Chindri Mriuca 2nd Year, MA

Word Order in English and Romanian. A Dynamic Approach

The role of syntax within the context of our daily existence is to make sense of the cluster of linguistic possibilities, which is boundless, and to provide a reasonable and usable framework to allow the investigation of the complex phenomena that is inherent to this field of study. This framework is the keystone to understanding language and the rules that underpin it. The above assertions, while absolutely true, may trigger our apprehension at the thought of needing to be exhaustive. In other words, we might assume that structures exist and are devised for every contingency possible, whereas this apprehension couldnt be further fro m the truth. Noam Chomsky, the American personality who addressed among a plethora of issues that of syntax, lists (in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax) several of the assumptions that underpin the fundament of modern general linguistics. The ideal speaker-listener (Chomsky 3)and the ideal speaker-hearer (5) are automatically assumed, while such barriers as linguistic errors, distractions, mnemonic shortcomings, hesitations, and competences, are promptly dismissed. Concerning the above-mentioned intricacies, Chomsky defines the perfect grammar and posits the traditional problem of descriptive linguistics:
A fully adequate grammar must assign to each of an infinite range of sentences a structural description indicating how this sentence is understood by the ideal speakerhearer. This is the traditional problem of descriptive linguistics, and traditional grammars give a wealth of information concerning structural descriptions of sentences. However, valuable as they obviously are, traditional grammars are deficient in that they leave unexpressed many of the basic regularities of the language with which they are concerned. This fact is particularly clear on the level of syntax, where no traditional or structuralist grammar goes beyond classification of particular examples to the stage of formulation of generative rules on any significant scale. An analysis of the best existing grammars will quickly reveal that this is a defect of principle, not just a matter of empirical detail or logical preciseness. (4 5)

Chindri Mriuca 2nd Year, MA The view expressed above starkly recognizes the limits of traditional grammars and those of syntax, which cannot exceed the classificatory level. This is, of course, common to every language, not just English. Decades ago there prevailed the traditional approach to syntax, which was built mainly on Greek and Latin methods. The traditional method is counterpointed by the modern syntax. Unlike modern syntax, traditional syntax is reproached its melded consideration which was lumped together with other fields of study and the forced and indiscriminate adoption of Greek and Latin stencils. This view is clearly enunciated in the reputed academicians Valeria Guu Romalos work entitled Sintaxa limbii romne. Probleme i interpretri(Romanian Syntax.Issues and Interpretations):
Traditional syntax is reproached, first of all, its logicism and semanticism, the insufficient delimitation between syntax and logic, the incessant use of the semantic element to the detriment (and against) of the expression or form element, as well as its servitude to the paradigm of the classical languages, the indiscriminate application of certain grammatical schemes, which are characteristic to the Latin or Greek language, to languages that are more or less structurally different, regardless of the degree of adequacy of these schemes with respect to the linguistic matter included in the description. (11)

The logical aspect of syntax is a legacy of the traditional way of thinking which has marked the last two millennia since Aristotle's Rhetoric laid down the principles of discursive expression used in public speaking. Logic and rhetoric were palindromic by words, and the same can be argued for logic and syntax. Defining the sentence as a group of words that render a complete thought can be purported to derive from this very equivalence that stems from Aristotle. This rationalization of syntax is recognized to cause losses of possible linguistic flavors. One cannot expect an algorithm to encompass every single contingency, nor can they expect something as oversimplified and artificial as logic to be successfully applied to an organic system such as syntax. 2

Chindri Mriuca 2nd Year, MA To complicate matters further, paralanguage is also a part of the process of communication, and hence a part of the syntactic whole. Including such elements as breaks in the conversational flow, variable intonation, various speech impediments caused by idiosyncrasies of the organs of speech, and many others that may cause deviations from the ideal workings of syntax, paralanguage is just one instance attesting to the organic character of syntax. According to the traditional approach to syntax, one may be inclined to believe that certain languages can share a similar Greek or Latin approach to syntax. While Romanian, for instance, is a Romance language, English is not. This may be a known and self-evident fact to most people who are at least remotely familiar with both cultures and languages; however, notwithstanding this steep chasm, grammarians tend to let themselves become blindsided by the urge to take up this snobbish practice. Eugene Nida, an American linguist, writes about these grammarians and the fallacies they tend to get themselves tangled up in:
Grammarians seem not to have considered that it is just as important to recognize significant normal order as some particularly strange order with special connotative value. Often the subject of word order is not discussed except in connection with some construction which exhibits an interesting modification from the norm. There are of course few grammarians who do not recognize the fact that word order is significant in English, but as yet the systematic treatment of word order has not become a part of their methodology of presentation of grammatical facts. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the Greek and Latin models from which present grammarians have taken so much of their terminology and methodology do not deal with word order except as a subordinate factor and from a stylistic standpoint. The failure to recognize this significant difference between English and the ancient languages of Greek and Latin and to incorporate this into the methodology of grammatical analysis has greatly impaired the understanding of the larger patterns in English. (A Synopsis of English Syntax 15-16)

