As we saw in §14 Grammar may be spread to all types of units and units possess quite different functions and other features Grammar as a system of meaningful oppositions should also have properties at each of the levels. Adjacent levels can be united into one section of Grammar. Usually the study of words and morphemes are united under one heading morphology. Morphology describing grammatical features of words and morphemes is mostly concentrated on description of forms of words. It is quite natural because namely forms of words are used to represent by opposing them to each other grammatical meaning. Variants of morphemes do not represent different meanings and because of that are treated as construction material actual grammatical entities — forms of words.
The other two levels united under one heading are those of sentences and members of sentences (phrases). This part of Grammar is known as Syntax. Syntax deal with all features of sentences but intonational patterns and other prosodic features. The reasons were given in §2.
The other three levels (utterance, communicative part, dialogue) are usually not subjected to grammatical analysis and not described in Grammars. And again the reasons were given in §2.
This traditional division of Grammar in two parts, Morphology and Syntax is based on units described. It is done on the assumption that the type of unit determines all its features and properties. It means that it was supposed that a form of a word always behaves as a form of a word. But it did not prove absolutely true. The reason of it is in the fact that when this primary division was established the difference between abstract and concrete units was thought to unimportant. Yet abstract and concrete units are related to paradigmatic and syntagmatic systems in different ways. Abstract units are connected to the syntagmatic system through the fact that they should be realised by the concrete units, while the concrete units are related ti the paradigmatic system because they should be realisation if the abstract units. In other words the main feature of the abstract units is the fact that they are members of paradigms. The main feature of the concrete units is the fact that they are members of syntagmatic sequences. From that follows that syntagmatic and paradigmatic properties of units may not coincide.
This can be illustrated by difficulties we encounter when describing analytical forms. If we take the form "is walking" and analyse its properties we can see that the special meaning the morphemic structure |is ... -ing| results from opposition of it to the morphemic structure |s| of "walks". In view of this we have to consider the sequence |is ... -ing| as a morph of a certain morpheme. But if place the form "is walking" in a sentence we immediately find that |is| behaves as a word, because it may change its position as a word can: "Is he walking". The element |s| cannot do it. Thus we have to take it for a word. This e[ample show that paradigmatic and syntagmatic qualification of a unit do not always coincide. A unit which is a morpheme paradigmatically must be treated as a word syntagmatically. It means that we have to describe syntagmatic and paradigmatic properties of units separately and Grammar divided into parts according to the unit analysed must be subdivided according to the properties of the units. It means that we should have not two but four parts of Grammar:
1. Syntagmatic Syntax
2. Paradigmatic Syntax
3. Syntagmatic Morphology
4. Paradigmatic Morphology.
This division can be in the following table
TABLE 1
Division of Grammar
| Syntax | Morphology. | |||||
| Syntagmatic Syntax | Paradigmatic Syntax | Syntagmatic Morphology | Paradigmatic Morphology. | |||
| Morpheme | “-Walk-s-” “-Is-“ “-walk-ing-” | |Walk| |s| Is| |walk| |ing| | ||||
| W o rd | Walks” “Is” “walking” | “-Walk-s-” “-Is-walk-ing-” | “Walks” “Is” “walking” | “Walks” “Is walking” | ||