1- Speech Acts2- Language Change3- Functionalism 4- Pragmatics5- Performatives 6- Linguistic Stylistics 7- Rhetoric 8- Transactional Conversation 9- Interactional Conversation10- Conversational Structure + Conversational Analysis 11- Interruptions Vs Overlap12- Language Variation 13- Tag Questions 14- Register 15- Langue & Parole16- Polyglot 17- Cognates18- Symbols19- Levels of Linguistic Analysis20- Stylistic Analysis + Merits and Demerits + Approaches 21- Stylistics + Aims of Stylistic Analysis

22- Turn Taking + components of turn taking

23- Discourse + Discourse Analysis + various approaches 24- Speech Acts

25- Aphasia 26- Pragmatics + its important 27- Explain in detail the different distinctions between spoken and written discourse. Support your answer with sufficient examples. 28- Give an account of Chomsky’s idea of ‘Generativism’ and Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG). 29- Ferdinand de Saussure (Structuralism)

Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss linguist who laid the foundation on the ideas of structure in the study of language. His Book Course in General Linguisticsthat was published in 1916 has detailed all that he claimed to be his views. In his book Saussure shows us a clear reaction against many of the ideas raised and he emphasizes the importance of seeing language as a living phenomenon as against thehistorical view, of studying speech, of analysing the underlying system of a language in order to demonstrate an integral structure, and of placing language firmly in the socialmilieu. Saussure’s theoretical ideas are a must read and hisinfluence has been unparalleled in European Linguistics since and, it had a major formative role to play in the shaping of

linguistic thoughts in Europe. Saussure’sObject of Studytheorised his structuralist view of language and shows how his essay forms the basis of structuralist theory. Saussure equipped his essay with a theory and a method of linguistic analysis from the structuralist point of view.

Saussure in his essay discusses the linguistic structures as only to be a part of language even though it is an integral part of it. The structure of a language is both the social product and the body of necessary conventions adopted by society to enable members of society to use their language faculty. It comprises in various domains and it is purely physical, psychological and physiological. It is for the individual and for the society. The language faculty of the both rest upon the structure of the language and there cannot be a proper classification for that as such language has no proper distinctions. The linguistic structures are that faculty in the study of language by which the articulating words,natural or not, are put in use only by means of linguistic instruments that are created and provided by society. The language itself is a structured system and a self contained whole and principle of classification.

Structuralism and Saussure1. Structuralism and Saussure2. Structuralism as a philosophical stance Structuralists are interested in the interrelationship between UNITS ( also called "surface phenomena," ) and RULES (the ways that units can be put together. ) In language: units are words and the rules which are the forms of grammar which order words. In different languages, the grammar rules are different, as are the words, but the structure is still the same in all languages: words are put together within a grammatical system to make meaning.3. an example of this using literature Three characters: princess, stepmother, and prince a princess is persecuted by a stepmother and rescued (and married) by a prince Cinderella “ units” are:princess, stepmother, and prince "rules" are: stepmothers are evil, princesses are victims, and princes and princesses have to marry. that's exactly what structuralist analyses of literature are analyzing. 4. Structuralist notions on units and rules Structuralists believe that the underlying structures which organize units and rules into meaningful systems are generated by the human mind itself, and not by sense perception. As such, the mind is itself a structuring mechanism which looks through units and files them according to rules. So structuralism sees itself as a science of humankind, and works to uncover all the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel 5. Structuralist analysis posits these systems as universal Every human mind in every culture at every point in history has used some sort of structuring principle to organize and understand cultural phenomena. Every human culture has some sort of language, which has the basic structure of all language: words/phonemes are combined according to a grammar of rules to produce meaning. Every human culture similarly has some sort of social organization All of these organizations are governed, according to structuralist analyses, by structures which are universal. 6. A more formal definition : a structure is any conceptual system that has the following three properties: Wholeness . This means that the system functions as a whole, not just as a collection of independent parts. Transformation . This means that the system is not static, but capable of change. New units can enter the system, but when they do they're governed by the rules of the system. Self-Regulation . This is related to the idea of transformation. You can add elements to