In light of the previous mention of Romanian and English syntax in a comparative context, let us consider the following example: I understood her speech perfectly at the conference yesterday. Subject predicate direct object adverb of: manner place time 3

Chindri Mriuca 2nd Year, MA The word order is rather inflexible in an English sentence. The sentence above illustrates part of the sequence of parts of speech in an affirmative sentence. Were we to attempt an inversion, word order would change, but this is used mainly for reasons of emphasis, which can also be achieved by playing on intonation and modulation:[f]eatures of modulation which have syntactic significance are more generally overlooked than any other feature of linguistic analysis. (Nida 16) Assuming that we wanted to lay special emphasis on the temporal adverb, we would have to rephrase our sentence in the following way: It was yesterday that I understood her speech perfectly at the conference. What happens here is that our sentence loses the temporal adverb to the newly introduced simple sentence, the former becoming a subordinate clause introduced by the conjunction that. We could have rephrased the initial sentence also as: Yesterday at the conference I understood her speech perfectly. Nevertheless, the intent of emphasis might appear less evident and our formulation might be construed as a solecism. Had we wanted to focus on the adverb of place instead, the above-mentioned transformation of our sentence into a subordinate clause (typically introduced by that) would be unavoidable. Romanian variants of this sentence are more flexible. Possible formulations are: Am ineles perfect discursulei de ieri de la conferin. Discursul ei de ieri de la conferin l-am ineles perfect. Ieri am ineles perfect discursul ei de ieri de la conferin. Perfect am ineles discursulei de ieri de la conferin.(uttered with some initial emphasis) Word order is obviously different than in English, but there are also several possible ways of arranging the different parts of speech without sounding off or

Chindri Mriuca 2nd Year, MA changing the meaning drastically.This is because word order is not as strict in Romanian as it is English. Syntactic variation is achieved differently in English and Romanian. While modern English has all but lost its inflectional character, Romanian still inherits the Latin richness of inflection. By changing the associations of a certain root, certain particularities are yielded, and the presence of a relation is indicated, such as, for instance, the agreement between a noun and an adjective (the order of which, incidentally, is reversed between English and Romanian). Consider the Romanian construction cntec vesel. The plural form of this construction is cntece vesele. The equivalent singular English construction is merry song, while the plural is merry songs. Here, the noun is inflected for the plural form, similar to the Romanian one, but the adjective does not require inflection, as is the case in Romanian. Inflection is used in other cases as well, in Romanian. For instance, a recognized tendency is that of using both formal and informal vocatives in erudite expressions. Examples include: fato, soro, drguo, fetio, Ioaneo, etc. Differences and similarities are many between the English and Romanian syntax, and there is no foreseeable use in losing ourselves in details. Rather, we may mention one more instance in which there is a conceptual and philosophical difference between the two syntaxes. This difference concerns the way abstract notions and items that are more likely described by quantity, rather than a precise number, are handled. While in Romanian it makes no difference whether we want to use money (and not currency) in its singular or plural form, English is quite clear about using the singular form. The same is said about other singularia tantum or pluralia tantum nouns that can be used in either singular or plural form in Romanian. For example, informally we could say: Am mai cumprat dou fini in Romanian; however, English forces us to think to specify the packaging or

Chindri Mriuca 2nd Year, MA measurable units of the flour considered: I / we bought two more bags / pounds / kilograms / sacks of flour. These are only a few of the arguments in favor of approaching syntax in a particular and dynamic way, paying attention to the idiosyncratic rules and practices of each language. If we disregard the advice to seek out the particularities of each language, and instead attempt to apply a synthetic algorithm, we shall never be anywhere near the appropriate syntactic structures, and always have to bear a linguistic handicap.

Chindri Mriuca 2nd Year, MA

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1965. Manu, Margareta Magda. Limba romn vorbit. Gramatica limbii romne, vol.II: Enunul. Ed. Valeria Guu Romalo. Bucureti: Editura Academiei Romne, 2005. 828 865. Nida, Eugene A. A Synopsis of English Syntax. Diss.Linguistic Series 4. Norman, Oklahoma:Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma,1960. Romalo, Guu Valeria. Sintaxa limbiiromne. Probleme i interpretri. Bucureti: EdituraDidacticiPedagogic, 1965.