LAPID, Jezelle Irish C. 2008-51494
Linguistics 140 Prof. Viveca Hernandez
The Tagmemics Theory
1.
Introduction
This paper is an attempt to look upon some of the advantages and disadvantages of the Tagmemics Theory, which was proposed by Kenneth L. Pike and greatly contributed by Robert Longacre and the other linguists. What is probably interesting about this theory is that it was said that the grammatical structure of a language may conveniently be analyzed and described by using tagmemes (Elson and Picket, 1962), thus Kissell (2005) referred it to as ³The linguistic theory of everything´. This paper then is composed of two parts: the (1) analysis which consists of the background, and the framework discussed along with its advantages and disadvantages; and (2) conclusion.
2.
Analysis
2.1.
Tagmemics: Backgrou nd
2.1.1.
Backgrou nd
It was in 1948 that Kenneth Lee Pike began the search for a syntactical counterpart to the phonological and morphological terms, phoneme and morpheme--something at the sentence level which could function as a key identifying unit in the same way that these well-established terms functioned (Edwards, 1997). He wanted a theory that was easy to learn and easy to use but complex enough to explain real language (Randall, 2002). What he was looking for was a high-level generalization that 1
could characterize all human language and which would simplify the training of missionaries and Bible translators who would encounter previously unstudied and thus grammatically uncharted languages. The result of Pike's search was the tagmeme and the linguistic system that has come to be known as tagmemics. But what was most interesting about his search was the fact that what started as merely a "language theory" soon evolved into a structural theory that attempts to account for all of man's behavior. Indeed, Pike's seminal work of three volumes is entitled, entitled, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (Edwards, 1997). Pike (1967) introduced this theory in his said book as primarily designed to assist linguists to efficiently extract coherent descriptions out of corpora of fieldwork data. He developed this theory while doing field research and teaching linguistics. The theory is founded upon certain axioms about human behavior and language use that foreground the situatedness of all communication and the necessity of viewing every act of discourse as a form-meaning composite inseparable from communicators, their audiences, and the varied worlds they may construct and inhabit through the use of language (Edwards, 2008). Robert Longacre (1958, 1960) has made several contributions to the development of the model, particularly in the area of grammatical gra mmatical studies (Elson and Picket, 1962). 2.2
Tagmemics Framework a nd its Advantages and Disadvantages
An offshoot of structuralism, tagmemic¶s primary concern is with grammatical. It must be remembered that structuralism ignored functions of a linguistic form and concentrated only on form. Tagmemics, on the other hand, fuses together the form as well as the function of a linguistic entity.
2
In his book Grammar Discovery Rules, Rules, Longacre (1968) mentioned that ³tagmemics attempts to present linguistic patterns in straightforward and summary fashion. Such patterns when carefully described for one language may be compared and contrasted with patterns described for another language. That tagmemics labels linguistic pattern in some fashion is here an advantage: it is difficult to compare things that do not have bear names. Patterns thus described and labeled conform confor m to ³the first significant attribute of a pattern´. Pike¶s grammatical analyses identified linear or syntactical sequences (the "syntagmat ics" or horizontal dimension) and categories of events (the "paradigmatics" vertical dimension). The analysis of ordered communication (which includes just about everything people do) would involve identifying two dimensions of a grid: the syntagmatic sequence of slots or types of events in the sequence and how they might be positioned in relation to one another; and the paradigmatic (as in paradigms) array of classes classes (or objects, subjects, actions or other entities) that could occur in any given syntagmatic slot. This is also known as "slot-class" analysis (Ross, 2010). Another of Pike¶s main claims was that language is deeply hierarchical, in several ways. In tagmemics, all three hierarchies, namely, phonological, grammatical and referential, interlock and operate at the same time, and of course, what could be said of the hierarchy of language could also be said of the hierarchy of behavior. Pike even expanded it further to include other fields such as from quantum physics, he borrowed the notion that any event can be seen from the perspectives of particle (a static view of the unit), wave (a dynamic view), or field (a unit in relation to other units (Kissell, 2005). In this approach, there can be a simultaneous analysis on the utterances at three interpenetrating levels, where each level represents a hierarchy of units. Tagmemics also stresses the 3
hierarchical ordering ordering of grammatical units into ranks of levels -- morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and discourses. Contrary to the Immediate Constituent where the analysis of the structaralists insists just on binary cuts, tagmemics always goes in favor of string constituent analysis, and have many cuts. Tagmemics, unlike a structural analysis asks for the function of the categories and not merely their naming ( http://jilaniwarsi.tripod.com/tag.pdf). 2.2.1
The Tagmeme Defi ned
