16 INTRODUCTION: KEY BASIC CONCEPTS The phrase constituent is defined by its head, so an NP is defined by the main head- word or noun within it: here in the last example, the noun is ‘cakes’. Put another way, for a phrase to be an NP, it must contain a noun as its head. There might be other words also in the NP, but the noun is the essential one. In my last example here, the NP also has two pre-modifiers, which are first a deter- miner ‘the’ and second an adjectival phrase ‘beautifully decorated’. In many sentences, an NP can consist of only a single noun: the sentence could make sense as ‘cakes fit with no difficulty . . .’, but not as ‘the beautifully decorated fit with no difficulty’ (unless you reinterpret ‘beautifully decorated’ as a noun, which isn’t the same sentence at all). The noun in an NP could also be followed by a post-modifier or qualifier (‘the cakes altogether fit . . .’). All the elements apart from the noun are optional, though, so nota- tionally, we can formulate this as NP → (det) (mod) N (qual) This means: a noun phrase is constituted by an essential noun as its head, with an optional determiner (such as ‘the’, ‘a some’, ‘this’), and an optional modifier (such as an adjective), and an optional qualifier (another adjective). In our example NP above, we have (det) (mod) N. The verb phrase (VP) in our example consists only of a verb, ‘fit’. Again, a V is the essential head in a VP, which can also have an optional auxiliary preceding it (‘have stolen’, ‘was caught’, ‘might have been running’), and an optional completor follow- ing it (as in the phrasal verbs ‘run up’, ‘cast off’, ‘look after’, ‘rabbiting on’). So, VP → (aux) V (compl) The adverbial phrase (AdvP) in the example is ‘with no difficulty’. This is an adverb because it modifies the verb (‘fit’), or describes the manner in which the verb is acted out. Notice that on the surface it looks very like the prepositional phrase (PrepP) that follows it: ‘into boxes . . .’. This is because both the AdvP and the PrepP in this sentence are constituted by a preposition (‘with’, ‘into’) followed by another NP. In the AdvP, the embedded NP is constituted by a pre-modifying adjective (‘no’) and a noun (‘difficulty’), and in the PrepP, the embedded NP is constituted by three further NPs, each constituted either by a single noun (‘boxes’, ‘cartons’) or a pre- modified noun in an NP (‘little papercups’), connected by the conjunction ‘and’. The most common AdvP form consists simply of a lexical adverb – a single word derived from an adjective by ending in ‘-ly’ (‘quickly’, ‘enthusiastically’, ‘exuberantly’). But ‘tomorrow’, ‘fast’ and ‘seldom’ are also adverbs. The first NP contains an adjectival phrase (AdjP) ‘beautifully decorated’, which is constituted by a modifying adjective (‘beautifully’) and the head adjective ‘decor- ated’. Notice that this phrase is derived from a past participle and an adverb, but in the example sentence it functions grammatically as an adjective (it has been rank-shifted there: see B4). The last NP in the sentence (‘little papercups’) also contains an AdjP, which this time consists only of an adjective ‘little’. Recursion and dependency The PrepP at the end actually consists of three prepositional phrases: ‘into boxes and (into) cartons and (into) little papercups’. The two last prepositions are omitted because GRAMMATICAL PARTS 17 the whole combined phrase is governed by the first preposition ‘into’. This can be argued to show recursion: a PrepP can contain another example of itself, and that PrepP can contain another example of itself, and so on. The same recursive capacity applies to the other phrases too. In fact, overall in the structure of a sentence (S), though we can say that at the most abstract level a sentence can be constituted by noun phrase and a verb phrase (S → NP + VP), the VP can be constituted by another VP + S. For example, in ‘He said that we must go’, the NP is realised by the noun ‘He’, but the VP is realised by a V + S: ‘said’, with a complementiser ‘that’, and then another S (‘we must go’), consisting of an NP ‘we’ and a VP as an auxiliary ‘must’ and a V ‘go’. Recursion allows in principle an infinite and everlasting number of novel utterances – even within the bounds of communicative practice, this sort of grammatical embedding allows a very large number of possible utterances. You simply have to imagine a sentence that starts ‘A did B, which did C, which did D, which . . .’ and so on. The material in the VP that follows the ‘which’ begins another recursive S all over again. The constraint maintained by the systematic constituency is also provided by depend- ency. The grammatical form of phrases is dependent on other nearby phrases. The government of the two final noun phrases (‘and cartons and little papercups’) by the PrepP (‘into boxes . . .’) is a type of dependency. The agreement of NPs and VPs that relate to each other is another type of dependency: the plural NP ‘the beautifully decorated cakes’ requires a zero-inflected verb-ending on ‘fit’ (that is, not ‘fits’ nor ‘fitting’ nor ‘fitted’). Furthermore, there is a semantic dependency between this subject and this verb, since ‘fit’ requires a subject that is fittable, and ‘cakes’ requires a verb that matches the concept too. Agreement (also called concord) includes matching the appropriate forms for person, number, gender, tense and case. To illustrate the constituency, dependency and recursion of the example sentence, we can draw a tree-diagram to show the systematic nature of grammar (see overleaf ). The upper part of the diagram illustrates the systemic constituent structure very clearly. The right-hand side of the diagram shows the complex embedding of the over- all VP, with recurring structures. (Different grammars would draw the diagram a bit differently, and with variable terminology, but the basic constituency structure shown here would be common to most approaches). You can see how the other example sentences given above would also fit into this same tree-diagram: The well-formed clauses combine in proper