 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
6
The plane of content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in language, while the plane of
expression comprises the material (formal) units of language taken by themselves, apart from the meanings
rendered by them. The two planes are inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be realised without some
material means of expression. Grammatical elements of language present a unity of content and expression (or,
in somewhat more familiar terms, a unity of form and meaning). In this the grammatical elements are similar to
the lingual lexical elements, though the quality of grammatical meanings, as we have stated above, is different
in principle from the quality of lexical meanings.
On the other hand, the correspondence between the planes of content and expression is very complex, and it
is peculiar to each language. This complexity is clearly illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy,
and synonymy.
In cases of polysemy and homonymy, two or more units of the plane of content correspond to one unit of
the plane of expression. For instance, the verbal form of the present indefinite (one unit in the plane of
expression) polysemantically renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, action at the present
moment, action taken as a general truth (several units in the plane of content). E.g.:
I get up at half past six in the morning. I do see your point clearly now. As a rational being, I hate war.
The morphemic material element -s/-es (in pronunciation [-s, -z, -iz]), i.e. one unit in the plane of expression
(in so far as the functional semantics of the elements is common to all of them indiscriminately),
homonymically renders the grammatical meanings of the third person singular of the verbal present tense, the
plural of the noun, the possessive form of the noun, i.e. several units of the plane of content. E.g.:
John trusts his friends. We have new desks in our classroom. The chief’s order came as a surprise.
In cases of synonymy, conversely, two or more units of the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the
plane of content. For instance, the forms of the verbal future indefinite, future continuous, and present
continuous (several units in the plane of expression) can in certain contexts synonymically render the meaning
of a future action (one unit in the plane of content). E.g.:
Will you come to the party, too? Will you be coming to the party, too? Are you coming to the party, too?
Taking into consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may say that the purpose of
grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the long run, to disclose and formulate the regularities of the
correspondence between the plane of content and the plane of expression in the formation of utterances out of
the stocks of words as part of the process of speech production.
§ 4. Modern linguistics lays a special stress on the systemic character of language and all its constituent
parts. It accentuates the idea that language is a system of signs (meaningful units) which are closely
interconnected and interdependent. Units of immediate interdependencies (such as classes and subclasses of
words, various subtypes of syntactic construction, etc.) form different microsystems (subsystems) within the
framework of the global macrosystem (supersystem) of the whole of language.
Each system is a structured set of elements related to one another by a common function. The common
function of all the lingual signs is to give expression to human thoughts.
The systemic nature of grammar is probably more evident than that of any other sphere of language, since
grammar is responsible for the very organization of the informative content of utterances [, 1986, 11]. Due
to this fact, even the earliest grammatical treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times, disclosed some
systemic features of the described material. But the scientifically sustained and consistent principles of systemic
approach to language and its grammar were essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century,
namely, after the publication of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay and the Swiss scholar
Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated the difference between lingual synchrony
(coexistence of lingual elements) and diachrony (different time-periods in the development of lingual elements
as well as language as a whole) and defined language as a synchronic system of meaningful elements at any
stage of its historical evolution.
On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between language proper and
speech proper can be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the identification of the object of
linguistic science.
Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech in the same
narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units - sounds, morphemes, words,
word-groups; on the other hand, the regularities or "rules" of the use of these units. Speech comprises both the
act of producing utterrances, and the utterances themselves, i.e. the text. Language and speech are inseparable,
they form together an organic unity. As for grammar (the grammatical system), being an integral part of the
lingual macrosystem it dynamically connects language with speech, because it categorially determines the
lingual process of utterance production.
Thus, we have broad philosophical concept of language which is analysed by linguistics into two different