transformational & generative · 2020. 9. 6. · transformational & generative grammar. this...

TRANSFORMATIONAL &

GENERATIVE

GRAMMAR (TGG),

Licence 2 & FIP 2.

Dr ATCHE Djedou, F. H-B University, 2019-20

GENERAL OBJECTIVE:

Learners will know the Basics

of Transformational& Generative

Grammar(Generativism)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:

Learners should be able toaccount for the following:

1- Syntactic Theory;2- Standard Theory;

3- The Kernel Sentence;

4- Generative & Transformational

Features;

5- The Notion of Grammaticality

6- Universal Grammar

SOME REFERENCES Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures). Mouton

Chomsky, N.(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.

Radford, A. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. 1988.

Lyons, J.(1977) Chomsky. Fontana. Collins. Glasgow

Huddleston, R. ( 1976) An Introduction to English Transformational Syntax. Longman.

Jackendoff, R.S. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press. Cambridge.

Nicolas RUWET. (1967) Introduction à la Grammaire Générative, Paris, Plon.

Waria Omar Amin. (2012). ‘Models of Generative Grammar’ Iraqi Academic Scientific Journal.

INTRODUCTION (1)

In 1957 Noam CHOMSKY, an AmericanLinguist, published Syntactic Structures, astatement of the principles ofTransformational & GenerativeGrammar.

This grammar has had a profound effect onthe study of all languages, including English.

It was a reaction against structuralism andthe first model to acknowledge formally thesignificance of Deep Structure.

INTRODUCTION (2)

Transformational Grammar strongly criticizedStructural Linguistics on the ground that thistheory was describing language as a finalproduct.

According to the advocators ofTransformational and Generative Grammar(TGG), a sound linguistic theory should try andexplain how sentences are produced.

For them, a sound theory should describe thelinguistic operations involved in theproduction of sentences.

TGG then claims to be a grammar of production.

INTRODUCTION (3)

The objective is to create an explicit model ofwhat an ideal speaker of the languageintuitively knows.

The model must assign a structure, therefore,to all the sentences of the language concernedand only to these sentences.

From its initial version in the mid-1950s uptoday, TGG has gone through severalreformulations;

Noam Chomsky was always prepared to revisithis theory of the speaker’s Competence eachtime his detractors would raise new syntacticdifficulties;

INTRODUCTION (4)

However, whatever the modificationsreinserted, from the first Formulation (F1)to the subsequent versions with theUniversal Grammar Hypothesis via theParameter Hypothesis up to theMinimalist Program, some cardinalconcepts have remained;

Such is the case of the notions ofTransformation Rules, Competence andPerformance, Cognitive Dimension of thehuman language, etc.

I- BASIC ASSUMPTIONSAll Chomsky’s theory (TGG) evolves around4 basic questions:1- What is language?

2- What do we know when we say that we know alanguage?

3- What are the defining characteristics between naturallanguages and other systems of communication?

4- Are languages really different? And to what extent dothey differ? And if they are different, do they differ in anunpredictable way?

In answering these questions, two mainconcepts stand out: the Innateness ofLanguage, and Competence &Performance.

1.1- The Innateness of Language (1)

It is the assumption that our mother tonguedoes not come from the outside world, butit is originated from inside the individual.

Admitting that language is innate is alsoadmitting that a native language cannotbe acquired through imitation.

Native languages are not learned, theysimply develop all along the cognitivedevelopment.

1.1- The Innateness of Language (2)

When we consider the complexity ofhuman languages and the way they areeasily acquired by young children, weare compelled to admit that not all the rulesthey use to speak the language come fromthe outside.

Chomsky finds two types of evidence toshow Language Innateness:

The positive Evidence &

The Negative Evidence

1.1.1- The Positive Evidence (1)

It is the existence of concrete facts indicatingthat young children rely on a built-insystem to progressively master their nativelanguage.

From exposure to a certain linguistic input,children will learn very limited number ofstructures, and from these, they are able tomake their own verbal production.

By approximation, they manage to develop a

relatively correct grammar over time;

1.1.1- The Positive Evidence (2)

The fact that they produce correct sentencesthey have never heard before is an evidencethat the principles of such structures pre-existed to the incoming linguistic input.

In other words, since they know thesentence structure, they can producesome new sentences just by following therules!

And this capacity of creating novel structuresis possible because of the LanguageAcquisition Device (LAD).

