Проблем перспективизације у синтакси
The perspectivization problem in syntax
Article (Published version)
MetadataShow full item record
Тhe concept of perspectivization defines a ranking of elements in the sentences which is made by the speaker according to what he intends to communicate to the conversation partner. This problem has not always been given due consideration in general linguistics. The adherents of the Рrague School were first to connect the perspectivization rules, in a syste matic manner, with syntacticanalysis. Recently, interestin the problem has re vived, because of the development of generative grammar. Оne frequent criticism of Chomsky’s theory has been that it is inadequate to account for such differences between sentence structures that are based solely on the non-identical distribution of communicative weight. In the late sixties the perspectivization problem was already being faced by proponents if generative grammar, and ever since then, regardless of differences in views on it, it has been more and more in the centre of attention. It has been noticed that the active-passive relat...ion recalls the utilization of word order changes for communicative purposes. The same is true for all converse sentences (with two-place predicates as well as with multiplace predicates, like John buy books froт Fred — Fred sells books to John). Тhe author points out that some other syntactic structures display the same grammatical behaviour too. For example, it went unnoticed by students of the perspectivization problem that two compound sentences like (А) Susan lives nearby and therefore I prefer this neighbourhood and (В) I prefer this neighbourhood because Susan lives nearby display a periphrastic relation of the conversive type. It is obvious that the two events referred to by both sentence (А) and sentence (В) are linked together by one and the same cause-consequence relation. Ноwever, in instance (А) the association between the two clauses is such that the cause-consequence relation is brought to attention only from the consecauence side, while in instance (В) it is the causal aspect which is under the attentional focus. Тhe author underlines that the causal notion invariably prevails in the case of a context-bound use of the compound sentence (the information about the conseauence-event cannot be directly duestioned). Тhe students of the perspectivization problem did not pay much attention to the fact that the choice between converse sentences is in some instances completely free, in the sense that it cannot be conceived as imposed by the context in which the actual sentence has to be situated. This is always true when the actual sentence does not occur as the answer to a question nor continue a previously established topic. For example, if somebody sud denly notices an event he might start speaking about it in either of the fol lowing two ways: (А) Look! John is being beaten by Fred! or (В) Look! Fred is beating Johт! А very important theoretical guestion is: what decides the choice between sentence (А) and sentence (В)? Тhe author expresses the belief that we shall soon be forced to call for a general syntax which would account in an appropriate way for the significant role of the speaker's per ception and general psychological attitude in the process of sentence ge neration.
Source:Јужнословенски филолог, 1976, 32, 29-46
- Београд : Институт за српскохрватски језик