Tagmeme is a grammatical unit, which is a correlation of a grammatical function or slot with class of mutually substitutable items occurring in that slot (Elson and Picket, 1962). A class is the list of mutually substitutable morphemes and morpheme sequences which may fill a slot. Tagmemes are said to be manifested by the member of the class occurring in the slot in a given act of speech and that they may be parts of constructions at some level in a hierarchy of constructions. The tagmeme is a functional point at which a set of items or sequences occur. The correlativity is so intimate that the function cannot exist apart from the series nor has the set significance apart from the function (Longacre, 1968). There is a distribution on the slot-class correlation within the grammatical hierarchy of a language (Elson and Picket, 1962). In the slots, many substitutions are possible which an advantage is since it would be easier to manifest the member of the class occurring in the slot in a given act of speech, of which a tagmeme does. Tagmemics is hierarchical where grammar is structured in terms of level. Also, tagmemes are conceived as units where they may be parts of constructions at some level in a hierarchy of constructions. Although morphemes generally follow each other, in some sense, in a linear sequence in speech, in tagmemics, they are sometimes simultaneous, as when two morphemes are fused into into the same phonemic stretch, stretch, or when morphemes morphemes of tones or stresses occur. A
4
tagmeme may also be discontinuous (Elson and Picket, 1962) as unlike with structuralism a la Bloomfield, Harris, etc. but more directly with the basic principles of structuralism going back to Saussure¶s lectures, which the tagmeme on the other hand is the correlated class and slot, by which is meant paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations a la Saussure, one that can be taken as a non-generative, taxonomic exercises and a very useful exercise for learning a language and translation (Rocine, 2001). A disadvantage however may be seen in the naming of the grammatical finctions where terms vary from one linguist to another and where traditional terms are used which may not be suitable on a certain language, since each language is different in its own way. However, Elson and Pickett (1962) said that the use of traditional terms has useful mnemonic value, and there is an attempt to use the terms whenever possible. Another possible advantage is that any term can be used to distinguish a filler class as long as you know at what slots they occur. One of Pike¶s major contributions to linguistic theory is his distinction between emic and etic viewpoints. Pike coined the terms from the endings of the words, phonemic and phonetic. The "emic" view is the perspective of the insider, the native, and is concerned with the contrastive, patterned system within a universe of discourse; the "etic" view of a unit is the perspective of the outsider who looks for universals and generalizations. The "emic" view is the view we expect from a participant within a system; the "etic" view is the view we expect of the alien observer. It is an advantage to learning a language that you not only want to study its objective form (³etic´) but also to know the interesting thing as to how language functions for users in real life (³emic´). Tagmeme is described in terms of four features (or ³cells´), those are the (a) slot, where the unit can appear; (b) class, what type of unit it is; (c) role, how the unit functions; and (d) 5
cohesion, how the unit relates to other units. These very same structures both appear on lower and higher levels²as sounds form words, words form sentences, and sentences form discourse, tagmemics is used to describe these larger and larger units. And thus, it is very interesting to realize that if the emic/etic distinction applies to all levels of language, then perhaps a more general principle could explain a great many things too (Kissell, (Kissell, 2005). 2.2.2
Tagmemes and Constructions at Various Levels
A tagmeme may be manifested by a morpheme sequence which in turn is analyzable in terms of tagmemes. Arising in this situation is the significant fact that not all morphemes in a given sequence are equally related to each other, but cluster into groups which in turn cluster into larger groups in hierarchical fashion. A morpheme sequence which fills a grammatical slot (thus manifesting a tagmeme), and which is itself analyzable in terms of constituent tagmemes, is said to be manifesting a construction. Simply put, a construction is a (potential) string of tagmemes whose manifesting sequence of morphemes fills a gra mmatical slot slot (Elson and Picket, P icket, 1962). Tagmemes and constructions of various types are distinguished as being at different levels of the grammatical hierarchy. 2.2.2.1 Tagmemes
and Constructions at the Clause Level
The definition of the traditional term, clause, is stated in terms of construction rather than morpheme sequences. It is considered as a µpredicate-like¶ tagmeme, which may not seem like predicates to the speaker or English. Also, traditional term definitions are sometimes done in cases when they fill a certain grammatical slot (classification or distribution by, or occurrence in a slot). The purpose of the general definition is to allow recognition of at least some clauses in any language, but for each language the specific definition may have to be amplified in a way suited specifically to that language (Els (E lson on and P ickett, 1962). 6