1.1.2- Negative Evidence

(La Preuve de l’Absurde) (1)

In their linguistic exposure, children areexposed to a Limited Input, and sometimesto a distorted input.

This mean that around them, adults andparents sometimes will speak with mistakes.

But children do not appear to reproduce thesame mistakes though they are notnecessarily taught device in their mind thatdoes not make home for any kinds of wrongcombinations.



So, it is as if the psychological apparatus wererefuting the combinations that do not fit in ourmind.

Young children or learners of a second languagedo not make any kind of mistake.

We can predict some mistakes learnerswill never make.

E.g. “Le table” or “le table est petite”, or “la femmea donne trois cahiers” are possible mistakes.But mistakes such as “cahiers a femme trois la

donne” are not possible.



The last sentence is very unlikely in themistake repertoire of the French languagebecause it does not comply with the internallogic of sentence structure whereby we dividesentences into two immediate constituents.

The fact that some mistakes are almostimpossible is the evidence that long beforeacquiring their linguistic experience fromadults, the logical system of children rejectssome combinations as impossible, becausethey do not fit in the cognitive system oflearners.



The logical organization of the sentence isanterior to the linguistic experience oflearners.

No language is easier or more difficultthan other languages.

The difficulty to learn a language comesfrom reasons, which are not linguisticfactors but from social andpsychological factors.



The complexity of languages is justapparent.

It is a mere surface perception.

All languages function according to thesame universal principles.

So, we can oppose the surface level’sapparent complexity to an underlyingorganization, and this is reflected in theopposition of Competence and Performance.

1.2- Competence & Performance

1.2.1- Competence

Competence is the tacit knowledge oflanguage rules that the speaker uses toproduce correct sentences in his language.

So, Chomsky defines it as ‘the ideal speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language’.

The person who has acquired knowledge of alanguage has internalized a system of rules thatrelate sound and meaning in a particular way.

1.2.1- Competence

The linguist constructing a grammar of alanguage is in effect proposing a hypothesisconcerning the internalized system.

In other words, competence is the perfectstorehouse of linguistic knowledge.

It is therefore a very powerful skill.

Using his/her competence, the ideal nativespeaker can produce and understand allpossible sentences all his/her language.

1.2.1- Competence

He/she can even decipher those he has neverheard before, that is, novel sentences.

The speaker also uses his competence tomake correct judgement on sentences.

Competence is not only at the level of syntax,it manifests itself at any level of languagepractice.

In practice, competence is something complexand nowadays people distinguish several typesof competence.

Grammatical Competence

It refers to the assimilation of grammar rules. E.g. 1- I thought Mary was sick, but it turned out

that she wasn’t.

E.g. 2- He thinks that John is wrong.

It is simply our knowledge or our experienceof English that shows that “she” refers to“Mary”, whereas “he” cannot be interpretedas “John” in the second sentence.

Grammatical competence then belongs tolanguage structure: it is the intuitiveknowledge of the language.

Pragmatic Competence

This type of competence belongs tolanguage use.

E.g. Today was a disaster! (says a politician)

This sentence is difficult to interpret, unlesswe knew that the politician gave a speechthat completely went down.

Pragmatic Competence calls for non-linguistic information for the productionand interpretation of the sentences.

NOTA BENE:

So, since its advent in the 1950s, TGGhas been constantly and dynamicallydeveloping;

Chomsky and many linguiststhroughout the world have contributedto the different developments.

So, TGG has undergone numerous andvarious Models & Reformulations.

Transformational & Generative Grammar

Syntactic TheoryFormulation 1 (1957)

FORMULATION 1 (1)

As early as the first Formulation (F1),Chomsky described the Ideal NativeCompetence as relying on basic modules asthis speaker produces a sentence.

The generation or the sentence productionprocess goes through 3 modules.

And the final sentence we hear from aspeaker is the result of this long-standingmental process.

2- The Three Components Thus, the native speaker operates along

three modules named “components” through which the sentence production process unfolds :

a. The Base Component;b. The Transformational Componentc. The Morpho-Phonological Component.

The speakers performs the required and specific linguistic operations in each component until the surface level;

In short, the sentence we hear is the result of the execution of diverse sorts of rules inside the components aforementioned.

2.1- The Base Component

The base component sub-divides into twosub-components that are the Category(categorial) Component and the LexicalComponent.

