Abstract

This paper is about language variation i.e. lexical variation caused by the interfaces of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax in Pakistani languages. According to Shackle (2014) Urdu, Punjabi and Seraiki languages belong to the Indo-Aryan language family. However, there are found many lexical differences significant enough to make these languages quite different from one another. The study focuses on these lexical variations based on three types of interfaces, i.e. Phonology/Morphology, Phonology/Syntax, and Morphology/Syntax. The data has been collected from the native speakers of Urdu, Punjabi, and Seraiki. The analysis of the data includes finding out the three types of interfaces, making derivations and notations (Chomsky and Halle; 1968), and formulating the rules. Then a comparison of all these rules and lexical variations have been discussed. Results have shown that these interfaces play an important role to cause lexical variation among Urdu, Punjabi and Seraiki; the languages with common ancestry.

Key Words

lexical variation, Pakistani languages, Indo-Aryan, interfaces.

Introduction

The present study is concerned with the lexical variation occurring as a result of interfaces of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax in Pakistani languages. Language is not a phenomenon entitled to uniformity and consistency. It is an entity prone to variation. There are a great many factors that bring about language variation, more specifically social factors as language is what the members of a particular society speak (Wardhaugh; 2006). So language variation is something so commonly found about language and can be observed or studied at different levels i.e. the level of pronunciation, level of vocabulary, level of grammar and level of usage. But this study is carried out keeping in view the lexical variation only. One point is to be made clear here is that the phenomena of language variation, specifically lexical variation are taken in the sense of difference in the vocabulary items of the three languages under study – Urdu, Punjabi and Seraiki – that belong to the same language family; Indo-Aryan (Shackle; 2014). There are significant differences in their vocabulary items and these differences of vocabulary items across the three languages are studied and understood as the phenomena of lexical variation. So the way language and lexical variation are studied in terms of variation within a single language is not the focus here, rather the difference between the lexis of the three Indo-Aryan languages is the subject matter of the study at hand. 

Furthermore, this phenomena of lexical variation is studied as resulting from interfaces of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, the

three important components of grammar of a language. These three components not only work in isolation but also depend upon or influence each other and thus bring about variations in vocabulary across the said languages. According to Dobrovolsky et al (1996), the interaction of these three components gives rise to three types of Interfaces: morphology and phonology, phonology and syntax, and morphology and syntax. These three interfaces cause lexical variations among varieties that make them be called separate languages.

After a historical comparison, Punjabi and Seraiki are viewed as languages most closely related but still not devoid of clear-cut linguistic differences (Shackle; 1976). In addition to this, Urdu, the Lingua Franca of Pakistan, also has an influence on Seraiki (Shackle; 1976) and Punjabi but again they have differences as well so all three languages show striking lexical variations mainly as a result of these interfaces.

Aims and Objectives

·         To observe whether all three types of interfaces, i.e. Phonology/Morphology, Phonology/Syntax, and Morphology/Syntax, are found in Pakistani languages (Urdu, Punjabi Seraiki) or not?

·         To explore whether the lexical differences (variation) across the three languages under study are the outcome of these interactions (interfaces) of three aspects of grammar or not?

Review of the Literature

Different studies have been conducted regarding these interfaces. Dobrovolsky, Katamba, O’Grady (1996) have presented the interaction of morphology and phonology by the example of allomorphic variations in English. They have further discussed another aspect of phonology-morphology interface that is prosodic morphology where some morphological rules are conditioned to some aspects of prosodic structure. They have also discussed the rules of stress assignment to different syllables in different grammatical structures; English compounds and phrases, to reflect the interaction of phonology and syntax. In addition to this, the discussion of different morphological forms a word takes while placed at different positions in a sentence has been made to show the morphology-syntax interface.

Chomsky (1995) has given a hypothesis concerning the morphology-syntax interface in his Minimalist Program (MP). According to him, syntactic processes are controlled by morphological features.

Ralli and Stavrou (1997) discuss the Morphology-Syntax interface in Modern Greek by discussing A-N compounds and constructs. Ralli (1991, 1992) proposes that combinations of inflected adjectives and inflected nouns constitute compound words. The examples of these compounds have been analyzed to show that the variations in Greek compounds are due to the rich inflectional system in Greek morphology.

