Think of examples of syntagmatic relations outside of language.
Section 2.5 Relations between signs
Linguistic signs do not exist in isolation — they are related to each other in many ways. In communication, we occasionally use signs in isolation — for example, when shouting Timber! to warn passers-by of falling trees, but we usually use them in combination with other signs. The relation between signs in combination is referred to as syntagmatic, the combinations themselves are sometimes called syntagma (from Classical Greek syn ‘with’ and tassein ‘arrange, order’). When deciding which sign to use in a particular situation, we choose from sets of signs related in form and/or meaning — these relations are sometimes referred to as paradigmatic.
Subsection Syntagmatic relations
Look at the tree uses of the word timber in (1a–c):
- (1a)
- Timber!
- (1b)
- Logging companies harvested tropical timber illegally.
- (1c)
- Excessive timber-harvesting is a threat to biodiversity.
- (1d)
- Forests provide valuable non-timber products.
Example (1a) is the rather unusual use just mentioned, where the word stands by itself. In other words: it not enter into any syntagmatic relations with other words.
In example (1b), matters are different. The word timber combines with the word tropical, which describes what type of timber is referred to. Similarly, the word company combines with the word logging, which describes what type of company is referred to. The combination tropical timber then combines with the word harvested, which describes what someone is doing with the tropical timber, and the combination harvested tropical timber combines with the word illegally, which specifies that the action described is illegal. Finally, the combination harvested tropical timber illegally combines with the combination logging companies, which describes who is doing the illegal harvesting.
Obviously, there are ordering principles at work that determine which words and syntagmas (combinations of words) can enter into syntagmatic relationships with each other. We will take a closer look at these principles in Chapter 8.
In examples (1c) and (1d), we see a slightly different type of syntagmatic relationship. While in (1b), words combined to form phrases and sentences, in (1c), the words timber and harvesting combine to form a larger word (a so-called compound). And in (1d), the word timber combines with non, which is not a word at all, but an affix (like ir and less, which we encountered in Section 1.2).
Again, there are ordering principles by which words or words and affixes can combine to form larger words. We will take a closer look at these principles in Chapter 7.
Question 2.5.1.
Subsection Paradigmatic relations
We saw that a word like timber can enter into different syntagmatic relations, such as one with an adjective like tropical, another noun like harvesting or an affix like non. It also has a range of relations to words that it does not typically combine with syntagmatically, but that it shares some properties with.
Cases of such relationships are illustrated in the following examples:
- (2a)
- Logging companies harvested tropical timber illegally. (= 1b)
- (2b)
- Logging companies harvested tropical wood illegally.
In (2b), the word timber is replaced with wood, with the sentence retaining more or less the same meaning: in English, speakers have a choice as to whether they want to use the more general term wood, or the more specific term timber, which highlights the intended use of the wood. The two words are related in meaning — they both refer to WOOD —, and in form — they are both nouns, and can therefore both be used in the same place in a sentence. In (2c), the word fruit is only distantly related in meaning (it does not mean WOOD, but, like the word wood, it refers to the product of a plant that humans harvest), but it is closely related in form — it is also a noun, and can take the same position in the sentence as the word wood. Finally, in example (2d), the word democracy is not related in meaning to the word wood at all, but the formal relation remains the same — again, it is a noun, and again, it can be used in the same position in a sentence (even though the sentence now does not seem to have a sensible interpretation anymore).
One type of paradigmatic relation, then, is that to other words of the same wordclass with a similar meaning (which we will come back to in Section 3.5), another type of paradigmatic relation is that to all other words with the same wordclass (which we will come back to in Section 7.3).
Next, consider the word valuable in (1d). It, too, is in a paradigmatic relationship with other words from the same word-class (adjectives) and, more narrowly, words with a similar meaning (such as precious, expensive, etc.). But as it consists of two parts — the noun value and the affix able, it also has a paradigmatic relation to other words formed with the same noun (such as valueless, valuate, valuer, etc.) or with the same affix (such as remarkable, sustainable, affordable, predictable, etc.). We will look at such relationships in more detail in Section 7.2.
Finally, consider the verb provide. Depending on the context, this word will occur in different forms: provide, provides, providing, provided. The relation between such different forms of a word is also a paradigmatic one (and the only one where the set of words collectively is generally referred to as a paradigm). We will look at this type of relationship in more detail in Section 7.4.
Subsection
CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0. Written by Anatol Stefanowitsch
