Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Congruence: In linguistics, congruence refers to the agreement between different elements within a sentence, such as nouns and their associated adjectives or verbs and their subjects, in terms of features like gender, number, or case. It ensures grammatical consistency._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Noam Chomsky on Congruence - Dictionary of Arguments
Lyons I 267 Congruence/Subject/Verb/Transformational Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: somewhere in the description of the language we have to record the legality of the subject-verb-congruence. T-Rule/Chomsky: (N. Chomsky 1957(1) Numeric transformation (mandatory): SB : X – C - Y SV : C > {s/in the context of NP sing + … 0/in all other cases}. Here we have a different structural description than in the passive transformation. X and Y are variables that denote any substring of the input chain. C: is an end symbol of the PS rule N.B.: it is true that the context restriction for C ‹ s refers to the non-terminal symbol NP sing, but we can also consider adding this "transformational" rule to the PS rule. The effect is exactly the same. Chomsky: But it is better to use the congruence rule to the T-rules, because they apply to both active and passive sentences. Active/passive/numeric/congruence/Chomsky/Lyons: e.g. The man sees the cows, The cow is seen by the men, The cow is seen by the man, The cows are seen by the men etc. >Active/passive. Core chain: (1) T + N + 0 + C + M + have + en + V + T + N + s Lyons I 268 It goes back to NP1 - Aux - V - NP2, Transformation to (1a) T + N + 0 + s + M + have + en + V + T + N + s and (2) T + N + 0 + s + C + M + have + en + be + en V + by + T + N + s. (This corresponds to NP2 - Aux + be + en - V - by + NP1). Verbal suffixation/Chomsky(1): (1b) ...M + s # have # V + en #... (2b) …M + 0 # have # be + en # V + en # … (these are just the aux parts). Notation: #: represents the word boundaries. Lexical substitution: (1c) # the # man + 0 # will + s # have # read + en # the # book + s # (2c) # the # book + s # will + 0 # have # be # + en # read +en # by # the # man + 0 # 1. N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Berlin, New York 1957, p. 39 and p. 113._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Chomsky I Noam Chomsky "Linguistics and Philosophy", in: Language and Philosophy, (Ed) Sidney Hook New York 1969 pp. 51-94 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Chomsky II Noam Chomsky "Some empirical assumptions in modern philosophy of language" in: Philosophy, Science, and Method, Essays in Honor of E. Nagel (Eds. S. Morgenbesser, P. Suppes and M- White) New York 1969, pp. 260-285 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Chomsky IV N. Chomsky Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge/MA 1965 German Edition: Aspekte der Syntaxtheorie Frankfurt 1978 Chomsky V N. Chomsky Language and Mind Cambridge 2006 Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
||
> Counter arguments against Chomsky
> Counter arguments in relation to Congruence
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-19