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 t of rules and principles.
Secondly: Halliday takes actual us 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.关于科学的书
纸箱制作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 fu
nctions.奇迹暖暖清秀佳人
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 phras and structural rules in language study.
Finally: Chomsky holds that while structuralist grammarian. IC analysis can reveal some of the structural features. It is riously defective. There is still mantic ambiguity while TG method can not only describe the surface structure a ntence, but also interpret the internal grammatical relationships within a ntence, getting clor to the truth of language.
While SF-grammar has to rve 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
基因论Firstly, structural grammar and TG grammar have different views on the natures of language. Bloomfield defined language as a t of utterance and a t of “lexical and grammatical habits”, while Chomsky defines language as a t 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 u to which it is going to be put. For C homsky, 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 u of different types of data in their analysis. The structuralists only make u of naturally occurring utterances obrvable and obrved. 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 esntially 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 ntences, while modern linguistics has a boarder scope for rearching, e.g, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, ect, Which, accordingly, are out of scope of traditional grammar.
Traditional grammar vs Structural grammar
Firstly, traditional grammar is the most widespread and the best understood method of discussing Indo-European language. Secondly, traditional grammar gives a fairly thorough and consistent analysis of the declarative ntence, the most frequently ud in both written and spoken discour. Thirdly, it contains a theory of reference by which the meaning of declarative ntences can be explained and to which other us may be redu
ced. Fourthly, it is the vehicle by means of which ordinary students and scholars have mastered many languages successfully for centuries. As to structural grammar, firstly, structural grammar is descriptive, describing everything that is found in a language instead of laying down rules. Secondly, structural grammar is empirical, aiming at objectivity in the n that all definitions and statements should be verifiable or refutable. Thirdly, structural grammar examines all languages, recognizing and doing justice to the uniqueness of each language. Fourthly, structural grammar describes even the smallest contrasts that underlie any construction or u of a language, not only tho discoverable in some particular u.
分析题：
Important distinction in linguistics （page27~36校园小剧本）
Descripitive vs prescriptive
Synchronic vs diachronic
Langue vs parole
Competence vs performance
Actual and potential linguistic choice
大胸美女漫画Etic vs emic
Formalism vs functionalism
Descriptive vs Prescriptive
This language phenomenon is about/concerned about…
Both descriptive and prescriptive belong to linguistic grammar. The distinction lies in prescribing how things ought to be and describing how things actually are. For example, concerning “it is I” and “it is me”, the prescriptive view is that we should say the former instead of the latter becau according to the rules in Latin “be” should be followed by the nominative ca, not the accusative.
Here, “don’t speak” reprents the prescriptivist, while “you don’t speak” reprents the descriptivist. Becau “don’t speak” is a imperative ntence, we don’t have to place “you” in front of it.
Synchronic vs Diachronic陈佳楠
This language phenomenon is about…
The are two fundamental and indispensable aspects of linguistic study Saussure formalized.
The description of a language at some point of time is a synchronic study. The description of a language as it changes through time is a diachronic study. For example, an essay entitled “on the u of THE”, may be synchronic, if the author do not recall the past of “the”, and it may also be diachronic if he claims to cover a large range of time wherein THE has undergone tremendous alteration.
Here, …….
Langue vs Parole谈生命
This language phenomenon is about…
Both langue and parole are the study from social behavior point of view. Langue refers to the abstract linguistic system shared by all the members of speech community. Parole refers to particular realization of langue. For example, while we finish the dinner, it is very kind of us to say “thanks for your dinner” instead of “that dish is so bad”. The former is langue, and the latter is parole.