2.1.1- The Category Component (1)

This component contains category rewriterules and the sentence project appears in the formof grammatical categories only.


To produce a sentence like :

The boy eats those mangoes

The speaker performs the category rewrite rulesas follows:

1. S NP1 + VP2. NP Nber + MN3. MN Det + N14. VP Aux + MV5. Aux T6. MV V + NP.7. NP2 (go to rule 2)

NB: Conventionally, the horizontal arrow () reads “rewrites”


Surely this is not what we hear when someone speaks and this means that theconstruction of the sentence is not over;

The speaker then moves to another type ofrewrite rules, the Lexical Rewrite Rules.

For the sentence above, the lexical rewriterules are as follows and these are the LexicalInsertion Rules


Nbr Sing Det The N1 boy Aux Pres Verb eat Nbr Plur Det that N2 mango

Once the Lexical Rewrite Rules are executed, the speaker get the Deep Structure (DS) of the sentence also named the abstract structure:

DS : [sing. + the + boy + Pres + eat + plur. + that + mango]


Once again, the Deep Structure is not whatwe use to speak to people, the construction of thesentence is still yet to be completed;

Note: when you talk to someone you don’t tellhim!!! “my sentence will be in the presenttense, that the subject will be singular and theobject plural”

At that level, the rules to apply in the BaseComponent are over and the speaker moves tothe following module, the TransformationalComponent.

2.2- The Transformational Component (1)

This Component also contains rules, but rules oftransformations (or Transformational Rules);

The utility and role of the transformational rulesis to convert the unfinished forms of the deepstructure into elements as they are in the Englishlanguage.

And depending on the speaking objectives, thespeaker will resort to several transformationalrules some of which might involve substitution(commutation), displacement, …;

Transformational rules are applied on theelements contained in the Deep Structure.


For the Deep structure built to have oursentence “The boy eats these mangoes” wewill have number of rules being applied,namely the Agreement Transformations:

DS : [sing. + the + boy + Pres + eat + plur. +that + mango]

T Agr (DS)=> sing+the + sing.+boy + 3rd Pers Sing+eat +

plu+that + plu+mango


The Agreement transformation indicates thespecificity of the English language in that thereare syntactic agreements between theDeterminer and the Number category and thisagreement is also carried over onto the Noun.

Similarly there are syntactic agreementsbetween the NP subject and the verb ,etc.

Syntactic agreements and the way they arearranged constitute a Parameter of Englishlanguage, a feature ascribed in the UniversalGrammar that this language exploits while mostAfrican languages do not set this Parameter.


Once again, the structure obtained as a resultof the application of Transformational rulesdo not bring about an ordinary structure foruse by speakers, though it is what is supposedto take place in human’s mental process.

The speakers now moves on to theMorphological Module and applies the requiredtransformations (Affix Transformation,Morphological Transformations).


For the sentence used as an illustration, let usrecall that as a result of applying thetransformational rules, the incomplete structureobtained is the following:

[sing+the + sing.+boy + 3rd Pers Sing+eat +plu+that + plu+mango]

The application of the subsequenttransformations, namely the Morphologicaltransformation consists in affixing morphemesat the position required by the English language;


The English language requires that all boundmorphemes be affixed by suffixation to lexicalbases (roots or radical) and not the other wayround (i.e. pre-fixation), as it might happen insome languages;

Note that in some languages (Sandawi,Tanzania) and presumably in Ki-Swahili, theobject pronoun can be suffixed to the verb, whichis a particular parameter of these languages…

The application of the affix transformation rulesgives the following string:


T Aff (DS) [the+sing + boy+sing. + eat+3rdPers+Sing + plur+that

+ mango+plur]

It is assumed in the first Formulation ofTGG, that the Affix transformation rulesare this way:

sing.+the => the+sing.

plur+that => that+plur

eat+Pres 3rd Pers Sing => eat+3rd Pers Sing


But such a structure holds for languages thatare equipped with a writing system or when thesentence is written on a paper or in a writtendocument;

Therefore, in order to be heard by his co-speaker, the speaker commit himself in thelatest transformation, the morphologicaltransformation by converting categorialelements in actual morphological format ontothe last version of the deep structure.