ways in sentences and texts and extended discourse. An especially fat man arrives in good time before me and you and almost everyone. Some semi-skimmed milk pours without a splash into flour and eggs and the fruity mixture. A nineteenth-century traveller moved at top speed by horses and carriages and steam trains. So far in this unit, we have outlined the phrasal categories defined by their headwords: Noun Phrases Verb Phrases Adverbial Phrases Prepositional Phrases Adjectival Phrases 18 INTRODUCTION: KEY BASIC CONCEPTS At the bottom of the tree-diagram, each word at the surface of the sentence is labelled in terms of its lexical category (the traditional ‘parts of speech’): nouns determiners adjectives (pre-modifiers and qualifiers) verbs auxiliaries completors adverbs prepositions conjunctions and particles (‘and’, ‘but’, ‘or’, ‘not’, and so on). This simple, hierarchical set of categories can account for every possible well-formed example of an English sentence. The adaptability of grammar It could be argued that there is a fourth general property of grammar alongside con- stituency, dependency and recursion: this is contingency or adaptation. Since different dialectal speakers of a language can speak to each other, and since a language changes over time, it is clear from these two sorts of evidence that, whatever the interiorised rules of grammar are, they cannot be absolutely fixed. the beautifully decorated cakes fit with no difficulty into boxes and cartons and little papercups noun noun NP adj AdjP (prep) NP(prep) NP (conj) PrepP PrepP PrepP VP VP S NP NP det V AdvP PrepPNPNPAdjP prep (conj) PrepPprep Nadj nounnounadj mod Figure A4.1 A syntactic tree diagram TEXT AND DISCOURSE 19 Innovations and evolution in grammar are handled by individuals on the basis that the normative and expected syntax, vocabulary and morphology are flexible within broad limits. People have no difficulty producing and understanding utterances without verb phrases (‘Queues likely’, ‘No jeans’), or without noun phrases (‘Slow’, ‘Go now’), or with nouns (‘knife’, ‘access’, ‘host’) used as verbs (‘to knife’, ‘to access’, ‘to host’), and other reversals and shifts. It seems odd to assume that these fragmen- tary variations in usage are merely incomplete or unrealised versions of properly formed grammatical sentences. Much more likely is the notion that grammar is treated as a set of the best rules that apply for the task in hand, but they are always provisional, adaptable, and contingent on change. The field of syntax is probably the most hotly and vehemently debated area in modern linguistics. In this unit, we have presented the closest we can get to a broad consensus, but almost every syntactician will want to argue with some, most or all of the concepts we have set out here. TEXT AND DISCOURSE In language and linguistics study it is established practice for the term text to be defined as a continuous stretch of written or spoken language. While you may be more familiar with thinking of a text as an object that is written down, text should be viewed as inclusive of both written and spoken forms of language. In its broadest sense, the discipline of Discourse Analysis refers to the production of analyses of written and spoken texts. However, discourse is a complex term and it has been defined in a range of ways across different academic disciplines. The most important, defining characteristic for discourse in language and linguistics is conceptualising it as language above the level of the sentence. While graphemes, phonemes, morphemes and lexemes are the build- ing blocks of language, discourse operates beyond these levels. Discourse analysis has much in common with pragmatics, as mentioned in A3. Both of these sub-disciplines are concerned with a focus on context, along with the specific functions fulfilled by language as it is used by speakers in real-world settings. Pragmatics also focuses on discourse as language beyond the level of the sentence. The main difference between pragmatics and discourse analysis is that, whereas pragmatics focuses upon the importance of principles governing language usage, discourse analysis instead focuses upon producing examinations of the structure of the text itself. However, there are still a number of points of crossover between the two areas. Some of the terminological categories and distinctions that are used in pragmatics are of key importance in discourse analysis and vice versa. English language and linguistics researchers often combine aspects of discourse analysis with pragmatics, and the manner in which this combined focus can be conducted will be illustrated at various points during this strand. Coming back to the importance of context, one crucial distinction which is made in discourse analysis studies is between co-text, the context surrounding the text itself, sometimes referred to as the linguistic context, and the context outside the text, A5 20 INTRODUCTION: KEY BASIC CONCEPTS sometimes referred to as the physical context – the setting where the discourse takes place. In addition, context in this broader sense can also refer to the assumed back- ground knowledge that exists between speakers or, in the case of written texts, between author and reader. As we have seen in A3 (and B3–D3), context plays a crucial role in determining meaning in interaction. It plays an equally significant role in determining the structure of discourse. That said, individual discourse analysts will draw upon the importance of con- text to differing degrees, depending upon which particular sub-discipline of discourse analysis they follow (see below). It is important to realise at this stage that ‘discourse analysis’ is a very broad category – there are a number of sub-disciplinary paradigms which take differing approaches to analysing texts and context. Cohesion and coherence In order to produce a thorough analysis of the co-text of a spoken or written text there are two key categories that can be drawn upon, known as cohesion and coherence. We will focus on cohesion first