The predicate term used in identifying clause-level tagmemes doesn¶t match the traditional one in English; rather, it is referred only to that part of the clause which is manifested by verbs or their equivalent. This setup can cause misunderstanding had no proper introduction about the use of the term has been given. It is important indeed to notify people of the meaning of the technical and common terms used especially if the use is different from the usual meaning (Elson and Pickett, 1962). A method of describing these constructions is by means of formulas. The presentation of the analysis is done by a formula in the order slot: class, the former being written in capital letter, the latter in small letters. One good thing about this formula setup is that it creates distinction to the different levels being being described since each formula differs differs from one level to another. Also, Also, formulas are easy way to summarize information as it can be quickly read and errors are easily detected (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Here, it manifests as well that tagmemics follow a heuristic approach which works through guess-and-check model. Longacre¶s work on ³Discovery Procedures: Guess-and-check´ works well for the linguistically modest but spiritually noblest of goals: translating the Bible into as many language as possible. It might be thought at first that since it is a guess-and-check model, the conclusions remain guesses. The check method renders a guess as reliable. The checking is bottom-up (Rocine, 2001). There is an inspection in the forms of the language and make guesses at the function of each word or group of words which will be illustrated in the chart the tentative names for the functions and are placed in the forms which fill each slot. Its main target is an analysis of the language (particular language) not on their English translation but as to how the native speakers perceive the language (Elson and Pickett, 1962). 2.2.2.2 Tagmemes
and Constructions at Phrase Level
7
One problem with clause-level slots is that they are only filled by single words, which are limited and quite atypical of normal style in most languages in general, for many clause-level slots are often filled by word combinations. Such combinations are traditionally called as phrases. A phrase is defined as potentially composed of two or words, always in the definition of traditional terms. Its distributional feature is ³typically, but not always, fill slots on the clause level´. In addition to this most typical distribution, phrases may be embedded in other phrases. These instances may cause ambiguity had someone not familiar with it. Distinctions between the two must be clearly analyzed and remembered so as to avoid confusion (Elson and Pickett, 1962). A different symbolization in the formula is also done in this level. This change in symbols is very much a goo d thing to distinguish one level from the ot her. 2.2.2.3 Tagmemes
and Constructions at the Word Level
The word-level distinction is appropriate only in languages where there are affixes; unlike in languages where every word is a single morpheme there would be no need to distinguish this level (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Tagmemics didn¶t abandon the Bloomfieldian definition of the word as a ³minimum free form´. This definition assumes that in every language there are phoneme sequences that the native speaker will pronounce in isolation and that cannot be broken down further. However, phonological junctures between these isolable forms are not assumed therein. This word definition is so convenient and that it would be unwise to abandon it, even though there are problems with its application in many languages (Elson a nd Pickett, 1962). The above definition of the word is applicable to every language. But then, not every language will necessarily have a separate level in the grammatical hierarchy. Word-level 8
constructions are only applicable to words with more than one morpheme (expandable) (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Unlike tagmemes at higher levels, frequently in word-level tagmemes, it is difficult to separate function (indicated by the slot name) and the class meaning of the fillers for classes of affixes (and other small classes composed mainly of single morpeheme members) are apt to have uniform class meaning and function (Elson (E lson and Pickett, 1962). Systems using the same symbol for both slot and class (e.g. t:t and t) have the disadvantage of giving the appearance of no distinction between slot and class. But then, it is not easy to find sufficient different symbols to clearly distinguish the two. A possible solution was carried out in the use of numbers for the classes, modeled after the decade numbering system for affixes originated by Voegelin which was first used in traditional morphological description. In this system, each affix is given a decade number and each morpheme within the class is given a specific number. However, this may also be disadvantageous considering that one must memorize or better say be very familiar with the numbering system as contrary to making everything straight to the point po int (Elson (Elson and P ickett, 1962). 2.2.2.4 Tagmemes
and Constructions Below the Word Level
The necessity to posit a stem level within the grammatical hierarchy happens only when sequences of more than one morpheme fill the nuclear slot of word constructions. Although the term stem is both referred to as either single morphemes (roots, simple stems) or morpheme sequences (derived stems), only the latter relates to situations in which stem constructions (derived stems) are involved (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Stem-level constructions may also be composed of a combination of root and affixes. There are two kinds of affixes namely the derivational affixes, which fill stem-level slots and 9
