NADHARIA YA UKUU NA UMILIKI, VIFUNDO DADA ,VIFUNDO BINTI NA FIFUNDO MAMA

Mtazamo wa
sarufi miundo virai wa sasa kwa mujibu wa Chomsky

Mtazamo
wa sasa wa sarufi miundo virai unazingatia dhanna ya umiliki na usabiki
(utangulia), dhanna ambazo zinatawala mahusiano ya vipashio vya sentensi.

(a)   
Dhanna ya umiliki na usabiki:

Dhanna
hizi zinajaribu kujibu maswali matatu ambayo ni maana,muundo na uzingatizi wa
kanuni mbalimbali. Dhanna hizi husaidia kujibu kwa uhakika maana ya muundo
virai, kwa kuzingatia kanuni.

Dhanna
ya muundo virai ni kielelezo chenye vifundo vinavyounganishwa na mistari
inayounda kielelezo cha matawi.

Kielelezo
cha vifundo katika mchoro kinaonesha kuwa vifundo viko katika kila kategoria ya
kikundi.

[S,KN,KT,KV,KH]
na kategoria ya neno [N,T,V,H]. Vifundo chini ya S huitwa vifundo mama na KN na
KT huitwa vifundo binti kwa S na pia KN na KT ni vifundo dada.

Kwa utaratibu
huohuo T na KN ni vifundo binti wa KT lakini T na KN ni vifundo dada. H na N ni
vifundo binti wa KH na pia H na N ni vifundo dada.

Kutokana
na mfano wa hapo juu N,V,N,H,N huitwa vifundo tamati. Vile vingine ambavyo si
vifundo vya mwisho katika kielelezo cha matawi huitwa vifundo viso-tamati.
Vifundo hivi hupewa msamiati unaohusika kwa mfano katika sentensi nzima
[mwalimu mkuu anafundisha darasa la nne]. Kwa kawaida vifundo viso-tamati huwa
ni vile ambavyo ni vifungu yaani kwa mfano katika mchoro hapo juu [KN1,
KT, KN2, KH] ni vifundo viso-tamati. Kifundo kimoja kimoja yaani
viso-vifungu kama [N, V, T, N, H, N] ndiyo vifundo tamati.

Pamoja
na kupewa majina, vifundo pia huelezewa uhusiano baina yake. Kuna uhusiano wa
namna mbili.

–  
Uhusiano wa umiliki

–  
Uhusiano wa usabiki

  Ø Uhusiano wa umiliki; unatokana na
kifundo kuwa juu ya kifundo au vifundo vingine. Mfano S inamiliki KN na KT.

Kumilikiwa ni dhanna inayoelezea jinsi kifundo kimoja kinavyokuwa
chini ya kifundo kingine. Kifundo cha juu kinamiliki vifundo vya chini yake.
Kifundo kimoja kinasemwa kuwa kiko katika umiliki sawia [umiliki sisisi] kama
kinafuatwa mara moja chini yake [bila kuwepo kifundo kingine kati yake] mfano:
S inamiliki sawia KN na KT.

Kwa mantiki hii
umiliki ni wa mama na binti zake. Ingawa S inamiliki pia T na KN (ya pili) kwa
mbali.

  Ø Uhusiano wa usabiki; huu ni uhusiano
wa ki-utangulia,yaani kifundo kimoja kinasabiki kifundo kingine ikiwa kinatokea
kushoto kwake. Mfano: N inasabiki V na V inasabiki vifundo T,KN,N,KH,H na N
pamoja na maneno [anafundisha darasa la nne]. Kifundo kinasabiki sawia kifundo
kingine ikiwa kinatokea mara moja kushoto mwa kifundo kingine. Mfano: V
inasabiki sawia T na neno [anafundisha].

Kwa kutumia dhanna za umiliki na umiliki
sawia tunapata istilahi mbili muhimu ambazo ni viambajengo na viambajengo
vifuasi [viambajengo sisisi]. Dhanna hizi zinafasiliwa ifuatavyo:

(i)        
Seti ya vifundo inaweza kuunda kiambajengo iwapo na iwapo
tu (iit) seti hiyo inamilikiwa na fundo moja na hakuna fundo linalosalia.

(ii)      
Fundo moja x huwa kiambajengo cha fundo lingine y iwapo
na iwapo tu fundo hilo linamilikiwa na y.

(iii)    
X ni kiambajengo sisisi (sawia) cha y iwapo na iwapo tu x
inamilikiwa na y.