of all and then move on to consider coherence. Cohesion refers to the parts of the language system which tie sentences and clauses together. Cohesion provides discourse with its structure. Some of the linguistic fea- tures which are incorporated within the category of cohesion will be familiar to you already as they are also a part of semantics and pragmatics: prime examples of cohe- sion include sense relations and referring expressions as illustrated in B2 and A3, along with deixis, which we also came across in A3. There are a range of other categories which create cohesion, including repetition, substitution and ellipsis. Repetition is when the same word or phrase is directly repeated within a text. Substitution refers to situations where one word is substituted for another in order to avoid direct repetition. The term ellipsis refers to when material has been missed out as it is not essential for the meaning of the text to be conveyed – hearers/ readers will be able to work out the textual meaning from the surrounding discourse. The following example of a short extract taken from a transcript of spoken lan- guage will illustrate these features of cohesion. The (physical) context will also be detailed for background information. The extract below contains symbols known as transcription conventions. These conventions are fully defined in B12, along with a discussion on the importance of transcription for the linguistic study of interaction. Two female friends are talking over coffee . Context : the conversation takes place in Jill’s living room . The speakers have known each other for 21 years and meet regularly in each other’s houses . They are the only two participants present and are sitting next to each other on the sofa . They are talking on the topic of Jill’s niece, who has just given birth to her fourth child . 1 Jill: she was eight pounds seven ounces so she was quite big= 2 Sue: =is that the biggest baby she’s had? 3 Jill: yeah all the others were like seven an six so each one’s 4 Jill: [got bigger] 5 Sue: [oh right ] got bigger= 6 Jill: =she said ‘I’m not having any more’ ((laughs)) 7 Sue: I was gonna say got to stop ((laughs)) TEXT AND DISCOURSE 21 In line 1 there is repetition of ‘she’, operating as a referring expression to the baby. The other two repetitions of ‘she’ (lines 2 and 6) have a different referent, this time to the baby’s mother, Jill’s niece. In line 5 there is more repetition as Jill repeats ‘got bigger’. In addition to adding to the cohesion of the conversation, this echoing is also a classic example of supportive, collaborative talk. This will be discussed further in B5. In line 3 there is an example of substitution, with ‘one’ being used instead of ‘baby’. There are many examples of deixis here too: ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘she’, ‘that’, and other referring expressions: ‘the biggest baby’. Additionally, there are many illustrations of ellipsis, in line 2 ‘is that [baby] the biggest baby’, in line 3 ‘seven an six’ [ounces], at the end of line 6 in the reported speech, ‘ “I’m not having any more” [babies]’ and in line 7, ‘I was gonna say’ [she has] ‘got to stop’ [having babies]. It is worth commenting on the shift from speech to writing created by the pro- duction of a transcript here. The transcription process has transformed what was originally a stretch of spoken language into a stretch of written language. The written transcription has been created by one of this book’s authors from listening several times to an audiorecording of the above conversation. In order to conduct discourse analysis properly and successfully the process of transcription is absolutely crucial for language and linguistics study. It is simply impossible to pick up the finer details of spoken discourse just by listening to an audio recording or watching a video, even if you do this many times. In addition to listening and watching on multiple occasions you also need to produce a written text as a fixed record of the spoken discourse that takes place. The process of transcription for discourse analysis studies is discussed further in C5. The importance of the process of the production of written transcription for spoken data analysis more generally is considered in B12. Coming back to cohesion, other important terminological distinctions when analysing textual cohesion are anaphora: words which refer to preceding text and cataphora: words which refer to something in the following text. Both of these terms are contained within the overarching category of endophora, defined simply as when linguistic items refer to other linguistic items within the same text. To illustrate anaphora and cataphora here are two examples taken from a busi- ness meeting interaction. In the first example, proper noun ‘Colin’ is then followed by ‘he’ and ‘him’, giving anaphoric reference: 1 Joan: but it’s up to Colin if he doesn’t do it= 2 Steve: =have you sent him a gentle reminder? In the second example, we have this the opposite way round, with the pronoun ‘he’ linking forward to proper noun ‘Steve’: 1 Julie: does he know that it’s here? 2 Rob: Steve knows that it’s the meeting room yeah In contrast to endophoric reference, exophoric reference is defined as referring outside of the text, so not as part of the co-text but instead as a part of the broader, external context. We will leave business meetings behind and go back to our two female speakers to illustrate exophoric reference: . for discourse in language and linguistics is conceptualising it as language above the level of the sentence. While graphemes, phonemes, morphemes and lexemes are the build- ing blocks of language, discourse. this is contingency or adaptation. Since different dialectal speakers of a language can speak to each other, and since a language changes over time, it is clear from these two sorts of evidence. here. TEXT AND DISCOURSE In language and linguistics study it is established practice for the term text to be defined as a continuous stretch of written or spoken language. While you may be more