Embick and Noyer (2005) have presented a different approach to the Syntax-Morphology interface that is based on the notion that Syntax is the only generative component in the grammar of a language and all the complex objects are constructed based on this Skeleton i.e. syntactic structure. This is basically the syntactic approach to morphology, in contrast to the Lexical approach that considers ‘word-formation’ to be special and independent of syntax. The implementation of this different approach to all the phenomena in the realm of syntax/morphology interface is yet to be checked.

Inkelas (1997) has studied morphologically conditioned Phonology in terms of Dominance effects. According to him, there are two types of affixes namely dominant and recessive. Kiparsky (1982c, 1984a), describes that dominant affixes delete some structure of the base they get attached to. This deletion can be of Tone, Stress etc. Whereas the recessive affixes do not cause any such deletion. To show this effect Inkelas (1997) has presented two case studies, Vedic Sanskrit and Hausa.

He has mentioned many other languages as well that show this contrast between dominant and recessive affixes such as Japanese (Poser 1984), Lithuanian (Kiparsky and Halle 1997, Halle and Vergnaud 1987a, b, Blevins 1993), Russian (Melvold 1996) and Moses-Columbia Salish (Czaykowska-Higgins 1993).

Schutze (1994) discusses the Phonology-Syntax interface by addressing the issues of clitic placement in Serbo-Croatian. In his discussion, he has specifically supported Halpern’s (1992) proposal of the operation of Prosodic Inversion (PI) which changes the order of the clitic and the host word according to the needs of the clitic. So he has discussed enough pieces of evidence that along with syntax, phonology can also serve to re-arrange morphemes. So this study generally bears evidence to the nature of the phonology-syntax interface. Inkelas and Zec (1990) have also worked on the interaction of phonology and syntax.

In addition to these three interfaces, the fourth type of interface has also been discussed. Stiebels (1997) has presented the interface of morphology and semantics by discussing complex denominal verbs in German.

Significance of the Study

This particular study is different from previous studies in many ways. Firstly, it has taken into account three languages and not a single language as done by all the studies mentioned above. Secondly, it is not focusing on a single interface rather the three main interfaces of components of the grammar collectively. It has been discussed that these interactions are basically responsible for providing us with some reason for the lexical variations found in Urdu, Punjabi and Seraiki as these are the languages with the same ancestors (Shackle, 2014) but we can observe so many variations. So it is surely going to provide the impetus for the later studies in these languages both separately and collectively.

Methodology

As this research was concerned with exploring interactions between the three aspects of grammar, huge data was required to locate the patterns of interaction. For that purpose, some standard source for all the three languages was to be consulted along with native speakers. Dictionaries and textbooks were used in order to collect the data. So the data collected was both primary and secondary. Different patterns were observed by looking at the data available in the dictionaries. These patterns were then classified under the three categories; Morphology/Phonology, Morphology/Syntax and Phonology/Syntax. The interface of Phonology and Morphology was then shown using the system of derivations and notations used by Chomsky and Halle (1968), to explain the changes occurring. Then rules were derived and finally compared to discuss the phenomena of language (lexical) variation. All three types of interactions/interfaces were not found for all three languages: Urdu, Punjabi and Seraiki. For example, Phonology/Syntax Interface was not found for Urdu and Seraiki languages but was present in the Punjabi language. Different types of interfaces in the languages under study show that the three aspects of grammar interact differently in languages how much similar they may be in terms of their ancestors, and thus bring about lexical variation. In addition to this, some interfaces are similar in all three languages, which is evidence that these languages have the same roots.

Interfaces

This section presents interfaces of phonology morphology and syntax in three Pakistani languages.

Phonology and Morphology

By the interface of phonology and morphology, it is meant that some aspect of phonology of a particular language is causing some change in the morphological form of certain words i.e. a particular phonological environment forms basis for the presence of a particular allomorph; an open or closed syllable is the condition for the presence of an allomorph of a particular morpheme. Following are the patterns of interaction of Morphology and Phonology that have been found for all the three languages under study.

i)        While exploring the interface of Morphology and Phonology in the Urdu language, we have observed that the morpheme [-i:n] that is used as a suffix with Nouns and Adjectives and brings about changes i.e. pluralizes nouns, turns nouns into adjectives and forms the third degree of an adjective, is phonologically conditioned. It has a variant/allomorph [-i:m] as well and this transformation from [-i:n] to [-i:m] is a result of certain phonological processes.

