理论语言学考试资料

TG-grammar and SF-grammar

Firstly: Halliday interpreters language from a functional point of view and formulates a functional theory of language while TG-grammar defined language as a set of rules and principles. Secondly: Halliday takes actual uses of language as the object of study, in opposition to Chomsky‟s TG grammar that takes the ideal speaker‟s linguistic competence as the object of study.

Thirdly: the two grammars view language learning differently. Halliday follows the experimental language learning while Chomsky put an emphasis on the rational language learning. Fourthly: the two grammars have different views on the characteristics of the study.

SF-grammar chiefly describes three metafunctions. Each of the metafunctions is a complex system.Consisting of other systems and choices are simultaneously made from the three functions. According to Chomsky, the study of language or the structure of language, can throw some light on the nature of the human mind. Chomsky follows phrases and structural rules in language study. Finally: Chomsky holds that while structuralist grammarian. IC analysis can reveal some of the structural features. It is seriously defective. There is still semantic ambiguity while TG method can not only describe the surface structure a sentence, but also interpret the internal grammatical relationships within a sentence, getting closer to the truth of language.

While SF-grammar has to serve many more social functions, therefore, Halliday has to refer to categories of his experience of the world. They pay much attention to contextual meaning.

Structural grammar vs TG grammar

Firstly, structural grammar and TG grammar have different views on the natures of language. Bloomfield defined language as a set of utterance and a set of “lexical and grammatical habits”, while Chomsky defines language as a set of rules and principles. Secondly, the two grammars have different aims in linguistics. For structural grammar, the aim of linguistics is often evaluated in terms of the use to which it is going to be put. For C h omsky, the aim of linguistics is to produce a generative grammar which captures the tacit knowledge of the native speaker of his language. This concerns the question of learning theory and the question of linguistic universal. Thirdly, the two grammars make use of different types of data in their analysis. The structuralists only make use of naturally occurring utterances observable and observed. Chomsky and his followers are interested in any data that can reveal the native speaker‟s tacit knowledge. Fourthly, the two grammars employ different methods. The structuralists‟methodology is essentially inductive, whereas Chomsky‟s is hypothesis-deductive. Finally, the two grammars view language learning differently. The structuralists follow empiricism in philosophy and behaviorism in psychology. Chomsky follows rationalism in philosophy and mentalism in psychology.

Modern linguistics vs Traditional grammar

Firstly, modern linguistics is descriptive, while the traditional grammar is prescriptive. Secondly, traditional grammar pays more attention to the written form of language, while modern linguistics attaches more importance to speaking than writing. Thirdly, traditional grammar has been restricted mainly to syntax, that is, the way of words making patterns to form sentences, while modern linguistics has a boarder scope for researching, e.g, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, ect, Which, accordingly, are out of scope of traditional grammar.