The morphological transformation rulesgives the format that all native and non-native speakers of English know andrecognize as a viable structure:

T Morpho (DS) => The boy eats those mangoes

Then, the phonological transformationgives the final format of the sentence and theoutcome is as follows:

T Phono (DS)

=> [ð bɔ I i :ts ðʊZ mængʊZ ]


The transformational process from the raw deepstructure up to the surface structure is called thederivation of the sentence and in pedagogicalpractice, the derivation process of a sentenceunfolds this way:

i) The category rewrite rules

ii) The lexical insertion rules

iii) The tree diagram;

iv) The application of the diverse transformations:

Agreement Transformation; Affix Transformation Morphological Transformation; Phonological Transformation.


Very importantly, Chomsky claims that histheory is robust enough to account for allsentences but with a relatively reducedrules, compared to Structural Linguistics.

Additionally he gave evidence that TGGaccounts for structurally ambiguoussentence (not lexically ambiguous ones in theFirst Formulation of TGG);


The power of his theory, so he claims, is that sentencesrecognized to be ambiguous will be derived fromdifferent deep structures and from different treediagrams, since they have different meanings;

Consider the following sentence:

The policemen struck the gangster with the hammer

How do you understand it?

Use the Structural Linguistics formalization test to spell out the

ambiguity.


You should have something like this :

(a) The policemen struck (the gangster with the hammer)

(b) It is (with the hammer) that the policemen struck the gangster

In the last resort, it is the meaning of thesentence (i.e. the speaker communicationintents) that commands having differenttree diagrams and different deepstructure, the DS which is the meaningsderived from the deep structure.


Case study with the sentence:

The policemen shoot the gangster

i) The rewrite rules:

S NP1 + VP NP Nbr1 + MN1 MN Det1 + N1 VP Aux + MV MV V + NP. 2 NP2 Nbr2 + MN2 MN2 Det2 + N2




ii. The Lexical Insertion Rules

Nbr plur Det The N1 policeman Verb shoot Nbr Sing Det the N2 gangster


iii) The Tree Diagram

S

NP

V

Nbr

VP

MV

Det

N

AuxMN

NP

MN

Nbr

N

Det

T

Plur the policeman Pres shoot Sing the gangster




iii. Transformations

T Aggr (DS)=> [Plur+the + plur+policeman + Pres 3rd Person+Plur+shoot+ sing+the + sing+gangster]

T Aff (DS)=> [the+Plur + policeman+plur + shoot+Pres 3rd Person Plur + the+sing + gangster+sing]




iii. Transformations

T Morpho(DS)=> The policemen shoot the gangster

T Phono (DS)

=> [ð pɔ ’ l Ismn ∫u:t ð ‘gæŋst]


Standard TheoryFormulation 2 (1965)

3.1- Basic Principles (1)

In 1965 Chomsky published Aspects of theTheory of Syntax in which he summarizesthe development of TransformationalGrammar Theory from its beginning to 1965.

He also formalizes the version of the theorywhich is generally referred to as TheStandard Theory.

The most radical changes are:


1- The notion of Kernel is abandoned andhe identified the underlying constituents ofsentences as Deep Structure.

2- Deep structures are generated byPhrase-Structure Rules, and SurfaceStructures are derived from deep structuresby a series of transformations.

4- The recursive property of the grammar isaccounted for in the Phrase Structure Rules.

3- Semantics is an integrated part of thetheory, leading to Generative Semantics.


Generative Semantics (GS) is an approachwithin Generative Grammar that was initiated inlate 1960s, by John Ross, Paul Postal,James McCawley and George Lakoff.

GS proposes that the Deep Structure of asentence is the equivalent and sole input ofthe semantic representation, from which theSurface Structure can be derived.

This is made possible by using only one set ofrules that relate underlying meaning and surfaceform rather than separate sets of semanticand syntactic rules.


This approach necessitated more complexunderlying structures than those proposed byChomsky, and more complex transformationsas a consequence.

The approach was appealing in severalrespects:

1- It offered a clear insight for explaining synonymity. 2- The theory had a pleasingly intuitive structure: the

form of a sentence was quite literally derivedfrom its meaning via transformations.

Generative Semantics approach isoutlined in the following diagram


The main difference between Surface

Structure Model and Aspect Model is theinsertion of (semantic component) intothe theoretical framework of TG grammar.

The core aspect of Standard Theory is thedistinction between two different levels of asentence, called Deep Structure andSurface Structure.

The two representations are linked to eachother by Transformational Grammar.


Deep structure is an abstract level of structuralorganization in which all the elementsdetermining structural and semanticinterpretation are represented.