The derivation of [-i:m] from [-i:n] presents the phonological processes that brought about this change. (See

Table 1. Allomorphs of [-i:n]  in Urdu language

Notations:

/ä/ -->%/-->C ___ C [-i:n]

[Nasal]-->%/δ ___  [-i:n]

Rule 1: When a Noun turns into an Adjective by getting inflected with morpheme[-i:n], Schwa in the second syllable of the word gets deleted, e.g. [nämäk]-->[nämki:n].

Rule 2: A process of place assimilation with the nasal /m/at the onset of second syllable of words getting inflected with morpheme [-i:n] occurs that turns [-i:n] into[-i:m], e.g. [räh.mi:n]-->[räh.mi:m]

Rule 3: The nasal at the onset of the second syllable of words getting inflected with morpheme[-i:n] gets deleted, e.g. [räh.mi:m] $\to [{\rho }^{\mathrm{™}}\eta i:\mu ]$     

ii)      Another example of the interaction between morphology and phonology in the Urdu language is of a morpheme [-e:] that turns into [-eƒ:] as a result of different phonological processes. It is used as a suffix in the process of pluralization. When it is added to a singular form with the open final syllable, it remains the same but with the close final syllable of singular form, it gets nasalized.

Following is the representation to show the phonological processes causing the occurrence of one of the two allomorphs; [-e:] or[-eƒ:]. (Table 2)

Table 2 . Allomorphs of [-e:]  in Urdu language

Notations: [-e:]-->[-eƒ:]/ C δ ___ /ä/-->%/ C ___ δ[-e:]

Rule 1. When the plural morpheme [-e:] is added to the singular form with a close final syllable, it turns into[-eƒ:], e.g. [kɪt̪a:b]--> [kɪt̪a:beƒ:].

Rule 2. When the plural morpheme [-e:] is added to the singular form with an open final syllable, /ä/ of the open final syllable gets deleted, e.g. [bäst̪ä]--> [bäst̪e:].                                                                     

iii)     A third example of interaction of morphology and phonology in Urdu language is observed again in the process of pluralization where [-u:] is used to make the plurals. When it is inserted to bi-syllabic singular forms or monosyllabic forms with a cluster at Coda, it gets inserted as the nucleus of the final syllable. Whereas when added to monosyllabic forms, it causes the reduplication of Coda. So it has a variety of allomorphs depending upon the segments of the base it gets attached to. The following representation (Table 3) shows the phonological processes that take place when the singular forms get inflected by the above-mentioned morpheme.

Table 3. Allomorphs of [-u:] in Urdu language

Notations. /ə/ $\to \%\mathrm{/\sigma }\mathrm{C}\eta i-$ Consonant --> %  Vowel C ___

Rule 1. Plural morpheme[-u:], when added to bi-syllabic singular forms i.e., [ämär] or monosyllabic forms with coda cluster i.e., [qälb], becomes nucleus of the final syllable, i.e., [əmuːr] and [qəluːb] respectively.

Rule 2. Plural morpheme[-u:], when added to monosyllabic singular forms, causes reduplication of coda, e.g. [ʃək]--> [ʃəkuːk]

iv)     Phonology determines the morphology in Seraiki language when the morpheme [-və̃ɳ], that is used as a suffix to turn finite verb into infinite gets changed into [-ə̃ɳ]    when it is added to a closed syllable (syllable having Coda). Thus the morphology is phonologically conditioned.

Table 4. Allomorphs of [-və̃ɳ] in Seraiki language

Notation: [-və̃ɳ] $\to [-\mathrm{ə̃}\eta ]/$    Cδ __

Rule. Morpheme [-və̃ɳ] turns into[-ə̃ɳ] when inflects a form with closed final syllable, e.g. [kər-və̃ɳ]--> [kərə̃ɳ].

v)       The interaction of phonology with morphology was found in Punjabi language as well while observing the allomorphs of [-ɳə̃]. In a particular phonetic environment i.e. when the morpheme comes to be attached to syllable that ends on/ɽ/ or /r/ it turns into [-nə̃], its variant.

