Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

Transformational Grammar: is also called generative transformational grammar or generative grammar. It was originally developed by Noam Chomsky to explain the fact that speakers can form from a finite number of rules an immeasurably large number of sentences. See also universal grammar, language acquisition, grammar, syntax, sentences.

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 Item Summary Meta data
Chomsky I 271
Chomsky: thesis: in any language, surface structures are produced by "grammatical transformation" from "deep structures" - Definition transformation: Representation of an indexed bracket on an indexed bracket, e.g. [S[NPJohn][VP is [AP Certain] [VP ...] - deep structure: even an indexed bracket - the large class of deep structure is specified by basic rules - deep structure: subject and predicate may be exchanged - deep structures are limited in their variance.
Chomsky I 296
Transformation/Grammar/ChomskyVsPutnam: Transformations are not rules but operations - (for creating surface structures from deep structures).
Strawson VI 395
Transformational grammar Vs traditional grammar: it is supposed to be too unsystematic, no explanation with the traditional concepts "verb" , "noun", "object" is possible - transformational grammer Vs formal logic.
Strawson VI 397
Grammar/Strawson: must distinguish between essential and non-essential connections.
Lyons I 269
Generalized Transformation/Chomsky/Lyons: up to now we only had one end chain as input in the transformational component. However, the system also allows the combination of two or more end chains (by concatenating chain pairs = by means of optional generalized transformations, these are also called
Definition transformations with double base/double-based/Chomsky/Lyons: if two or more end chains serve as input for the transformation. = "generalized transformation").
Transformation/Chomsky/Lyons: here there are two classes:
a) Embedding rules
b) Conjunction rules.
Tradition/Lyons: this does not quite correspond to the traditional distinction between complex sentence and compound sentence.
Lyons I 269
Surface texture/Lyons: e.g. flying planes has the same surface texture as e.g. supersonic planes (adjective + noun).
Deep structure: e.g. flying plane has a transformational relationship to the deep structure of e.g. plane fly and to planes are flying.
Grammar: thus it generates a matrix string of the form NP - be - A) and a constituent string of the form NP - V intr.
Lyons I 269
Embeding/embedding rules/Chomsky/Lyons: were merely suggested in "Syntactic Structures" (N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Berlin, New York 1957). The important thing is that an embedded structure...
Lyons I 270 the transformation of a chain which could also be the underlying structure of an entire sentence, but which functions as a constituent of another sentence. It is a sentence in another sentence.
The P-marker of the matrix sentences dominated by S therefore contains another S, which is dominated by the corresponding symbol with regard to the function of the constituent sentence in the overall structure.
Definition clause/Terminology/Linguistics/Lyons: Subset
Definition phrase/Terminology/Linguistics/Lyons: Complex of words.
Conjunction transformation: on the other hand, also connects sentences within a larger sentence.
In this case, however, no sentence is subordinated, but both retain their sentence status. The P-marker for the larger sentence will therefore contain two (or more) co-ordinated ∑ below the uppermost ∑.
Transformational Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: does not actually connect sentences, but rather the underlying structures of the sentences.

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.

Cho I
N. Chomsky
Aspekte der Syntaxtheorie Frankfurt 1978

Cho II
N. Chomsky
Language and Mind Cambridge 2006

Str I
P.F. Strawson
Einzelding und logisches Subjekt Stuttgart 1972

Str IV
P.F. Strawson
Analyse und Metaphysik München 1994

Str V
P.F. Strawson
Die Grenzen des Sinns Frankfurt 1981

Ly I
J. Lyons
Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995

John Lyons
Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977

Send Link
> Counter arguments against Chomsky

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

> Export as BibTeX Datei
Legal Notice & Contact   Data protection declaration

Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2018-06-22