Kielelezo hicho kinaonesha kuwa kwa kanuni ya mfuatano [D,E] haziundi
kiambajengo kwa kuwa fundo moja [F] linabaki, lakini mafundo [D,E,F] yanaunda
kiambajengo kimoja kwa kuwa yanamilikiwa kikamilifu na fundo C na hakuna fundo

 linalobaki.

Mfano:

-Majambazi wakatili waliwaua walinzi hodari bila huruma.

T,KN2 na KH vinaunda kiambajengo [waliwaua walinzi hodari
bila huruma] kwa kuwa T,KN2 na KH vinamilikiwa na fundo moja KT na
hakuna fundo linalosalia. KN2 na KH haviundi kiambajengo ingawa
vinamilikiwa na fundo moja [KT] kwa kuwa kuna fundo moja T [waliwaua]
linasalia.

S inamiliki viambajengo vyote vilivyo chini yake [KN,KT,N,V,T,KN2,KH,N2,V2,H
na N3] KN na KT ndiyo viambajengo sisisi (sawia) vya S kwa kuwa
vinamilikiwa moja kwa moja na S. T,KN2 na KH ni viambajengo vya KT.

  

    UFAFANUZI WA DHANNA YA
VIFUNDO

  Ø Iwapo kifundo
kimoja x kinamilikiwa moja kwa moja na kifundo y basi kifundo y ni mama wa
kifundo x na kifundo x ni binti wa kifundo y.

  v KN1
ni kifundo mama wa vifundo N na V1 kwa kuwa vinamilikiwa     na kifundo
kimoja KN1

  v Vifundo N1
na V1 ni vifundo dada.

  v T, KN2
na KH ni dada kwa kuwa vinamilikiwa moja kwa moja na     KT.

UMILIKI REJESHI

Dhanna ya umiliki imeendelea kutumiwa katika kufasili mahusiano ya
miundo tata kati ya viambajengo kwa kuvihusianisha na sintaksia na semantiki.

X inamilikiwa na kiambajengo y, iwapo na iwapo tu kifundo cha mstari
wa kwanza wa mchoro wa matawi unaomiliki x unamiliki pia y na x haimiliki y
wala y haimiliki x.

Mfano:

Umiliki rejeshi ni umiliki wa wima na ulalo. Yaani kifundo cha juu
kinamiliki vya chini yake na kifundo kilicho mstari mmoja toka kifundo cha juu
kinamiliki vifundo vyote vya kulia kwake.

  AINA ZA UREJESHI

Kuna aina mbili za urejeshi ambazo ni urejeshi huru na urejeshi uso
huru. Urejeshi huru ni ule ambao unaweza kubainisha kikamilifu kirejelewa na
urejeshi uso huru ni ule ambao hauwezi kubainisha kirejelewa kikamilifu.

 Mfano:

Ø Wanafunzi
wanafikiri walimu wote wanawachukia

Ø Fatuma na Ali
wanajitangaza

Ø Fatuma na Ali
wanatangazana

Dhanna ya urejeshi inayozungumziwa hapa ni tofauti na ile
iliyozoeleka, hapa mofimu –wa-,-ji- na –an- ndizo zinazoonesha urejeshi.

1  
Mofimu –wa- inaweza kurejelea kwa wanafunzi au kwa watu
wengine,yaani;

v Wanafunzi
wanajihisi kuwachukia walimu

v Wanafunzi
wanahisi watu wengine wanawachukia walimu

Aina hii ya urejeshi ndiyo inayoitwa urejeshi huru kutokana na uhuru
wa kurejelea kitajwa zaidi ya kimoja.

2  
Mofimu –ji- na –an- ni urejeshi uso huru yani unarejelea
Fatuma na Ali na hauwezi kurejelea kitajwa kingine chochote.

Urejeshi uso-huru
huwa na kisabiki ambacho kisipokuwepo inakuwa vigumu kufasilika.

 Mfano:

*  
John wanachukia kila mmoja

Ø John na Ali
wanachukia kila mmoja

Kila mmoja inaashiria zaidi ya mtu mmoja na kila mmoja haiwezi kuwa
kirejeshi cha John (ambaye ni mtu mmoja tu). Kwa hiyo kanuni ifuatayo
itatumika.

Umiliki fuatishi lazima uwe na kiambajengo milikishi kisabiki kinachostahili.

Katika dhanna ya umiliki rejeshi,kifundo
kimoja kinamiliki vifundo vingine kushoto na kulia kwake ilimradi viwe katika
darajia ileile. Vilevile kifundo kimoja kinamiliki vifundo vyote
vinavyomilikiwa na kifundo cha kulia kwake ambacho kiko katika kiwango
kilekile.