Chomsky modifies his theory in such a way thatdeep structures are generated in two stages:

First a simple set of Phrase Structure Rulesgenerate Phrase Markers in which the terminalpositions are empty slots for the lexical items tobe inserted in the second stage. Such PhraseMarkers are referred to as pre -lexical structure.

The following is an example for Phrase Markers:


In the second stage the empty places are

filled with complex symbols consisting ofmorphemes plus their syntactic and semanticfeatures by the rules of lexicaltransformations.

The PS rules and lexical transformationsjointly constitute what is called the BASECOMPONENT of the grammar.

For example a deep structure for thesentence (The girl bought the bird) will be:

This Diagram shows how

Grammar is outlined in the

ASPECT Theory:

3.2-Replacing the VP: The Predicate

A refinement of the Verb Phrase (VP)constituent was suggested in the subsequentversion of TGG, Formulation 2 (F2) on thegrounds that all VPs are not syntactically andsemantically identical.

The VP constituent then changed to become adominant (governing) constituent of VP, thePredicate

In effect, in the sentences…

a) He goes to Bouaké

b) He works in Bouaké


… Traditional grammar taught us that the two Prepositional Phrases (PPs) are Complements of location (in French Complément circonstatiel de lieu), …

… while in actual facts the semantic content of each verb (‘go’ and ‘work’) implies different things;

‘GO’ implies a movement while ‘WORK’ bears no movement underlying meaning;

These two different interpretation commends that we discriminate them:


GO

WORK

It automatically follows that EVEN though constituents “TO Bouaké” and “IN Bouaké” are all PPs, they do not ensure the same syntactic function…

… and this because they do not have the same semantic affiliation (dependence) with the two verbs (go, work).


While “GO” sort of extends thesemantic effect of movement, “WORK” does not necessarily claimsan NP whether Object or Complement.

Therefore the Phrase-marker (i.e.the Tree Diagram) needs todiscriminate this situation as follows:

The Tree Diagram (= Phrase-Marker)a) He works in Bouaké

SNP

V

Nbr

Pred

MV

N

AuxNP

MN

DetT

He Pres work in Sing Bké

VPPP

Prep

The Tree Diagram (= Phrase-Marker)

b) He goes to Bouaké

S

NP

V

Pred

MV

Nbr

N

Aux

NP

MN

Det

T

He Pres go to Sing Bké

VP

PP

Prep

3.2-Replacing the VP: The Predicate This new solution automatically suggests a more elegant discrimination in syntactic (structural) ambiguities in a sentence like :

The policemen struck the gangster with the hammer

That sentence can be interpreted as:

a) The policemen struck the gangster with a hammer, not with a stick or a brick

a) It is the man holding the hammer that the policemen struck, not the one who was bare hand

Two different meanings embodied in the syntactic

make-up of the sentence must be backed to differentTree Diagrams (Phrase-markers), as follows:

The Tree Diagram (=Phrase-Marker)

(a) The policemen struck the gangster (with the hammer )

S

NP

V

Nbr

Pred

MV

N

Aux

NPMN

DetT

The policemen Past strike Sing the gangster with sing the hammer

VP PP

PrepNP

Nbr MN

Det N

The Tree Diagram (=Phrase-Marker)

(b) The policemen struck (the gangster with the hammer )

S

NP

V

Pred

MVAux

NP

Det

T

The policemen Past strike Sing the with sing the hammer gangster

VP

PP

Nbr

MN

DET

NPPrep

NbrMN

Det N

N


The Cycle and Logical Sequencing of Transformations

The normal and complete cycle of transformation and their sequencing are as follows:

TAgr (NP) = Number agreements within the NP(s)

TAgr(VP) = Number agreement between the subject NP & the verb

T Aff = Affix transformation

T Morpho = Morphological transformation

T Phono = Phonological transformation

Practice with Sentence Derivation

now!

1. The girl learned her lessons.

2. The headmaster delivers official diplomas.

3. Her son passed the final exam.

4. Official diplomas are delivered by the

headmaster.

5. They decided on the Renault bus.

6. I talked to the man in the White House.

7. They burnt the chair in the bedroom.



THE NOTION OF KERNEL

THE KERNEL SENTENCE (1)

All the sentences used as illustrations in Formulation 1 are kernel sentences.

In TGG, a kernel sentence is a simple declarative construction with only one conjugated verb.

