we draw a diagram of a particular linguistic structure, parts of it look something like a net which would be used for fishing, although a good fishing net is a very perfect form of network in terms of mathematic structure.  This we don't find.  A '''relational network''' consists of [[line|lines]] and [[node (in neurocognitive linguistics)|nodes]], each node being a point at which lines intersect.
+
'''Stratificational Grammar''' is a structural framework developed by [[Sydney M. Lamb|Sydney Lamb]] in the 1960s that aims to provide an account of the structure of language, the relationship between meaning and speech.  
  
−
The notation system used for relational networks is an adaptation of the network notation developed by [[M.A.K. Halliday|Halliday]].
+
===Comments===
 +
The framework is called ''stratificational'' because one of its chief features is its treatment of linguistic structure as comprising several structural layers or [[stratum (in neurocognitive linguistics)|strata]]. Its earlier form, in the late fifties and early sixties, followed the tradition of structural linguistics in treating the structure as composed of linguistic elements and their relationships. In the mid-sixties, work on the relationships among linguistic units revealed that when the relationships are fully plotted, the units actually disappear, so that the entire structure consists of a network of relationships.  
  
−
This network model is justified and was arrived at by analyzing relationships among linguistic units. Starting with the traditional assumption that a lexical item (likewise morpheme, phoneme) is a unit of some kind, an object or symbol or combination of symbols, we analyze its relationships to other units to which it is related. For example, morphemes are somehow related to elements of phonological expression on the one hand and to elements of conceptual information on the other. They are usually represented as symbols -- for example, 'boy', and these symbols represent their phonological (or graphic) [[realization|realizations]]. Obviously, they are therefore related to the elements of their phonological realization and have to access them for production of speech.  
+
In keeping with the idea of stratification, the network as a whole can be considered to consist of multiple subnetworks, called [[stratum (in neurocognitive linguistics)|stratal systems]].  Operation of the system, for speaking and understanding, takes the form of activation passing through the network. Multiple pathways are invariably active in parallel at any time. By the end of the twentieth century, stratification and the relationship of [[realization]] had become widely recognized, and the theory's distinctiveness lay in its focus on the conception of linguistic structure as a network of relationships. Accordingly, it increasingly became referred to as [[relational network theory]] rather than stratificational theory. Beginning in 1971 it was also called ''cognitive linguistics'', but when that term became more widely used for a variety of other theories during the eighties and nineties, the more distinctive term ''neurocognitive linguistics'' began to be used. This latter term is in keeping with the hypothesis that relational networks are related to neural networks of the brain. This hypothesis was explored in Lamb (1999).  
  
−
These relationships can be represented as connections, the minimum requirement for any kind of relationship. Of course, positing connections leads inevitably to the need to posit nodes -- the points connected.  A morpheme also 'has' higher-level properties -- grammatical and lexical or semantic -- and if we ponder what the meaning of 'has' is here, it is that the morpheme  is connected to such properties. So we have further connections.
+
=== Related Terms ===
 +
*[[neurocognitive linguistics]]
 +
*[[relational network theory]]
  
−
After the relationships of the morpheme to other elements -- phonological, grammatical, etc, are thus plotted, the symbol that has been representing it can be removed from the resulting diagrams with no loss of information.  Whatever information it can be considered to represent is now already represented in the depiction of its relationships.  This is especially clear in the case of the morpheme, since the symbol was just representing the components of its phonological representation, but these are now directly represented by connections.
+
=== References ===
  
−
Similarly, what do phonological symbols represent? They are just abbreviated notations for type and manner of articulation;  so they have connections to those phonological properties, and after such connections are plotted, these symbols too are superfluous.  
+
*Christie Jr, William M. 1977. ''A Stratificational View of Linguistic Change''. Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter Press.
−
 
+
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]] 1966. ''Outline of Stratificational Grammar''.  Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
−
A similar line of reasoning applies to all the other linguistic units for which symbols have been used. They turn out to be just abbreviations for sets of connections.
+
*Lamb, Sydney M. 1971. "The crooked path of progess in cognitive linguistics". Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 24.99-123.
−
 
+
*Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. "Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language". Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
−
Following this procedure, every unit of phonology and lexicon can be seen to be what it is by virtue of what its relationships are, and so can be seen as just the point in the system which has those relationships. And it appears that semantic and conceptual relationships can likewise be handled as relationships, with no units.
 
−
 
 
−
Upon removal of the symbols from the structure, the result is a network of relationships -- not symbols and relationships, just relationships, represented as interconnections among nodes. For what do the usual symbols for morphemes, for example boy, consist of? They are (spoken or written) expressions. But in the network representation the actual expression is already provided by the downward connections to elements of the phonological system, so there is no need to have a symbol within the system in addition.
 
−
 
 
−
Nevertheless, relational network diagrams would be hard to read without labels, so labels are used. But they're placed off to the side, because they're there only for the convenience of the viewer and are not part of the [[linguistic information system|linguistic system]].
 
−
 
 
−
=== Sources ===
 
−
 
 
−
*[http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain LangBrain].
 
−
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=CILT%20170 Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language], John Benjamins, 1999.
 
−
*"Language as a Network of Relationships", in [http://www.continuumbooks.com/Books/detail.aspx?ReturnURL=/subjects/default.aspx&CountryID=1&ImprintID=2&BookID=117093 Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.
 
  
 
{{dc}}
 
{{dc}}
 
[[Category:DICT]]
 
[[Category:DICT]]
 +
[[Category:HYPO]]
 
[[Category:En]]
 
[[Category:En]]
−
[[Category:Grammar]]
+
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Latest revision as of 02:34, 15 October 2017

Stratificational Grammar is a structural framework developed by Sydney Lamb in the 1960s that aims to provide an account of the structure of language, the relationship between meaning and speech.

Comments

The framework is called stratificational because one of its chief features is its treatment of linguistic structure as comprising several structural layers or strata. Its earlier form, in the late fifties and early sixties, followed the tradition of structural linguistics in treating the structure as composed of linguistic elements and their relationships. In the mid-sixties, work on the relationships among linguistic units revealed that when the relationships are fully plotted, the units actually disappear, so that the entire structure consists of a network of relationships.

In keeping with the idea of stratification, the network as a whole can be considered to consist of multiple subnetworks, called stratal systems. Operation of the system, for speaking and understanding, takes the form of activation passing through the network. Multiple pathways are invariably active in parallel at any time. By the end of the twentieth century, stratification and the relationship of realization had become widely recognized, and the theory's distinctiveness lay in its focus on the conception of linguistic structure as a network of relationships. Accordingly, it increasingly became referred to as relational network theory rather than stratificational theory. Beginning in 1971 it was also called cognitive linguistics, but when that term became more widely used for a variety of other theories during the eighties and nineties, the more distinctive term neurocognitive linguistics began to be used. This latter term is in keeping with the hypothesis that relational networks are related to neural networks of the brain. This hypothesis was explored in Lamb (1999).

Related Terms

References

  • Christie Jr, William M. 1977. A Stratificational View of Linguistic Change. Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter Press.
  • Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Lamb, Sydney M. 1971. "The crooked path of progess in cognitive linguistics". Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 24.99-123.
  • Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. "Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language". Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Retrieved from "http://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Stratificational_Grammar&oldid=17340"