by the former view the categories are common by definition and a priori , by the latter empirically and by reason of a more or less similar semantic range a posteriori . but while many modern linguists would subscribe to the latter view there remains still a common core of syntactic terms , common by definition among those making use of them , not from any content or semantic meaning , but from the method of establishing them within each language . terms like nucleus , expansion , cohesion , endocentric , and exocentric are general ( though not necessarily universal ) categories , by reason of the common operations by which sentences in a language are compared and classed together as regards the formal inter-relations of their components . these operations and the criteria employed need not be in detail the same between any two linguists , but the overall operational similarity in their use is obvious . general syntax thus allows two possible interpretations , and different answers may be given to the question of generality on each of the two . ( 4 ) . what is the relationship between syntax and morphology ? to some extent the answer to this question is conditioned by one &apos;s answer to question ( 1 ) above . if the morpheme , not the word , is the minimal unit of syntax , the role of morphology , no longer concerned with syntagmatic word structure , is correspondingly reduced ; and there are those who say that the distinction between these two traditional parts of grammmar is of little value today . but assuming that the distinction is maintained one may ask which is to be analytically prior : in which domain do we establish the majority of the principal categories first ? are syntactic structures set up to explain the use of the morphological form classes , or are form classes dependent on their role in syntactic structures for their grammatical significance ? this question may be , and has been , answered either way irrespective of the degree to which logic or meaning are admitted as criteria in grammatical analysis ; in traditional terms it involves the relative priority of such class concepts as noun and verb as against such as subject and predicate . ( 5 ) . what is meant by structural syntax ? structural is an epithet few linguists would deny of their work today , as it carries connotations of up-to-dateness and scientific thinking , however varied its applications may be . structural is , in fact , consistent with a number of otherwise divergent approaches to language . Trubetzkoy &apos;s phonology as well as Pike &apos;s or Trager and Smith &apos;s phonemics is structural ; morphological analyses based on the meanings expressed by the forms can be worked out structurally , and equally the purely formal morphemic analysis of Harris is structural . semantics can , at least in part , be treated structurally on the lines of the de Saussure-inspired field theory , or on the statistical models suggested by Wells and others , and Firth &apos;s theory of context of situation , framed so as to cover the whole of the semantic analysis of utterances as far as this can fall within general linguistics , is essentially structural . applied to general linguistics as a whole , structural has a fairly definite comprehensive meaning , namely that the elements and categories of linguistic statement and analysis are established and explained by reference to their relations with one another within the system or systems of the language concerned , rather than as units of an aggregate each carrying its own independent formal constitution or value . applied to syntax , perhaps , the term adds less than to the other levels of linguistic analysis . in a sense syntax has always been structural , as it has concerned the relations of the parts of sentences to each other , whether as exponents of the logical constituents of propositions in the traditional view , or as the expression of the psychological components of judgments , or , in formal terms , as the elements of a number of patterns to which sentences of a particular language can be shown to conform . these considerations are all pertinent to the reading of Tesni&amp;egrave;re &apos;s recently published extensive work on syntax . his &amp;Eacute;l&amp;eacute;ments , in manuscript at the time of his death in 1954 and now published with an explanatory preface by J Fourquet ( pp 3-7 ) , arose from his dissatisfaction , especially from the teacher &apos;s point of view , which is constantly kept to the fore , with traditional grammar and its preoccupation with morphology as the basis of grammatical instruction and the learning of languages . for Tesni&amp;egrave;re syntax is the centre of grammar and the proper foundation for grammatical categories like word classes , morphology being the study of some of the markers of such categories and of the syntactic functions of words in the sentence ( chapters 15-6 ) . in language description syntax is the heart of the grammar , not something added at the end to explain the uses of the morphologically different forms . this emphasis on syntax , or sentence structure , in grammar , rather than on word form , morpheme shapes , and paradigms , is to be welcomed , and is in agreeable contrast to an excessive devotion to purely morphological problems among some modern linguists as well as more old-fashioned ones . Tesni&amp;egrave;re shares with the more rigidly formal American linguists a reaction against tradition , but as Fourquet remarks he owes little to their work , and his theories are , more perhaps than with most writers , his own . one may , however , ask whether he has gone far enough in rejecting traditional ideas , and whether despite his insistence on the autonomy of syntax ( p 42 ) he has not , in fact , retained certain of them that look like convenient points d&apos;appui for his theory but themselves lack a secure basis in language itself . Tesni&amp;egrave;re &apos;s syntactic theory is general in the first sense mentioned above ; language expresses thought ( p 12 ) , and grammatical categories are id&amp;eacute;es g&amp;eacute;n&amp;eacute;rales and classificateurs of the innumerable id&amp;eacute;es particuli&amp;egrave;res ; they may vary from language to language and are not identical with the cat&amp;eacute;gories de la pens&amp;eacute;e which are said to be the same for all men ( how do we know this ? ) , but have close links with them and often coincide , and always rel&amp;egrave;vent de la s&amp;eacute;mantique ( chapter 24 ) . an example of this kind of grammatical approach is found in the way Tesni&amp;egrave;re defines the various types of subordinate clause ( causal , final , conditional , concessive , etc , chapters 254-65 ) by their meanings , and then