|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. |
|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
...is 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.
Aspekte der Syntaxtheorie Frankfurt 1978
Language and Mind Cambridge 2006
Einzelding und logisches Subjekt Stuttgart 1972
Analyse und Metaphysik München 1994
Die Grenzen des Sinns Frankfurt 1981
Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995
Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977