BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA

MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S POWER FOR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

ARÍSTIDES BASTIDAS TERRITORIAL POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY (UPTAB)
INDEPENDENCE- EDO. YARACUY

SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC RULES FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF A SPEECH AND MESSAGE

Author:

Wade Duran

CI 24,797,564

Prof. Luisana Estee

Curricular Unit: Reading and comprehension

Initial Journey 2020-VI Section “220501”

San Felipe, October 2020.

 INTRODUCTION

The word, spoken or written, normally triggers an interpretation in the person who perceives
or reads it, in a process that is often unconscious and automatic; So much so that a long time
ago, in classical times, it was thought that language was transparent in the sense that there was
no opacity between the sign and its content and that, therefore, it was possible to decipher
what it meant. Likewise, the representative value of languages lay in their ability to analyze,
duplicate, compose and order the things represented.

In fact, it was also believed that the categories of language coincided with the categories of
thought, which is why all languages expressed differently the perfect design of a common and
universal language (Foucault, 1969). It is not surprising that this is the philosophical
background claimed by modern linguistic theories that privilege the representative value of
language, a position also usually adopted by nativist theories that are, by nature, universalist.

However, as a future student of speech therapy, I know that when the word stops responding
to the order to which the listener or reader belongs, transparency is lost, the language becomes
opaque, and a difference is manifested that affects the interpretation not only of what was
said, but of the saying itself. Such situations usually arise as an effect of an aesthetic search,
but this is not the case that I will analyze in this content. The distance between interlocutors is
also generated when one of them is in a process of peculiar linguistic and discursive change,
while his interlocutor is not in exactly the same position, but is challenged by this speech and
must interpret it for the dialogue to continue.

Therefore, it is a phenomenon typical of language acquisition processes or learning situations

that involve new spheres and conditions of language use. In order to show the way in which
the relationship between lexicon, syntax and discourse works in them, it will be seen that this
relationship involves the problems that I have just mentioned: the nature of language, of
writing and, fundamentally, the way in which The subject is constituted as a speaker and,
therefore, the manifestation in the use not only of his consciousness but also of his
unconscious.
 DEVELOPMENT
Semantics and Syntax.

Without a doubt, formal theories admitted that it was necessary to integrate the semantic
aspect into grammar, since it is not possible to think about syntax, that is, the organization of
words in phrases, without the specifications of the lexicon.

One of the simplest ways to illustrate it is to take into account the difference that exists
between transitive verbs, intransitive verbs, or verbs with prepositions, a difference that all
grammars talk about, in greater or lesser detail. While the first only requires who executes the
action, the second, like all transitive verbs, also requires the specification of the object being
read, although in this case the object can be considered incorporated into the verb, which is
why the phrase is so grammatical. I read the novel all afternoon as I read all afternoon.

For example, reading shares with considering the fact that both verbs request two components,
who reads and who considers, on the one hand, and what is read and what is considered, on
the other. Thus, two verbs can select the same class of components, but the meaning of the
construction can vary radically depending on the meaning of the verb, as is the case of the dog
fears the child or the dog frightens the child, statements in which the child and The dog
participates in the events in a totally different way. The lexicon, in general, and not only the
verb, makes a not only categorical selection, as we have shown with transitive and intransitive
verbs, but also a semantic selection.

The lexicon, then, imposes semantic restrictions on its combinatorics and, in this way,
conditions the possibility of obtaining certain structures. From this position, it is argued, then,
that syntax is closely linked to the lexicon, so closely that some grammatical schools have
postulated that syntax must resort to a set of lexical entries that contain grammatical and other
specifications, that a lexicon sufficiently rich in Grammatical specifications can replace
grammar. In this way, it is possible to think that the mind effectively operates with the
features that constitute the meaning structure of words, features that are relevant from the
syntactic point of view and that are part of all languages.

For example, there are authors who maintain that there are verbs that allow locative
alternation, that is, they allow saying to spread grease on the shaft or to spread grease on the
shaft, but there are verbs that reject it, such as pour. The difference lies, according to some
authors, in that in the first case "the agent applies a force to the substance and the surface
simultaneously, pushing one against the other", therefore it can be expressed both that the
agent acts on the content as it does about the continent. In the second case, it is gravity that
does the work, so it cannot be interpreted that the agent acts on the continent, and for that
reason, the possibility of alternation is nullified. The reasoning updates, in some way, an
assumption that was manifested in the distinction between ungrammaticality and semantic
anomaly, at the beginning of generativism.

At that time, the example served to demonstrate that grammaticality was not linked to the
sequentiality that behaviorism postulated for language production, in which each unit elicits
the next, nor to the chain language production models of the first. psycholinguistic
formulation based on statistical probability that allows anticipating the unit that is going to be
used from the one that has just been used. As can be seen, the possibility of conceiving the
impact of lexical features on syntactic combinatorics depends both on a conception about the
relationship between language and thought and on a conception about the kind of relationship
between language and reality. Regarding the relationship between language and thought, the
feasibility of a conceptual semantics is proposed that admits that the language of thought has
basic concepts that are representations of the meanings of words that are expressed with
different resources in the grammar of different languages. and, regarding the relationship
between language and reality, the representative function of language is privileged, which
maintains that language refers to the world, it accounts for the state of things in the world.
Now, the possibility that it is the order of designation, the order of the entities of reality, that
determines the limits of the combinatorics of linguistic units, is contrary to the kind of
relationship that continental European linguistics, since From Saussure onwards, he had
postulated between language and reality.

