(The study or use of) the rules about how
words change their form and combine with
other words to make sensible grammatical
The system of rules implicit in a
language, viewed as a mechanism for
generating all sentences possible in that
If we talk about English then it also includes
set of rules determined by prescriptive
grammarians, how to use English language.
1. The set of all the morphemes of a language; a
2. A list of terms relating to a particular subject
or list of words explaining a particular idea.
3. The vocabulary of a language or of an
4. The set of lexemes referring to the abstract
ideas which come in our mind or set of words
referring to abstract or conceptual ideas.
The lexicon is all about the words referring to
the ideas in any language
And grammar is all about the art of using
lexemes in particular order to produce
meaningful sentences as the prime purpose
of any language is to “communicate”.
19th century English grammarian, Henry
Sweet drew a distinction between „full word‟
and „form word‟.
The full words are the words that
have meanings, which we can find in
the dictionary. i.e.
tree, sing, blue, gently etc.
Form words belong to the grammar and
have only „grammatical‟ meaning. Such
meaning cannot be stated in isolation, but
only in relation to other words and even
sometimes to the whole sentence. i.e.
to, be, at, for etc.
Fries recognized only four „parts of speech‟
but fifteen sets of „function words‟.
parts of speech: noun, verb, adj, adverb.
Function words: the, may not
very, and, at, do ,there, why etc.
Grammar is not only the study of form or function
It is concerned more widely with categories such as
tense, gender, number.
Grammar also talks about syntactic functions such as
subject and object.
But the question is what are the relevant grammatical
categories in any language.
it is irrelevant for semantics whether a grammatical
category is indicated by a form word, a morpheme or
the order of the word.
In modern linguistics the problem of
distinction between the grammar and lexicon
is often in term of the distinction between
sentences that are unacceptable for
grammatical reasons, and those that are
excluded on lexicon grounds.
Example of grammatically deviant sentence:
The boys is in the garden.
Two Kinds Of Restriction
• Both Are Different in Principle.
One Argument to sustain the difference is that
a sentence can be grammatically correct, yet at
the asame time totally deviant in lexical terms.
Like Chomsky invent the sentence
colorless green ideas sleep furiously
seems impeccable grammatically but lexically it
is completely unacceptable.
From the above example it is clear that
grammar & lexicon are distinct.
Earlier Carnap had made same point by
inventing a sentence that does not contain any
English word at all, but seems to be quite
grammatical in terms of English.
Pirots Karulize Elatically
Grammar could be wholly formal, we
need not concern ourselves with
meaning of any of our grammatical
So too a total statement of all
collocation categories of a word would
be sufficient to characterize it
Collocational possibilities of a word
was essentially meaning of that word
Like synonymy was defined in terms of
Relation between semantics & collocation.
Collocation determine meaning, meaning
Chomsky attempted to handle collocation
possibilities within grammar.
He advocated a grammar that given a set
of appropriate rules would generate all and
only grammatical sentences of a language.
What is relevant to semantics is that he
was concerned with restrictions on co-
occurrence of items within sentence.
So that we shall not permit.
Chosen items that do not fit the verbs
Last two are matter of grammar in
frighten does not take any that CLAUSE .
Elapse is an intransitive verb that does not
take any object at all.
Incompatibility of lexical items of certain
nouns with certain verbs.
Chomsky proposed to deal with them in
Specification of the verbs
Elapse shown as not occurring with an
object noun phrase.
Frighten not occurring with the following
Specification would state what is possible
not what is not possible
Cut would be shown to need a concrete
Drink a liquid object
This was achieve in terms of components
by stating that relevant subject and object
must have the components concrete and
These are selectional
1. The idea cut the tree.
2. I drank the bread.
3. He frightened that he was coming.
4. He elapsed the man.
The theory fail to account without
considerable complications, for the many
occasions in which selection restriction are
legitimately broken. It is possible with verbs
of saying, thinking etc. as in John thought we
could drink water or negative e.g you can‟t
Here we are concerned with making sense
and that is matter of semantics rather than
Grammatical mistakes can be corrected
easily by breaking a rule. e.g
“the boys is in the garden.”
“ the dog scattered”.
It is wrong because „scattered‟ use for things.
Dog stand for whole family of dog so it
should be “ the herd scattered”
In semantics we convey the sense though
the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
If the sentence is grammatically correct
but it gives no sense it is of no use.
In semantics sense should be clear not
Rules are related to grammar and we do
not have any exact rule in English grammar
which applies every time and every where