1. Notice convening the meeting was read by the secretary. The previous meeting was read and confirmed.

2. The chairman proposed and Mr. ……….. seconded that a divide should be paid on the equity shares.

3. The auditors report upon the balance sheet as of 31st March…… the accounts to that date were read.

4. The register of directors’ shares and debentures holdings was and left open and accessible throughout the meeting.

5. The annual report and accounts were adopted by the shareholders.

6. Carried unanimously :
Mr ……………………. shareholder, proposed and Mr ………………. shareholder seconded that Mr. ‘A’ be, and he is hereby removed from a director of this company and that Mr. ‘B’ be, and he is hereby a director of the company in his place, to hold office only during such ‘A’ would have held office if he had not been removed”.

7. Declared carried :
The chairman proposed and Mr…………….seconded that Mr…………..one of the directors retiring by rotation who offered himself for repo re-elected.

8. Carried unanimously :
The chairman proposed and Mr…………….seconded that Mr…………….be elected director in place of Mr……………..the other director retiring by rotation who had informed the company that for health reasons he did not wish to offer himself for re-election.

9. Carried unanimously :
Mr. S. proposed and Mr. D. seconded “that Messrs. R. & Co. be are hereby appointed auditors of the company for the ensuing year at an 80,000 in place of Messrs Z & Co”.

10. Carried unanimously:
A vote of thanks to the chairman, proposed by Mr…………..and by Mr…………….., concluded the meeting.

Dated………………….                                                    Sd/-                                                        Sd/-
Secretary                                                                Chairman

Minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting of the shareholders ABC Ltd. held on…………….at the registered office at New Delhi. The following were present :
1.
2.
3.
Mr……………………..was voted to the chair.
Agenda
To consider the appointment of Mr………………………as Director.
Proceedings
The question of appointment of Mr………………………. as a Director of the company was examined by the members and it was resolved as under:
“Resolved that Mr…………………be and is hereby
appointed as Director of the company with effect from…………………”
“Further resolved that Mr……………………be and is hereby authorized to complete the necessary formalities of intimating the Registrar of Companies about the appointment of Mr…………………as Director of the
company”.
Any other matter :
There being no other item on the agenda, the meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.

Dated.Sd/-Secretary                                                                                        Sd/-Chairman

Q. 4. Compare and contrast between formal and national grammar.

---

Ans. Formal grammar is the grammar that both in theory and in the method is concerned solely with the observable forms, structural functions, and interrelations of the components of sentences or stretches of utterance. The modern grammatical theory is frequently said to be ‘formal’, in contrast
with traditional grammar, which was ‘notional’. According to Jesperson, ‘notional’ grammar starts from the assumption that there exist ‘extra lingual categories which are independent of the more or less
accidental facts of existing languages’ and are ‘universal in so far as they are applicable to all languages, though rarely expressed in them in a clear and unmistakable way’. ‘Formal grammar puts forward no such assumptions about the universality of such categories as the ‘parts of speech, ‘tense’, ‘mode’, etc. (as they were traditionally defined) and claims to describe the structure of every language on its own terms.



One function of grammar is to specify as simply as possible for a language what sentences are ‘acceptable’ and to do this in terms of some of the general theory of language structure. The scholars of formal grammar have formulated ‘distribution’ and discovery procedures. In particular, it was assumed that the proper task of ‘structural linguistics’ was to formulate a technique, or procedure, which could be applied to a corpus of attested utterance and, with the minimum use of the informant’s
judgments of ‘sameness’ and difference’ could be guaranteed to derive the rules of the grammar from the corpus itself.

A grammatical description that is based entirely on the observable forms of a language may be called FORMAL GRAMMAR, whereas a description based on meanings rather than forms is called NOTIONAL
or PHILOSOPHICAL GRAMMAR. A formal definition of the noun in English might be: a word that distinguishes between singular and plural and possibly has a possessive form’, whereas a notional definition might be a ‘naming word’. Traditional grammar has always been a fusion of notional and formal elements, which has often led to inconsistencies and discrepancies.

Two major traditions have been distinguished in the modern linguistic theory of Chomsky: one is the tradition of ‘universal’ or ‘philosophical’ or ‘notional’ grammar which flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the second is the tradition of structural or descriptive linguistics, which developed in the later 19th century and early twentieth century and reached its culminating point in the 1950s. Universal grammar was concerned with general features of language structure rather than with
particular idiosyncracies Universal grammarians believed: ‘Grammar should not be merely a record of the data of usage, but rather should offer an explanation for such data. It should establish general principles applicable to all languages, based ultimately on intrinsic properties of the mind, which would explain how language is used and why it has the particular properties to which the descriptive grammarian chooses, irrationally, to restrict his attention’.

Chomsky further says that besides this, universal grammarians proceeded to develop a ‘rich and far-reading account of the general principles of ‘language structure’, and a psychological theory dealing with certain aspects of language use, with production and comprehension of sentences. Universal grammar made a sharp distinction between what is called now ‘deep structure’ and ‘surface structure’. ‘What is more, universal grammar developed as part of a general philosophical tradition that provided deep and important insights, also largely forgotten, into the use and acquisition of language, and, furthermore, into problems of perception, and acquisition, of knowledge in general’.

The universal grammarians were interested in the universal properties of languages and not in their individual idiosyncrasies or individual properties. They believed all languages were alike. They were vague and gave airy pronouncements not supported by any rigorous formalism. In theory, grammar should not be merely a record of data but should rather offer an explanation (in the inter-relatedness of sentences). They were interested in organizing power but they did it in the form of impression. They did not create any formalism; they did not have motivated rules, leading from one to the other. Yet they had a vision, not the framework to organize it.

Anthropological or structural linguists, on the other hand, we’re interested in studying languages as a mirror of culture. No cultures are alike; hence no languages are alike. ‘Structural linguistics is a direct
outgrowth of the concepts that emerged in an Indo-European comparative study, which was primarily concerned with language as a system of phonological units that undergo systematic modification in phonetically determining contexts. Structural linguistics reinterpreted this concept for a fixed state of a language investigated the relations among such units and the patterns they form, and attempted, with varying success, to extend the same kind of analysis of ‘higher levels of linguistic’ structure. Its fundamental assumption is that procedures of segmentation and classification, applied to data in a systematic way, can isolate and identify all types of elements that function in a particular language along with the constraints that they obey. A catalog of these elements, their relations, and their restrictions of ‘distribution’, would, in most structuralist views, constitute a full grammar of the language’.

Structural linguistics provided a remarkable and scientific methodological basis for language study. It also provided new standards of clarity and objectivity. ‘These methodological contributions are not
limited to a raising of the standards of precision. In a more subtle way, the idea that language can be studied as a formal system, a notion that is developed with force and effectiveness in the work of Harris and Hockett is of particular significance. It is, in fact, this general insight and the techniques that emerged as it developed that have made it possible, in the last few years, to approach the traditional problems once again. Specifically, it is now possible to study the problems or rule-governed creativity in natural language, the problem of constructing grammars that explicitly generate deep and surface structures and express the relations between them, and the deeper problem of determining the universal conditions that limit the form and organization of rules in the grammar of human language’.

Nevertheless, structural linguistics is the scientific study of language. It is inductive, objective, tentative, and systematic; it is concerned with reportable facts, methods, and principles; it works by means of
observations, hypotheses, experiments, postulates, and inferences; its products are descriptive verbal or algebraic statements about language.

Ba llb 3rd semester communication skills-verbal communication notes

Conclusion-

Communication Skills-concept can change your of communication skill for any profession

you may like above post (communication skills pdf)

coomment us your feedback below.