the system, but you can't change the basic structure of the system no matter what you add to it. The transformations of a system never lead to anything outside the system. 7. Saussure’ideas on linguistics I: THE NATURE OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN Language is based on a NAMING process, by which things get associated with a word or name. The linguistic SIGN (a key word) is made of the union of a concept and a sound image. A more common way to define a linguistic SIGN is that a SIGN is the combination of a SIGNIFIER and a SIGNIFIED. Saussure says the sound image is the SIGNIFIER and the concept the SIGNIFIED. 8. The SIGN , as union of a SIGNIFIER and a SIGNIFIED, has two main characteristics. The SIGN, as union of a SIGNIFIER and a SIGNIFIED, has two main characteristics. This principle dominates all ideas about the STRUCTURE of language. It makes it possible to separate the signifier and signified, or to change the relation between them. The second characteristic of the SIGN is that the signifier exists in TIME, and that time can be measured as LINEAR. 9. II: LINGUISTIC VALUE Thought is a shapeless mass, which is only ordered by language. One of the questions philosophers have puzzled over for centuries is whether ideas can exist at all without language. No ideas preexist language; language itself gives shape to ideas and makes them expressible. The VALUE of a sign is determined, however, not by what signifiers get linked to what particular signifieds, but rather by the whole system of signs used within a community. VALUE is the product of a system or structure (LANGUE), not the result of individual relations (PAROLE).10. III.SYNTAGMATIC AND ASSOCIATIVE RELATIONS The most important kind of relation between units in a signifying system, is a SYNTAGMATIC relation. This means, basically, a LINEAR relation. In spoken or written language, words come out one by one .Because language is linear, it forms a chain, by which one unit is linked to the next. An example “”The cat sat on the mat”” “” The mat sat on the cat “” English word order :SVO Japanese word order:SOV etc. 11. SYNTAGMS Combinations or relations formed by position within a chain are called SYNTAGMS. The terms within a syntagm acquire VALUE only because they stand in opposition to everything before or after them. Each term IS something because it is NOT something else in the sequence. SYNTAGMATIC relations are most crucial in written and spoken language, in DISCOURSE, where the ideas of time, linearity, and syntactical meaning are important. 12. ASSOCIATIVE Signs are stored in your memory, for example, not in syntagmatic links or sentences, but in ASSOCIATIVE groups. quot;Education" "-tion":education, relation, association Similar associations: education, teacher, textbook, college, expensive. Random set of linkages: education, baseball, computer games, psychoanalysis ASSOCIATIVE relations are only in your head, not in the structure of language itself, whereas SYNTAGMATIC relations are a product of linguistic structure. 13. Conclusion: Saussure's structuralism is based upon three assumptions the systematic nature of language, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts the relational conception of the elements of language, where linguistic "entities" are defined in relationships of combination and contrast to one another the arbitrary nature of linguistic elements, where they are defined in terms of the function and purpose they serve rather than in terms of their inherent qualities.

Generativism1. To whom this term “GENERATIVISM” refer Avram Noam Chomsky • Dec 7 1950s • American Linguist, Philosopher, Cognitive Scientist, Logician, Activist • Highly credited for the