Table 5. Allomorphs of [-ɳə̃] in Punjabi language

Notation. [-ɳə̃]-->[-nə̃]/[ɽ] or [r]δ ___

Rule. When morpheme [-ɳə̃] attaches to bases with [ɽ] or [r] as codas, it becomes [-nə̃], e.g. [səɽ] --> [səɽnə̃], [mər] --> [mərnə̃].

vi)     Another pattern of interaction of Morphology with Phonology was found. The morpheme [-nd̪ə] turns into [-d̪ə] when it gets attached to a close syllable, whereas with open syllables, it remains the same.

Table 6.

Notation. [-nd̪ə]-->[-d̪ə]/  C δ___

Rule. Morpheme [-nd̪ə] becomes [-d̪ə], by deletion of segment /n/ when gets added to base form with a closed final syllable, e.g. [kər-nd̪ə]--> [kərd̪ə].

All the above mentioned patterns of Morphology/Phonology interface and the rules governing the changes occurring as a result of this interface were found to be specific to either of the three languages under study, Urdu, Seraiki or Punjabi. These patterns of interaction and the consequent changes make it quite clear that interfaces between the three main components of grammar play a vital role in bringing about language (lexical) variation as it has been observed in the examples presented above that how these different patterns of interaction result in a variety of different lexical items in different languages; Urdu, Seraiki and Punjabi here.

But at the same time, there are certain patterns of interaction of Morphology and Phonology that are common to all the three languages that bring to light the similarities between the three languages, reaffirming that these three languages belong to a same language family. These pattern are as follows:

i)        We can observe phonology interacting with morphology; vowel quality determining the type of morpheme attached, in the pluralization of singular forms of nouns ending in an open syllable in all three languages focused upon in this study. If the final open syllable of singular form has close vowel [i] as nucleus, it takes morpheme [-ɪʲaƒ] to get added to it when pluralized. Whereas if it ends in an open vowel[a], it takes morpheme [-e:] to make its plural.

Following representations (Chomsky and Halle, 1968) for all three languages are appropriate means to describe the interaction.

Table 7. Pluralization with [-ɪʲaƒ] in Urdu

Table 8. Pluralization with [-e:] in Urdu

Table 9. Pluralization with [-ɪʲaƒ]  in Seraiki

Table 10. Pluralization with [-e:] in Seraiki

Table 11. Pluralization with [-ɪʲaƒ]  in Punjabi

Table 12. Pluralization with[-e:] in Punjabi

Notations. Singular form+ /i/-->[-ɪʲaƒ]/Plural form + ___ δSingular form + /a/-->[-e:]/ Plural form + ___ δ

Rule 1. In Urdu, Seraiki and Punjabi, if a singular form of noun has open syllable in the end with close vowel [i] as a nucleus; morpheme [-ɪʲaƒ] is added in place of [i] to make it a plural noun, e.g. [läɽki]--> [läɽkɪʲaƒ] (Urdu), [tʃə̃ŋi] --> [tʃə̃ŋɪʲã] (Seraiki), [bʰæɽi] --> [bʰæɽɪʲãː] (Punjabi).

Rule 2.  In Urdu, Seraiki and Punjabi, if a singular form of noun has open syllable in the end with open vowel [a] as a nucleus; morpheme [-e:] is added in place of [a] to make it a plural noun, e.g. [läɽka]-->[läɽke:] (Urdu), [ɠoɗa] -->[ɠoɗeː] (Seraiki),  [këɽa] --> [këɽeː] (Punjabi).

So as these two patterns of interaction are same for all languages (Urdu, Seraiki and Punjabi), we get the same notations and rules for all of them. So all these patterns discussed above, not only bring to light the resultant lexical variation, but also make evident the fact that these languages share the same ancestry.

Morphology and Syntax

Morphology/Syntax interface means some changes in the morphological form of words conditioned by some syntactic components of grammar or vice versa.

i)        The first example of interaction between Morphology and Syntax in Urdu language involves Pronouns. Any change in the Case of PN (syntactic aspect) brings about change in its morphological form.

a)       Us ne khana khaya      (He had meal)

b)       Ye uski kitaab hai       (This is his book)

c)       Ye uska qalam hai      (This is his pen)

d)       Mein ne usko dekha    (I saw him)

In a) us is Nominative case of PN, in b) and c), uski and uska are the Genitive cases of PN (determined by the Gender aspect). It takes the form usko, as shown in d) when the case of PN changes from Genitive to Accusative. So this is how syntactic aspect brings change in the morphological form of the words.

