CC BY
36
Section 2. Applied and mathematical linguistics
5. Angel Marfa de Lera Las ultimas banderas. Barcelona, Espana, Editorial Planeta, S. A., Corcega 1967, -407 p.
6. Cela C.J. La colmena. — Madrid: Edicion de Jorge Urrita 1951, Edicion Cadedrales S. A. 1955., Catedra Letras Hispanicas. - 1980. - 335 p.
7. Juan Goytisolo Reivindicacion Del Conde Don Julian. Letras Hispanicas. Segunda Edicion ed. Madrid: Catedra, 1995. 306 p.
8. Spanish-Russian Dictionary of Phrase and Idioms/E. I. Levintova. - M.: Russian language, 1985. - P. 1080.
Dr. Gjata Suzana Samarxhiu, Lecturer at University “Moisiu Aleksander",
Durres, Albania.
Faculty of education, Department of Foreign Languages
E-mail: [email protected]
The structure of coordinate construction in English and Albanian
Abstract: The main aim of this article is to analyze the structure of coordinate construction in English and Albanian. Contrasting these structures in two different languages is a very important approach because it highlights the similarities and differences in two different languages which genetically are not the same. Based on my experience in teaching English as a second language, students find learning a second language easier if it is compared with their mother tongue.
Coordination is a device used in a language to take two elements together to form a single element. In both languages, the equality of the coordinates is reflected in the fact that they usually either of them can stand alone in place of the whole coordination. In contrast to the subordination, where the elements are of unequal status and one element is head, the other is dependent; the coordinate is of equal status that functions of head.
Keywords: coordination, non-hierarchical, coordinate, coordinator, grammar, contrast.
Introduction
Many authors have conducted several studies regarding coordination, which is a non-hierarchical connection in language. Most of them dispute on the difference between coordination as a non-hierarchical connection and subordination as a hierarchical one. Both types of connection have been examined on sentence level. However our main aim is to focus on coordination as non-hierarchical connection.
When you say or write something, you often want to put together two or more clauses, nouns phrases, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, or other word groups. For example:
1. John and Katelyn are friends. [NP]
Xhon dhe Kejtlin jane shokä.
2. They arrived on Tuesday or Wednesday. [adverbial]
Ata mberritän tä martän ose te märkuren.
3. They arrived on Tuesday or they arrived on Wednesday. [clause]
Ata mbärritän tä martän ose ata mbärritän tä märkurän.
A coordinate is a syntactic constituent consisting of two or more units and its category is identical to that of at least one of the conjuncts. Generally, there is an element to link the conjuncts. Such an element is called a coordinator, which is further classified as a conjunctive (and), disjunctive (or) and adversative coordinator (but) [1, 9].
The structure of coordination
As mentioned above, coordination is a relation between two or more elements of syntactically equal status. From a semantic point of view a coordinator expresses the relation between the coordinates, but syntactically it belongs to the coordinate that follows it, they form a constituent together [2,
10
The structure of coordinate construction in English and Albanian
1276].
In English and Albanian languages, coordinates can reverse their order without significant effect on their structure or meaning.
In the simplest cases, the order of the bare coordinates is free, so that we can change the order without discernible effect on interpretation or acceptability. However there are other cases, when the coordination is irreversible, so that changing the order of the bare coordinates leads to a different interpretation or to loss of acceptability.
1. She felt ill and went to bed.
Ajo u ndie e semure dhe shkoi пё shtrat.
irreversible
2. She went to bed and felt ill.
Ajo shkoi пё shtrat dhe u ndie e sёmurё.
Apart from this we may say that the examples above contain two coordinates and one coordinator, but there are also other possibilities, exactly multiple coordination.
I want to go [to Paris, to London, to Berlin.]
Unö dua tö shkoj [nö Paris, nö Londör, nö Berlin.]
Uses of coordinators
The major coordinators are: and, or, but. They can function as utterance or turn-initial links in speech. In this case, coordinators are very close in function to linking adverbials like however. In English and Albanian languages, these coordinators are not equally common, and is much more common than or or but. Actually and is most common in academic and fiction writing. The other major coordinators but, and, or follow very different patterns: but occurs most often in conversation, whereas or often occurs in academic writing. The registers also differ in the ways they use coordinators. Speakers in conversation are most likely to use and as a clause-level link. But is more frequent in conversation than the written registers, because people tend to highlight the contrast and contradiction in dialog.
The coordinator may be used only to link two elements or it can be used to indicate relationship between them [3, 327]. These uses can be explained in the following examples.
1. To indicate that two actions happened at the same time, we use and.
I sat and watched him.
UЫ u ula dhe e pashё ate.