development of Generativism • Has a significant impact on the intellectual community since the mid 20th Century • Development of the Theories of generative grammar • Classification of formal language properties in the Chomsky Hierarchy • Critiques of the school of Behaviorism History What Contributions3. BACKGROUND & DEVELOPMENT Generativism is rejection of B.F.Skinner’s Behaviourism and usually presented as having developed out of and in reaction to the previously dominant school of post-Bloomfieldian American descriptivism: a particular version of structuralism. Up to a point, it is historically justifiable to see the origin of generativism within linguistics in this light. But, as Chomsky himslef came to realize later, there are many respects in which generativism constitutes a return to older and more traditional views about language. 4. GENERATIVISM n The term “Generativism” is being used here to refer to the theory of language that has been developed, over the years or so, by Avram Noam Chomsky and his followers. n Indeed, relatively few of the linguists, who were impressed by the technical advantages and heuristic value of Chmsky’s system of transformational-generative grammar when he first put this forward in the late 1950s, have ever explicitly associated themselves with the body of assumptions and doctrines that is now identifiable as Generativism. 7/20/2014 45. GENERATIVISM n Chomsky pointed out poverty of stimulus for the acquisition of language. He was against stimulus play vital role in language learning. n He held hypothesis that language is free from stimulus control. n He opines that human language is innate and pre-wired in human brain. n A child acquires language in three years. n Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is the prime source of learning language. n The innate body of linguistic knowledge is termed as “Universal Grammar” (UG). n Strongest evidence for the existence of UG is simply the fact that children successfully acquire their native language in a short time. 7/20/2014 56. GENERATIVISM 7/20/2014 6 Competence Performance7. GENERATIVISM n The competence-performance distinction is at the heart of generativism. n Distinction between competence & performance similar to Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole n Chomskyan generativism closer to Saussurean and Post- Saussurean structuralim 7/20/2014 7 Competence & Performance8. GENERATIVISM n Creativity, in Chomsky’s view, is a peculiarly human attribute, which distinguishes men from machine and as far as we know from animals. n It is rule governed creativity and this is where generative grammar comes into own. n The utterances that we produce have a certain grammatical structure: they conform to identifiable rules of well-formedness. 7/20/2014 8 Creativity & Productiviy9. GENERATIVISM n Productivitymakes possible exercise of creativity. n Productivity is not to be identified with creativity but there is an intrinsic connection between them. 7/20/2014 9 Creatiivity & Productiviy10. GENERATIVISM "Generativism can designate an approach for relating language to the intuitive knowledge of speakers and to the mental capacities of humans at large.” (Robert de Beaugrande) Mid - Late 20th Century (1960s) 7/20/2014 1011. GENERATIVE GRAMMAR § This term was used in 1950s by Chomsky. n Generative Grammar is a grammar in which a set of formal rules are used to generate or define the membership of an infinite set of grammatical sentences in a language. Instead of analyzing a single sentence, this grammar devises a set of rules of construction that may help in generating sentences or structures in an infinitely large number. This grammar attempts to produce all and only grammatical sentences of language. (all and only means that our analysis must account for all the grammatical correct phrases and sentences and only those grammatical correct phrases and sentences in whatever language we are analyzing.) 7/20/2014 1112. GENERATIVE GRAMMAR n We have a rule such as “a prepositional phrase in English consists of a preposition followed by a noun phrase”. We can produce a large number of (infinite) phrase using this rule. e.g. in the zoo, on the table, near the window 7/20/2014 12 EXAMPLE:13. BEHAVIOURISM n Behavioural theory remained dominant in the first half of 20th century. It is an approach to psychology and learning. It stresses on observable and measureable behaviours. In behaviourism, the learners are viewed as passively adopting to their environment.

n According to the belief of the theory, free will is an illusion. In other words, human beings are shaped entirely by their external environment. n The behaviourists, tried to explain learning without refering to mental process. This theory sees the language learner as “Tabula Rasa” (blank slate). 7/20/2014 1314. GENERATIVISM OBJECTS BEHAVIOURISM n Chomsky has done more than anyone else to demonstrate the sterility of the behaviourists’ theory of language. n He has pointed out that much of the technical vocabulary of behaviourism (‘stimulus’, ‘response’, ‘conditioning’, ‘reinforcement’ etc.), if taken seriously, cannot be shown to have any relevance to the acquisition and the use of language. 7/20/2014 1415. INFLUENCE OF GENERATIVISM ON LINGUISTICS AND OTHER DISCIPLINES n Generativism has been enormously influential, not only in linguistics, but also in philosophy, psychology and other disciplines concerned with language. n Influence of Chomskyan generativism upon all modern linguistics theory has been so deep and so pervasive that even those who reject this or that aspects of it tend to do so in terms that Chomsky has made available to them.