One cannot speak of a semantic anomaly in Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously if one
adopts the point of view that language constitutes an order absolutely different from the order
of things and leaves aside a representative conception of language that is based on
denotation. . It is known that his conception of a sign annuls the previous tradition insofar as,
as Louis Hjelmslev would later emphasize, the sign is no longer a sign of something that is
outside language. The fact that a given word enters into a number of combinations, as in the
case of the examples offered by de Saussure with the word moon in "the moon rises, the moon
waxes, wanes, the moon is renewed, we will sow in moon new, it will be many moons before
that happens," or the fact that the same word is said in other languages with other terms that
probably organize the order of meaning differently, prove that the word only has value
because of its relationship with others.

In that order of ideas I immediately allow myself to define semantics, which translated refers
to the study of various aspects of the meaning, sense or interpretation of linguistic signs such
as symbols, words, expressions or formal representations. Semantics can be studied from
different points of view. Linguistic semantics deals with the coding and decoding of semantic
content in linguistic structures. Logical semantics, develops a series of logical problems of
meaning, studies the relationship between the linguistic sign and reality. Semantics in
cognitive sciences tries to explain why we communicate, and what is the psychic mechanism
that is established between speaker and listener during this process.

On the other hand, Syntax is the part of grammar that studies the rules and principles that
govern the combinatorics of syntactic constituents and the formation of units superior to these,
such as phrases and grammatical sentences. Given a sentence, it can be divided into syntactic
constituents, each of which, in turn, is divisible into other constituents. A syntactic tree is a
representation of the hierarchical relationships between syntactic constituents.

The impact of a speech depends largely on the creativity of the speaker, as well as the strength
of his or her arguments. Identify the main ideas and the words that will accompany you
throughout the speech. Write the speech. Calculate how long the speech will last.

Rehearse the speech until you feel comfortable, presenting it as many times as necessary. It is
important that you keep in mind that the speech serves to present ideas and generate debates
but also to provide information and propose solutions to problems. For this reason, there may
be different ways to structure a speech and the points proposed in this article can help you
have a general context of how to prepare your speech and ensure that it has the success you
expect.

2. The production of written language

2.1. Language production and the nature of writing

The production of written language. In this section I will return to the microstructural level at
hand, that is, the relationship between semantics and syntax, but this time from the point of
view of language production. From this perspective it is noted that the semantic and
categorical selection carried out by the lexicon is better sustained when speaking about an
internalized language, a virtual language. In the field of performance, constructions are not
judged by their grammaticality, but by their acceptability, due to the limitations of the
speakers' attention and memory resources.

A consequence derived from this definition is that the phenomena of performance, such as
pauses, hesitations, errors, suspended or incomplete constructions, repetitions, remain outside
the focus of interest of this linguistics. Considering the situation in this way, lexical and
syntax imbrication occurs with regularity and automaticity only in the scope of a formally
characterized language. However, the pauses and errors in performance, excluded by
generative linguistics, make it possible to infer the mechanisms of language production, as the
first psycholinguistic currents established early on. The cognitive models that resulted from
the study of the spontaneous errors that speakers made in real time were formulated from brief
units of analysis, mostly statements.
For this reason, models can pay special attention to phenomena such as those that concern us
in this work, which are not usually considered by researchers who have studied written
production.

2.2. The relationship between discourse, syntax and lexicon in the written production of
novices in specialized discourse areas

The production of written language. In this section I will return to the microstructural level at
hand, that is, the relationship between semantics and syntax, but this time from the point of
view of language production. From this perspective it is noted that the semantic and
categorical selection carried out by the lexicon is better sustained when speaking about an
internalized language, a virtual language. In the field of performance, constructions are not
judged by their grammaticality, but by their acceptability, due to the limitations of the
speakers' attention and memory resources.

A consequence derived from this definition is that the phenomena of performance, such as
pauses, hesitations, errors, suspended or incomplete constructions, repetitions, remain outside
the focus of interest of this linguistics. Considering the situation in this way, lexical and
syntax imbrication occurs with regularity and automaticity only in the scope of a formally
characterized language. However, the pauses and errors in performance, excluded by
generative linguistics, make it possible to infer the mechanisms of language production, as the
first psycholinguistic currents established early on. The cognitive models that resulted from
the study of the spontaneous errors that speakers made in real time were formulated from brief
units of analysis, mostly statements. For this reason, models can pay special attention to
phenomena such as those that concern us in this work, which are not usually considered by
researchers who have studied written production.

Conclusion

We had begun by pointing out the risk of losing the difference that we intend to analyze in the
linguistic production of those who are entering a field of specialized discourse, in this
particular case, that of students in their first year of academic life. This is why it is necessary
to stop at these "differences" to determine regularities of functioning in language and
discourse, something that I have tried to do by returning to the relationship between lexicon
and syntax, a relationship that tests not only the way in which we conceive the relationship
between language and reality, but also the way in which the duo of language and thought is
resolved.

The stability and regularity of such an interface is given by the co-activation of elements of
different orders, linked to familiarity with a discursive genre, in this case, with linguistics as a
discipline. Returning to the principles of the proposed linguistic graduality model of the
Spanish language with the data arising from this research showed that its conception of the
sign as a passage allows such regularities to be established with greater precision. Especially
fruitful, in order to account for this situation of language production, are his postulates that it
is the interpretative paths that stabilize the semantic features of units, that even minimal ones,
only define their meaning in texts, and that, furthermore, such Interpretive routes are defined
in the intertext defined by genre and discourse.