inflectional affixes, which fill word-level slots. However, distinction between the two cannot be simply defined, to apply to all languages, and the difference is not always clear in a given language. Longacre¶s guess-and-check is frequently applied therefore on the basis of simplicity of description as well as the application of some clues for deciding as to whether an affix is derivational or inflectional (Elson and Pickett, 1 962). The clues include (a) the external distribution of the resultant form, which cannot always be sufficient evidence to concluding an affix derivational; (b) affixes occurring with only limited number of stems may usually be derivational; and (c) affixes whose meaning is not easily determined often proved to be derivational (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Cases where satellite (affix) slots in word constructions are less frequently filled by more than one morpheme than are the nuclear slots are probably best analyzed as manifesting a single word-level tagmeme and a construction at a lower (affix-cluster) level. The affix-cluster level is said to be parallel with stem level (Elson and a nd Pickett, 1962). 2.2.2.5 Tagmemes
and Constructions at the Sentence Level
Tagmemes and constructions at the clause level is easier to work within the initial stages of investigation and analysis of an unknown (to the investigator) languages than are sentences. However, sentences are very much important in the structure of all languages, and higher-leveled structures (paragraph, discourse, and the like) are probably analyzed in terms of sentences (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Contrary to Bloomfield and linguists following him who defined a sentence as a ³«an independent linguistic form, not included by virtue of any grammatical construction in larger linguistic form (1933)´, tagmemics didn¶t take that traditional sentence interpretation because it was not quite adequate for tagmemics since it is conceived that sentences are only one level in a 10
hierarchy that begins with the smallest morpheme groupings and goes above sentence to include various kinds of larger structures (Elson and Pickett, 1 962). In tagmemics, Pike expounded Bloomfield¶s definition saying that ³a sentence is by definition isolatable in its own right«´ and ³however, (4) isolatability must be defined structurally. Here we treat it as the potential of an item for constituting an entire utterance«´ (1960). One good feature of tagmemics when it comes with the sentence level is the inclusion of the intonation in its formulas because in many languages sentences will be characterized by certain junctural and intonational features. However, although some linguists believe, as an article of faith, that this is true of all languages, there is still no certainty of such. Intonational morphemes which may be found to accompany segmental morphemes to form sentences must be looked for by the investigator (Elson (Elson and Pickett, P ickett, 1962). It was then summarized the factors to be taken into consideration in the sentence definition: (1) it is a level in the grammatical hierarchy above the clause level and below the paragraph level; (2) sentences are isolable; and (3) in many languages sentences will include intonational morphemes and juncture features (Elson and Pickett, 1962). 2.2.2.6 Tagmemes
and Constructions in the Paragraph Level
It was already mentioned that Robert Longacre had a big contribution to tagmemics in general. One of it is on the paragraph level. He did not start with morpheme or phoneme and work on his way up to larger combinations. Instead, he started right in with how clause types fill functional slots within behavioral/functional genres, i.e. a restricted but high place in the hierarchy of the language. That may be unsatisfactory unsatisfactory to a (linguistic) purist purist (Rocin, 2001).
11
The problem with Longacre is with his paragraph types which are not identifiable morpho-syntactically or by objective linguistic means. One has to read and understand the paragraphs before one can label them. But then, if we have already read and understood, the taxonomy has become superfluous. This level is often skipped (Rocine, 2001). 2.2.3
The Grammatical Hierarchy
The grammatical hierarchy has already been mentioned throughout this paper. It is important to look at it since it is very much important in the study of tagmemics. It is said that in every language there will be a hierarchical structure within the grammar of the language to which the term grammatical hierarchy can be applied (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Units at one level are always built out of the units of the level immediately below it. However, the grammatical hierarchy, at least in many languages, is not so happily arranged. There are many instances of skips and loopbacks where units of a higher level are embedded within units of a lower level, or within units at the same level such as clause within a clause, or sentences filling a slot on the clause level (Elson and Pickett, 1962). Definitions of constructions are made to be as general as possible in order to be applied to most languages. What is a good thing about tagmemics is that it does not limit itself with the levels mentioned in the preceding sections. It may sometimes be convenient to set up still other levels to account for all the facts of the grammar of the language.