Beginning in the 1950s, Noam Chomsky and his followers challenged previous assumptions about language structure and language learning, taking the position that language is creative (not memorized), and rule governed (not based on habit), and that universal phenomena of the human mind underlie all language. This "Chomskian revolution" initially gave rise to eclecticism in teaching, but it has more recently led to two main branches of teaching approaches: the humanistic approaches based on the charismatic teaching of one person, and content-based communicative approaches, which try to incorporate what has been learned in recent years about the need for active learner participation, about appropriate language input, and about communication as a human activity. Most recently, there has been also a significant shift toward greater attention to reading and writing as a complement of listening and speaking, based on a new awareness of significant differences between spoken and written languages, and on the notion that dealing with language involves an interaction between the text on the one hand, and the culturally-based world knowledge and experientially-based learning of the receiver on the other.

There have been developments such as a great emphasis on individualized instruction, more humanistic approaches to language learning, a greater focus on the learner, and greater emphasis on development of communicative, as opposed to merely linguistic, competence. Opposed to Structuralism we have Generativism with its founder Noam Chomsky who tackles the study of language from a formal perspective contrasting any other linguistic trend that priveleges empirical data inductively. He is inspired by models which are, on the one hand, mathematical and, on the other psychological, considering language as a chiefly innate faculty with its autonomous organisations which must be studied according to strictly deductive methods. The generative theory has, however, in almost 40 years, undergone to continuous change of results and a significative re-orientation which have slowly changed its order and main categories: from the "standard “ theory at the end of the years “ 60 – 70 “ to the so-called theory of “ Principles and Parameters “.

Chomsky’s antipathy to rhetoric, exemplified by his statement that “the best rhetoric is the least rhetoric,” as symptomatic of a wider condition in linguistics, namely a reluctance to consider linguistic discourse as an object of self-reflexive scrutiny. Chomsky’s work is shaped by a continual flight from rhetoric and reflexivity, by the desire to arrive at a language-independent explanation of language. This denial of rhetoric proceeds in large part through adoption of a distinctively “ocularcentric” rhetoric that privileges transparency and immediacy, and effaces the linguistic and rhetorical dimensions of knowledge production. He considers what a more reflexive, rhetorically self-conscious linguistics might look like. He provides three examples of emerging research in linguistics that are rhetorically self-conscious and attend to the figurative, suasive and formative aspects of disciplinary discourse. His theory considers “strong” and

“light” forms of rhetorical self-consciousness, and describes the possible implications.

transformational-generative grammartransformational-generative grammar, linguistic theory associated with Noam Chomsky, particularly with his Syntactic Structures (1957), and with Chomsky's teacher Zellig Harris. Generative grammar attempts to define rules that can generate the infinite number of grammatical (well-formed) sentences possible in a language. It starts not from a behaviorist analysis of minimal sounds but from a rationalist assumption that a deep structure underlies a language, and that a similar deep structure underlies all languages. Transformational grammar seeks to identify rules (transformations) that govern relations between parts of a sentence, on the assumption that beneath such aspects as word order a fundamental structure exists. Transformational and generative grammar together were the starting point for the tremendous growth in linguistics studies since the 1950s.

In the 1950s the school of linguistic thought known as transformational-generative grammar received wide acclaim through the works of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky postulated a syntactic base of language (called deep structure), which consists of a series of phrase-structure rewrite rules, i.e., a series of (possibly universal) rules that generates the underlying phrase-structure of a sentence, and a series of rules (called transformations) that act upon the phrase-structure to form more complex sentences. The end result of a transformational-generative grammar is a surface structure that, after the addition of words and pronunciations, is identical to an actual sentence of a language. All languages have the same deep structure, but they differ from each other in surface structure because of the application of different rules for transformations, pronunciation, and word insertion. Another important distinction made in transformational-generative grammar is the difference between language competence (the subconscious control of a linguistic system) and language performance (the speaker's actual use of language). Although the first work done in transformational-generative grammar was syntactic, later studies have applied the theory to the phonological and semantic components of language.

Transformational grammar, also called Transformational-generative Grammar, 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 (some of which are called transformations) 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. Thus, “I know a man who flies planes” can be considered the surface form of a deep structure approximately like “I know a man. The man flies airplanes.” 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 most widely discussed theory of transformational grammar was proposed by U.S. linguist Noam Chomsky in 1957. His work contradicted earlier tenets of structuralism by rejecting the notion that every language is unique. The use of transformational grammar in language analysis assumes a certain number of formal and substantive universals.

TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE GRAMMAR, short form TG. In theoretical LINGUISTICS, a type of generative grammar first advocated by Noam CHOMSKY in Syntactic Structures (1957). Since then, there have been many changes in the descriptive apparatus of TG. Common to all versions is the view that some rules are transformational: that is, they change one structure into another according to such prescribed conventions as moving, inserting, deleting, and replacing items. From an early stage of its history, TG has stipulated two levels of syntactic structure: deep structure (an abstract underlying structure that incorporates all the syntactic information required for the interpretation of a given sentence) and surface structure (a structure that incorporates all the syntactic features of a sentence required to convert the sentence into a spoken or written version). Transformations link deep with surface structure. A typical transformation is the rule for forming questions, which requires that the normal subject—verb order is inverted so that the surface structure of Can I see you later? differs in order of elements from that of I can see you later. The theory postulates that the two sentences have the same order in deep structure, but the question transformation changes the order to that in surface structure. Sentences that are syntactically ambiguous have the same surface structures but different deep structures: for example, the sentence Visiting relatives can be a nuisance is ambiguous in that the subject Visiting relatives may correspond to To visit relatives or to Relatives that visit. The ambiguity is dissolved if the modal verb can is omitted, since the clausal subject requires a singular verb (Visiting relatives is a nuisance), whereas the phrasal subject requires the plural (Visiting relatives are a nuisance).

Writing is more explicit than speech. But this is not absolute. Explicitness inwring is relative. A writer can state something explicitly or infer it dependingon many variables.Contextualization It refers to the extent knowledge of context is needed to interpret a text.View:Writing is more de-contextualized than speech: Speech is more attached tocontext than writing because speech depends on a shared situation and background for interpretation.SpontaneityView:a.Spoken discourse lacks organization and it is spontaneous, whereaswritten discourse is organized and less spontaneous. b.Spoken discourse contains more uncompleted and reformulatedsentences.c.Topics can be changed.d.Speakers may interrupt and overlape.Spoken discourse is faster.f.Spoken discourse is less planned.Repetition, Hesitation, and RedundancyView: a.

Spoken discourse contains more repetition, hesitations, andredundancy because it is produced inreal time(i.e. on thespot). b.Spoken discourse has many pauses and fillers, such as ‘hhh’,‘er’ ‘hmmm’ and ‘you know’.The following list of dissimilarities between written and spokendiscourse applies primarily to EnglishSPOKEN DISCOURSEWRITTEN DISCOURSE1. relatively limitedvocabulary1. vocabulary maximally varied2. innovative use of words --new words and new senses of old words (especially slang)2. use of older words -- occasionally, wordsno longer used in spoken language3. much hedging (speaking ingeneral terms)3. avoidance of hedging (writing isdefinitive)4. abundance of referentialinexplicitness (using "that" or "those" rather than morespecifically identifying things)4. no inexplicit references (specificreferences to things)5. wide use of colloquialisms5. little, if any, use of colloquialisms6. abundance of contractions6. no contractions, except in quotedconversation (NB: I disagree with this;authors often use contractions nowadays in both fiction and nonfiction. ~ Tonya)

7. sequences of coordinatedclauses7. use of interclausal relations and devicesmeant to expand intonation units (in writtendiscourse, this refers to sentences) -- e.g., *nominalizations (noun phrases) prepositional phrasesattributive adjectives participles8. short intonation units(typically, not longer than 8syllables); no utterance preplanning8. longer intonation units (mean length = 24words); planned sentences9. much ego involvement9. little ego involvement10. little coherence (speakersoften go off-topic in mid-conversation)10. maximal coherence(sentences/paragraphs must logically relateto each other)ConclusionIn discourse analysis a distinction is often made between spoken and writtendiscourse. Although there are typical differences between the two, there isalso a considerable overlap and a frequent mixture, which has beenaccelerated by new technology. Analysis of both modes encounters the problem of representing relevant context, but this problem is especially acutein the analysis and transcription of spoken discourse. At present, opinion onthe differences between written and spoken discourse is often speculative.