Also known as a basic sentence or a kernel, a kernel sentence is always active and affirmative. .

In fact, the concept of the kernel sentence was first introduced in 1957 by the linguist ZelligHarris (the Mentor of Noam Chomsky) and featured in the early work of Noam Chomsky.


A kernel sentence does not contain any optionalexpression!

It is simple in the sense that it is unmarked in mood,therefore, it is indicative.

It is also unmarked in voice, therefore, it is activerather than passive.

And, finally, it is unmarked in polarity, therefore, it is a positive rather than a negative sentence.

An example of a kernel sentence is 'The man opened the door,'

And an example of a non-kernel sentence is 'The man did not open the door.


NB: Even a sentence with an adjective, gerund or infinitive is not a kernel sentence!

(i) This is a black cow is made of two kernel sentences.This is a cow and The cow is black.

(ii) I saw them crossing the river is made of I saw them and They were crossing the river.

(iii) I want to go is made of I want and I go."(M.P. Sinha, Modern Linguistics. Atlantic Publishers, 2005)


THE GENERATIVE

FEATURES

(GENERATIVENESS

GENERATIVE FEATURES (1)

One of the characteristics of TG is that it is`generative'.

In other words, a grammar must`generate all and only the grammaticalsentences of a language'.

It merely means that the grammar must beso designed that by following its rules andconventions we can produce all or any ofthe possible sentences of the language.


TG is a rule-based grammar. Generative rulesshare some characteristics of bothprescriptive and descriptive rules.

They are in the first place instructions likethe prescriptive rules;

But instead of being instructions for theproduction of correct speech, they areinstructions for generating all the possiblesentences of the language.


In the second place, like descriptiverules;

They relate to the facts of actuallanguages, not the invented languages ofgrammarians.

And they are ultimately based, therefore,upon what people say rather than whatthey ought to say.


To `generate' is thus to `predict' whatcan be the sentences of the language;

Or to `specify' precisely what are thepossible sentences of the language.

Thus a grammar should `generate',`specify‘ & `predict' sentences such as:

He plays the piano,

but not

* plays the piano he.

* He the piano plays.


The rules of TG are rewrite rules.

That is to say, they rewrite one symbol asanother or as several others or one set ofsymbols by another until eventually thesentences of the language are generated.

The rules start with symbols `S'(sentence) and then a sequence of rulesrewrite this symbol until a sentence isproduced.


Thus, A simple set of rules is as follows, if we wishto generate a sentence like `A man reads the book'.

S NP1 + VP NP Nbr1 + MN1 MN Det1 + N1 VP Aux + MV MV V + NP. 2 NP2 Nbr2 + MN2 MN2 Det2 + N2

A generative grammar is not concerned with anyactual set of sentences of the language but with thepossible set of sentences.

We are not, then, concerned or even primarily withany observed sentences that have occurred, butrather with those that can or could have occurred.


It must attempt to make explicit how a finiteentity (like the brain) can operate on afinite set of items (words and structures)and yet generate an infinite set ofsentences.

The model must parallel the ideal nativespeaker’s competence;

And so it must be capable of generating aninfinite set of sentences by the operationof a finite set of rules on a finite set ofitems.


Since the model attempts to describe theideal speaker-hearer’s linguisticknowledge & intuitions, it must beexplicit.

It must not fall back on intuition to askwhether a structure is or is not correct.

If it used intuition to define intuition, themodel would be circular and useless. A TGmodel must therefore be explicit andself-sufficient.

Its rules alone must allow us to decidewhether a structure is acceptable or not.


The advocators of TG point out that anylanguage consists of an infinite numberof sentences.

This infinity is a result of what is known as`recursion’, that we can apply the samelinguistic device over and over again.

For example,This is the house that Jack built.This is the corn that lay in the house that Jack built.This is the rat that ate the corn that lay in the

house that Jack built.


We can combine ‘ad infinitum'.

The generative grammar is explicit.

It explicitly indicates just what are thepossible sentences of the language.

By its rules and conventions it generates allthe sentences.

So, its rules and conventions are totallyexplicit.


THE NOTION OF

GRAMMATICALITY

GRAMMATICALITY (1)

One basic concept that often gives rise tounfortunate misunderstanding is that ofGrammaticality.

In this connection, it is important not to confuse thedescriptive notion grammatical with thecorresponding prescriptive notion correct.