2. To mention two related facts, we use and.
He has been a talented actor and has worked a
lot.
Ai ka qe^ aktor i talentuar dhe ka punuar shumё.
3. To describe events, we use and.
She was born in Tirana and was raised in Durres.
Ajo ka lindur ^ Tira^ dhe ёshtё rritur ^ Durns.
4. To link two negative clauses we may use and.
When this appointment ceased, he did not
return to his home country and has not been there since 1979.
However we can use or when the clauses have the same subject and the same auxiliaries. In the second sentence we omit the subject, the auxiliaries and not. For example, she doesn't drink or smoke instead of saying she doesn't drink and she doesn't smoke.
5. To add a contrasting fact, we use but.
I’m 50 but I feel 30.
Jam 50por ndihem 30.
6. To mention two alternatives, we use or.
Do you like coffee or tea?
Pelqen kafen apo cajin?
Huddleston [4, 1277] states that that coordinator forms a syntactic constituent with the coordinate that follows: He sustains his approach on three different facts:
a. Variable position of second coordinate
They allowed the others but not me a second chance.
Ata i dham tё tjenve, por jo mua njё mundёsi tё dytё.
They allowed the others as a second chance but not me.
Ata i dhane tё tjenve njё mundёsi tё dytё por jo mua.
In both languages, in the first and second sentence the coordinator is located next to its coordinate, but what varies in these examples is the position of but
not me.
b. Sentence initial and, or, but
There is a well-known prescription prohibiting the use of coordination at the beginning of the clause. Nevertheless, coordination often occurs in this position. In both languages, such position of the coordinators is used at the beginning of a turn in conversation. However it is relatively common in writing [5, 229].
c. Prosody and punctuation
11
Section 2. Applied and mathematical linguistics
The natural intonation break is before the coordinator and not after it. This is particular clear in polysyndetic and correlative coordination.
In order to add greater clarity and precision to coordination, correlative coordinators are used.
She was so tired that she went immediately to
bed.
Ajo ishte aq e lodhur sa shkoi menjehere ne shtrat. Conclusion
On the whole, we may say that coordination plays a crucial role in language. Coordination is used to combine elements. In both languages coordination
elements are sometimes irreversible and sometimes not. If we reverse the elements the meaning of the clause is lost. The major coordinators are: and, or, hut. Based on our study, the most common coordinator is and. The coordinator may be used only to link two elements or it can be used to indicate relationship between them such as: to indicate that two actions happened at the same time; to mention two related facts; to describe events; to link two negative clauses; to add a contrasting fact; to mention two alternatives, etc.
References:
1. Zhang, Coordination in Syntax. Cambridge University Press, 2009. P. 9.
2. Huddleston R., Pullum G., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. 2002. P. 1276.
3. Cobuild C., English Grammar. Collins Publisher: The University of Birmingham, 1990. P. 327.
4. Huddleston R., Pullum G., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. 2002. P. 1277.
5. Biber D., ConradL., Leech G., Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education, 2002. P. 229.
Cipriani Enrico,
University of Turin (IT) - Department of Philosophy
PhD Student E-mail: [email protected]
The generative grammar between philosophy and science
Abstract: Chomskian UG hypothesis has been criticized from several points of view. In this paper, I will focus on some philosophical objections which have been advanced against the MIT linguist, and I will show that Chomsky’s answers are adequate only for some of them. Furthermore, I will discuss about the epistemological status of Chomsky’s assumptions and conceptions, and I will conclude that it is again unclear if generative grammar is a philosophical or an empirical theory.
Keywords: UG hypothesis — Epistemology of linguistics — Psychological reality of grammar — Common notions vs. scientific notions
Criticisms against Chomsky
Chomsky’s hypothesis of Universal Grammar (UG) is one ofthe most discussed topic in philosophy of language and linguistics. Such hypothesis, formulated by Chomsky since the beginning of his activity [2-4], supports the idea that all languages share syntactic rules which are innate in human beings and which can be described by recursion theory (developed by Turing and Church in thirties) and combinatorial rules [35]. Furthermore, Chomsky argues that such principles are innate, and that the syntactic structures postulated to describe
them are psychological real, in the sense that they correspond to internal principle of human mind [7]. Consequently, Chomsky thinks that linguistics is part of psychology [11; 22]. As Antinucci [1] pointed out, two different approaches characterizes Chomsky’s work: on the one hand, Chomsky, at least in his first works, was interesting in the analysis of language as a mathematical object; on the other hand, he has always supported the idea that, being the language a biological object, mathematical and logical structures to describe it refer directly to mental principles; however, not all the scholars
12