JIELIMISHE ZAIDI HAPA KWA KIINGEREZA

Government and
binding theory

Government and binding (GB, GBT)
is a theory of syntax and a phrase structure
grammar (as opposed to a dependency grammar)
in the tradition of transformational
grammar developed principally by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s.  This theory is a radical revision of his
earlier theories and was later revised in The Minimalist
Program (1995) and several subsequent papers, the latest
being Three Factors in Language Design (2005). Although
there is a large literature on government and binding theory which is not
written by Chomsky, Chomsky’s papers have been foundational in setting the
research agenda.

The name refers to two central sub-theories
of the theory: government,
which is an abstract syntactic relation applicable, among other things, to the
assignment of case; and binding,
which deals chiefly with the relationships between pronouns and the expressions with which
they are co-referential. GB
was the first theory to be based on the principles and
parameters model of language, which also underlies the later
developments of the minimalist program.

Government

The main application of the government relation
concerns the assignment of case. Government is defined as follows:

A governs B if and only if

·        
A is a governor and

·        
A m-commands B and

·        
no barrier intervenes
between A and B.

Governors are heads of
the lexical categories (V,
N, A, P) and tensed I (T).
A m-commands B if A does not dominate B
and B does not dominate A and the first maximal projection of
A dominates B, where the maximal projection of a head X is XP. This means that
for example in a structure like the following, A m-commands B, but B does not m-command A:

In addition, barrier is
defined as follows:[9] A barrier is any
node Z such that

·        
Z is a potential governor for B and

·        
Z c-commands B and

·        
Z does not c-command A

The government relation makes case
assignment unambiguous. The tree diagram below illustrates how DPs are governed
and assigned case by their governing heads:

Another important application of the
government relation constrains the occurrence and identity of traces as
the Empty Category
Principle requires them to be properly governed.

Binding

Binding can
be defined as follows:

·        
An element α binds an element β if and only
if α c-commands β, and α and β corefer.

Consider the sentence “Johni saw hisi mother”, which
is diagrammed below using simple phrase structure
trees.

The NP “John” c-commands
“his” because the first parent of the NP, S, contains
“his”. “John” and “his” are also coreferential
(they refer to the same person), therefore “John” binds “his”.

On the other hand, in the ungrammatical
sentence “*The mother of Johni likes himselfi”, “John”
does not c-command “himself”, so they have no binding relationship
despite the fact that they corefer.

The importance of binding is shown in the
grammaticality of the following sentences:

1.  
*Johni saw himi.

2.  
Johni saw himselfi.

3.  
*Himselfi saw Johni.

4.  
*Johni saw Johni.

Binding is used, along with particular
binding principles, to explain the ungrammaticality of those statements. The
applicable rules are called Binding Principle A, Binding Principle B, and
Binding Principle C.

·        
Principle A: an anaphor
(reflexive or reciprocal, such as “each other”) must be bound in its
governing category (roughly, the clause).

Since “himself” is not
c-commanded by “John” in sentence [3], Principle A is violated.

·        
Principle B: a pronoun must be
free (i.e., not bound) within its governing category (roughly, the clause).

In sentence [1], “him” is bound
by “John”, violating Principle B.

·        
Principle C: an R-expression must be free (i.e., not
bound). R-expressions (e.g. “the dog” or “John”) are
referential expressions: unlike pronouns and anaphora, they independently
refer, i.e., pick out entities in the world.

In sentence [4], the first instance of
“John” binds the second, violating Principle C.

Note that Principles A and B refer to
“governing categories”—domains which limit the scope of binding. The
definition of a governing category laid out in Lectures on Government
and Binding is complex, but in most cases the governing
category is essentially the minimal clause or complex NP.

References

1.   
 Chomsky,
Noam (1993) [1981]. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures.
Mouton de Gruyter.

2.   
Chomsky, Noam (1982). Some
Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Linguistic
Inquiry Monograph 6. MIT Press.

3.   
Chomsky, Noam
(1986). Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13. MIT Press.

4.   
 Chomsky, Noam (2002) [1957]. Syntactic Structures (Second
Edition). Mouton de Gruyter.

5.   Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of
the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.

6.   
Chomsky, Noam (1970). Remarks on
Nominalization. In Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (1972).
The Hague: Mouton. Pages 11–61.

7.   
 Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist
Program. MIT Press.

8.   
 Chomsky, Noam (2005). “Three Factors in Language Design” (PDF). Linguistic
Inquiry. 36 (36): 1–22. doi:10.1162/0024389052993655.

Facebook Comments