Table 13. Cases in Urdu

ii)      Like Urdu, Seraiki language also shows the pattern of Case of PN determining its morphological form. Examples are presented in table 14.

Table 14. Cases in Seraiki

iii)           In Punjabi language, the interaction between Morphology and Syntax is again quite similar to Urdu and Seraiki as it involves Case of pronoun whose morphological form changes as a result of this interaction.

a)             Une khana khada                    (She had the meal)  

b)             Ae undi kitaab e                     (This is his book)         

c)             Ye unda qalam e                    (This is his pen)

d)             Une usan/unun akheya          (He asked her)

In a) une is Nominative case of PN, in b) and c), undi and unda are the Genitive cases of PN (determined by the Gender aspect) and usan/unun, as shown in d) are the Accusative case. So this is how syntactic aspect brings change in the morphological form of the words.

Table 15. Cases in Punjabi

So by looking at the examples of this particular pattern of interaction, we come to know that as these three languages share the same ancestors, they share this pattern as well and how a variety of lexical items evolve as a result of this interaction of Morphology and Syntax.

But we have come to find some more patterns as well that are slightly different for the three languages. These patterns are as follows:

iv)     Morphology interacts with syntax in Urdu language where gender aspect of grammar changes the morphological form of the words. The gender of the head word of the sentence determines the morphology of the verb (auxiliary) in the sentence.

a)       Larki kitaab parh rahi hai        (The girl is reading the book)

b)       Larka kitaab parh raha hai      (The boy is reading the book)

So, in the above examples, it is observed that the gender of head word Larki in a) and Larka in b) is bringing about a change in the morphology of the auxiliary verb that is having two forms, rahi and raha respectively. Similarly, not only the gender of the head word is reflected on the verb in the form of morphological changes but also on the PN.

c)       Ye uski kitaab hai.         (This is his book)

d)       Ye uska qalam hai.       (This is his pen)

Here the gender of the nouns in the sentences c) and d), the italicized words, is bringing about change in the morphology of the PNs. As kitab is treated as a feminine noun so it turns the possessive PN into the feminine as well i.e. uski. Whereas qalam is treated as masculine so we have observed change in the form possessive PN takes i.e. uska.

This is also called Gender agreement in Urdu.

v)       Along with Gender agreement, Urdu language also shows Number agreement, which presents another example of Morphology/Syntax interface where the Number aspect of grammar causes change in the morphological forms of word(s) in the sentence.

a)       Baccha khel raha hai.(The child is playing)

b)       Bacchay khel rahay hein.(The children are playing)

Here it is quite evident that when the head word is singular; baccha, the auxiliary verbs are also singular, raha hai. Whereas when the Head word is plural; bacchay, it changes the morphology of the auxiliary verbs as well, rahay hein.

vi)     Nouns and Verbs of Seraiki language, like Urdu, show the agreement of both Number and Gender; the gender and number of Noun appears on the other elements of the syntactic structures in the form of changes in the morphological form. The examples are as follows;

a)       Unda puttr (His son)

b)       Undi kitaab (His book)

c)       O tuhada peyo e     (He is your father)

d)       Eh tuhadi gaalh e   (This matter is yours)

In the above examples, the italicized words are the Nouns and the gender of these nouns is determining the morphology of the possessive PNsunda/undi in a) and b) andtuhada/tuhadi in c) and d).

a)       Eh gaalh he (This is the matter!)

b)       Eh gaalhen hin (These are the things!)

c)       Qiyamat di nishaani (The sign of the day of judgement) 

d)       Qiyamat diyan nishaaniyan (Signs of the day of judgement)

e)       Eh meri kitaab he (This book is mine)

f)        Eh meriyan kitaaban hin (These books are mine)

g)       Un sakun hik bota lditti he (He gave us a bottle)

h)      Un sakun tre botlan dittiyan hin (He gave us three bottles)

Here the Number aspect of italicized nouns and adjectives is bringing change in the other elements of the sentence such as verbs ditti/dittiyan, auxiliary verbs he/hin and possessive PNs di/diyan and meri/meriyan. So we can say that this pattern of interaction of Morphology and Syntax in Seraiki language; number/gender  agreement is a bit different from the pattern found in Urdu where only the morphology of auxiliary verbs gets affected by change in the number aspect of noun.