exhibits examples of the same types differently realized in different languages ( e.g chapter 243 , &amp;symbol;7 ; 259 , &amp;symbol;15 ; 262 , &amp;symbol;23 ) . though he elaborates his work mainly with reference to written French , with a bias towards the language of literature , and his illustrations are drawn largely from European languages ( note that all the American-Indian languages are lumped together typologically ! , p 33 ) , he regards the basic elements of his syntax as universal . words as written are the units he works with , but he recognizes the difficulties of word delimitation and the occasional inadequacies of traditional orthographic divisions ( chapter 10 ) . where what he considers to be the same sort of syntactic process ( e.g a translation , see below ) is carried out in one language by a separate word and in another by an affix , he does not for that reason analyse it differently ( p 361 ) . Tesni&amp;egrave;re &apos;s syntax is based on the noeud , and sentences consist wholly of noeuds hierarchically arranged , the minimal sentence being a single simple noeud . sentences set out in such a way as to reveal their nodal structuring are called stemmata , and abstract stemmata ( phrases virtuelles , chapter 33 ) represent sentence types with the lexical differences of the component words ignored . sentences in familiar languages are usually based on a verbal noeud , but other noeuds ( nominal , adjectival , and adverbial ) are possible as entire sentences , especially in conversational discourse ( p 15 ) . stemmata represent the sentence structure , and the real sentence syntactically ; speaking a language is transforming it into a linear succession of words , and conversely understanding is recovering the sentence structure from such a succession ( chapter 6 ) . the following examples illustrate , ( a ) and ( b ) a single noeud , and , ( c ) a hierarchy of noeuds in a stemma ( pp 14-15 ) : subordination , the dependence of the governed on the governor , represented by its occupying a lower line in the stemma , is fundamental , since the noeud is defined as un r&amp;eacute;gissant qui commande un ou plusieurs subordonn&amp;eacute;s ( chapters 2 , 3 ) , though the concept does not appear to be fully defined . adjectives depend on nouns , and adverbs on verbs or adjectives , and tout subordonn&amp;eacute; suit le sort de son r&amp;eacute;gissant ( p 14 ) , just as in Bloomfieldian terms words are grouped into endocentric constructions because they behave syntactically like their head component . but Tesni&amp;egrave;re also subordinates subject nouns to verbs , as is seen in the examples cited above , where parle governs Alfred as well as Bernard , and so on . we are not told why ; is it because in some languages ( e.g Latin ) the verb by itself can form a complete sentence ( cantat , of which vir cantat is an expansion ) ? in French chante is not a complete sentence of the same type as Alfred chante , but il chante is , and such a sentence , wherein il is a mot vide and a mere indice , is regarded as a single semantic unit ( nucl&amp;eacute;us ) , though a noeud of head and subordinate ( chapter 22 , cp stemma 33 , p 56 ) . if this is the argument , it is not made clear by Tesni&amp;egrave;re . words are divisible into the categories of full ( pleins ) and empty ( vides ) on semantic grounds , full words bearing a separate meaning , empty words only a grammatical use ( chapter 28 ) . this is familiar ground , and it is hard to see how the distinction can be rigorously carried through ; having an independent meaning is probably equivalent to the fact that a gloss can be given by a native speaker to the word in isolation , and this is likely to be a matter of degree rather than of a binary division into two classes . Tesni&amp;egrave;re follows the full &amp;sol; empty division with the more formal division of mot constitutif and mot subsidiaire ( chapter 29 ) , the former being able to constitute the head of a noeud , while the latter can only appear as a subordinate member of one . the divisions full &amp;sol; empty and constitutive &amp;sol; subsidiary are nearly though not quite coextensive in membership ( p 57 ) . although the full &amp;sol; empty division is the less satisfactory of the two , it is this that is used subsequently in word classification , and within full words four classes ( each of which can be the head of its own noeud ) are recognized and distinguished by their class meanings ( contenu cat&amp;eacute;gorique , chapter 32 ) : defined thus these classes are general , but not universal , because , astonishingly , we read that the noun &amp;sol; verb distinction is predominantly European , and that the majority of other languages show only nominal noeuds as the basis of their sentences , and conceive of process as a substance ( p 61 ) . mots vides are either junctives , joining grammatically equivalent words and word groups together , or translatives , which convert the grammatical class of one word into that of another or convert a sentence or word group into the grammatical equivalent of a single word . thus and and but ( traditionally coordinating conjunctions ) are junctives ; prepositions are translatives converting nouns into adverbs ( first degree translation , pp 386-7 ) , and the traditional relative pronouns and subordinating conjunctions are translatives of the second degree ( conjunction + verbal noeud = adverb , relative pronoun + verbal noeud = adjective ) . translation ( in Tesni&amp;egrave;re &apos;s sense ) , which may be marked by separate mots vides ( translatifs ) , by affixes or word form changes , or be unmarked , is what gives languages their universal suppleness and utility ( chapter 153 ) , and its importance in grammar is emphasized throughout the book . in fact approximately the second half of it is devoted to the theoretical exposition and copious exemplification of the various types of translation , and includes double ( and triple and upwards ) translations , as when , for example , a de-adjectival noun or nominal expression is adverbialized ( e.g French ( trancher ) dans le vif , pp 474-5 ) . the four classes of full words always preserve their class meanings and their consequent grammatical status , and an apparent atypical use ( e.g adverb with a noun head , un homme bien , un vin extra , owi p&amp;aacute;lai &amp;aacute;nthropoi , chapter 197 ) is explained as a translation adjective to adverb without overt mark ; conversely , morphological form , if in apparent contrast to syntactic function , has no effect on classification ( in French tout &amp;sol; toute in sentences like elle est toute honteuse , p 184 , is an adverb irrespective of its concordial variability of gender form ) . 