Chomsky argued that the notions "grammatical"and "ungrammatical" could be defined in ameaningful and useful way.

According to Chomsky, it is possible for asentence to be both grammatical andmeaningless;

As in his famous example,

“Colourless green ideas sleep furiously”.

GRAMMATICALITY (2)

He argued that the intuition of a nativespeaker is enough to define thegrammaticalness of a sentence;

This means that if a particular string ofEnglish words displays some wrongness fora native English-speaker;

Relying on his competence, he can say thatthe string of words is ungrammatical;

According to Chomsky, this is entirelydistinct from the question of whether asentence is meaningful or can beunderstood.


TRANSFORMATIONAL

FEATURES

TRANSFORMATIONAL FEATURES (1)

Essentially, transformation is a method ofstating how the structures of manysentences in languages can be generated;

It also state how sentences can beexplained formally as the result of specifictransformations applied to certain basicsentence structures.

Transformational rules are not strictlynecessary for the purpose of generating theset of grammatical sentences in a language,since that can be done using PhraseStructure Rules alone.


But the use of transformations provideseconomy in some cases (the total number ofrules can thus be reduced);

It also provides a way of representingthe grammatical relations that existbetween sentences, which would nototherwise be reflected in a system withphrase structure rules alone.

The transformational syntax presupposesa certain amount of phrase structuregrammar of the immediate constituent typeto provide the basis of the `kernel' fromwhich transformations start.


Chomsky’s grammar is a transformationalone because it contains TransformationalRules, which are used to convert a deepstructure into a surface.

The Deep Structure can be considered asthe Input, the Generative andTransformational Rules correspond to theProcessing, and the Surface Structure isthe Output.


Deep structure (DS) = “The child reads the book”.

Transformational Passive (DS) = “The book is read by the child”.

Transformational Negative (DS) = “The child does not read the book”.

Transformational Interrogative (DS) = “Does the child read the book?”

Transformational Assertive (DS) = “The child does read the book”.


THE NOTION OF

UNIVERSAL

GRAMMAR

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR (1)

The notion of Universal Grammarwas developed by Chomsky inPrinciples & Parameters in 1979. It deals with principles & parameters

that are universal to humanlanguages.

It hypothesizes that any attempt toexplain the syntax of a particularlanguage using a principle orparameter is cross-examined with theevidence available in other languages.


This approach is able to account fordifferences among languages whilemaintaining the idea that all languages arecut from the same cloth, whose nature isdetermined by the innately-given principles ofUniversal Grammar or UG.

The inter-relatedness of Universals andInnate Knowledge leads to the conclusionthat we can uncover universal properties oflanguage by detailed studies of the grammarof one Particular Language.


Chomsky stated that whatever knowledge a

native speaker has about his language whichhe cannot have acquired through experiencemust be attributable to innate knowledge;

And whatever is innate must thereforebe universal (at least, if we assume that theinnate language faculty does not varysignificantly from one individual to another).

In following examples:

(a) I wonder who the men expected to see them

(b) The men expected to see them


In the first example, the pronoun them canbe interpreted as refereing to the men, butnot in the second example;

Chomsky argues that neither childrenacquiring English as their first language northose learning it as a second language haveto learn the principles governing theinterpretation of pronouns in such cases.

He asks rhetorically: ‘How does every childknow, unerringly, to interpret the clausedifferently in the two cases?


And why does no pedagogical grammar

have to draw the learner’s attention to suchfacts?

The implicit answer is that the relevantprinciples of interpretation are innate,and hence ‘known without relevantexperience’.

Chomsky said that ‘the study of onelanguage may provide crucial evidenceconcerning the structure of some otherlanguage’

TD: Provide an answer to the following questions

1- What is the main criticism raised by the advocators ofTGG against Structural Linguistics? According to them, whatshould a sound theory be able to do?

2- Chomsky claims that his Grammar is a generative one.What is the meaning that he gave to the verb “generate”?

3- Account for the process through which the sentenceproduction unfolds, according to Transformational &Generative Grammar.

4- Show the difference between “competence” and“performance” as advocated by Chomsky in his grammar.

5- “No language is easier or more difficult than otherlanguages.” How far is this statement true in light of TGGmodel?

End of Session

Thank you for

your friendly

Attention !

transformational & generative · 2020. 9. 6. · transformational & generative grammar. this...

Documents