vii)   For Punjabi, different patterns of inflection are determined by grammatical gender (Shackle, 2003), so the second example from Punjabi Language is also similar to Urdu as well as to Seraiki where gender aspect of grammar changes the morphology of the words. But it is again somewhat different from Urdu because the gender of the head word of the sentence changes the morphology of all the other components of the syntactic structure whereas in Urdu only the verb (auxiliary) in the sentence reflects the change of gender.

a)       Larki kitaab parh di pai e         (The girl is reading the book)

b)       Larka kitaab parh da peya e.    (The boy is reading the book)

So in the above examples, it is observed that the gender of head word Larki in a) and Larka in b) is bringing about a change in the morphology of both the main and auxiliary verbs parhdi pai and parda peya respectively.

Then similar to Urdu and Seraiki, PNs also reflect the gender change of head word.

c)       Ae undi kitaab e.          (This is his book)

d)       Ae unda qalam e.        (This is his pen)

So this Gender agreement is a feature of Punjabi language as well.

viii)  Number agreement is also found in Punjabi language which presents another example of Morphology/Syntax interface where the Number aspect of grammar causes change in the morphological forms of word(s) in the sentence.

c)       Baccha khel dapeyae.(The child is playing)

d)       Bacchay khel daypaene.(The children are playing)

Like Seraiki but unlike Urdu, the singular head word, baccha, is bringing change in the morphology of all the remaining components of the sentence; khel dapeya e. Similarly when the Head word is plural, bacchay, it changes the morphology of all the components and turns them into Plural; khel day pae ne.

After discussing the examples of Morphology/Syntax interface from the three languages, we have seen that these two components interact very slightly differently in the three languages as Punjabi morphology is similar in organization to Urdu and inflections of both nouns and verbs are marked by the addition or alteration of word-final morphemes (Shackle, 2003). Overall, the pattern is same but gives rise to different vocabulary items. So this interface also plays a role in bringing about lexical differences.

Phonology and Syntax

We have observed the interface of Phonology with Syntax when one aspect of phonology of a language brings about change in any syntactic element. For the languages under study, we were able to find this type of interface only for Punjabi language.

As Punjabi is a Tonal language, the difference in the intonation with which a word is spoken changes the grammatical category/syntactic label of the word. So this is how the categorization of the components of syntactic structure is conditioned by the supra-segmental phonological feature; intonation. Following are the examples of this interface.

			$\backsim$
	$\backsim$

 

 [këɽa]                [këɽa]

Bitter                  horse

Adjective           Noun

$\backsim$                      

 [kaːr]                 [kaːr]

 House                doing

Noun                 Verb

	$\nearrow$

 

 [vi]                       [vi]

Twenty                 too

Noun                  Adverb

	$\backsim$
			/

 

[kəɽə]                    [kəɽə]

Hard                      Bangal

Adjective              Noun

So, the presence of this type of interface only in Punjabi language is again an evidence that any interface is not the property of a particular language family, any language of that family can lack it and thus plays a vital role in bringing about lexical variation in the language it is found in, making it distinct from the other languages of the same family.

Conclusion

By the discussion of all the interfaces and their examples in the languages under study we come to the conclusion that among so many aspects that bring about language variation, more specifically lexical differences across languages, interfaces between the components of grammar of a language, i.e. Phonology/Morphology, Phonology/Syntax, and Morphology/Syntax, are an important aspect as the lexical variations – differences of vocabulary items across the languages under study – are found to be produced, to a great extent, due to these interfaces.

Secondly, the presence of one pattern of interaction or one interface in one language does not guarantee its presence in all the members of that particular language family because out of the three languages focused in the study, the Phonology/Syntax interface is found in one language (Punjabi) only. So all three types of interfaces are not present in all the languages under study.

Moreover, due to these interfaces, not only content words but function words also take different forms and new vocabulary items evolve that are significant enough to differentiate one language of a language family from another of the same family.

This study is unique of its kind because it has discussed three languages of the same language family and the focus has been the lexical differences; variations found among them as a consequence of three main interfaces between three main aspects of the grammar of any language. So it can be considered an important study that can provide precursors for further research in terms of the interaction of aspects of grammar as well as in any one of the languages or interfaces discussed.