3.
Conclusion
Unlike the work of Noam Chomsky and other transformalists, Pike¶s work in tagmemic theory has not, in general, been widely accepted by scholars. Many linguistic theories are satisfied with structure alone but there are concepts which cannot be fully understand by that 12
alone. Nevertheless, individual concepts within tagmemics have been adopted and adapted by a variety of disciplines d isciplines.. Tagmemics has been referred to by Kissell (2005) as ³the linguistics theory of everything´ mainly because it has a remarkably wide range of applications, expecially in but not limited to, linguistics. linguistics. Austin Hale confesses that "it is at present quite possible to be a tagmemicist in good standing without subscribing to any particular doctrine regarding the form of grammar. To one who received a good portion of his linguistic upbringing within the tradition of transformational generative grammar, this realization comes as a shock and a revelation." Though popularly categorized as a ''slot- grammar," Pike's peculiar insights into the nature of language and behavior are compatible with and not in opposition to the insights of other ot her schemes and systems. In his book book Language in Relaton to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour , Pike claimed that the same kinds of structures, rules and procedures found in phonology apply not only to grammar and discourse, but in fact to all of human behavior (Kissell, (Kissell, 2005). 2 005). Most linguists seemed to feel that as a descriptive model, tagmemics was not as rigorous or objective as other models, so it didn¶t lend itself well to serious scientific inquiry. But as according to Pike, looking at a language as an objective formal system was missing the point; behavior that is fundamentally subjective can only be understood and described meaningfully if the observer allows context to play p lay a role at every level. In general, tagmemics is very useful and applicable in a number of different areas, not just linguistics. It can be applied to rhetoric, poetry, science fiction, and philosophy, among other fields. Others have taken it further, using tagmemics as a model for learning the programming 13
language Perl. Although it never did (and never will) meet the day-to-day needs of most linguists, the theory has managed to maintain a small but loyal following among researchers of various fields. Tagmemics is in fact a good way of thinking about what it means to be human as its key insights²that context is essential, behavior involves overlapping hierarchies, and viewpoint affects one¶s data analysis²turn out to be surprisingly effective for understanding many kinds of phenoma pheno ma despite some problems that occur with it (Kissell, 2005).
14
eferences R efere
Longacre, Robert. (1968).
Grammar
discovery procedures: A field manual . The Hague, The
Netherlands: Mouton & Co., Publishers. Publishers. Platt, John. (1971). In S.C Dik and J.G. Kooij, eds.,
Grammatical
Form and Grammatical
Meaning: A Tagmemic view of Fillmore¶s Deep Structure Case concepts. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Elson, B. & Pickett, V. (1962). An (1962). An introduction to morphology and syntax. syntax. California: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Edwards, B. (2000). The Development of Kenneth L. Pike¶s Tagmemic Theory. The Tagmemics contribution
to
composition
teaching .
Retrieved
on
February
8,
2010
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~edwards/tag3.html ______________. (N/A). P aper aper 6 (Descriptive linguistics) tagmemics. tagmemics. Retrieved on March 30, 2010 from http://jil htt p://jilaniwarsi.tripod.com/tag.pdf aniwarsi.tripod.com/tag.pdf Edwards, B. (2000). The Place and Promise of Tagmemic Theory in Composition. The Tagmemics contribution to composition teaching . Retrieved on February 8, 2010 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~edwards/tag3.html Edwards, B. (2000). Tagmemics discourse theory. theory. Retrieved on February 8, 2010 from from Bowling Bowling Green State University University Website: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~edwards/tags.html Kissell, Kissell, J. (2005). (200 5). Tagmemics: The linguistic theory of everything . Retrieved on February 8, 2010 from http://www.ziki.com/en/joekissell+20896/post/tagmemics-the-linguistic-theory-ofeverything+9697624 Ross, M. (2010). Tagmeme. Tagmeme. Retrived on March 30, 2010 from https://tagmeme.com/?page_id=2 https://tagmeme.com/?page_id=2 Rocine, B. (2001). Tagmemics, definition for criticism. criticism. Retrieved on March 15, 2010 from http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2001-January/009415.html
15
