Démocratie and Popular Republic of Algeria

Ministry of Higher Education and

Scientifîc Research
Faculty of letters and human sciences. u>¥

Department of English.
Module: Linguistics.

The^Important Principles of
Transformational Generative Grammar
(Chomsky's Theory of Language)

r
Prepared By: Superviser:
Aounali Abdelhalim j
Mr. Turki
'M

Académie year: 2007?M)8

The outline:
Introduction.
I) ChomskyWiews of linguistics.
2)His définition of Language.
3) Generative Grammar.
4) Recurciveness.
5) Deep and surface structure.
6) Structural ambiguity.
7) Compétence vs. Performance.
8) Introspection.
9) Innateness.
10) Linguistics Universals.
II) Transformational rules
Conclusion.
Références
CHOMSKY.INFO. THE NOAM CHOMSKY
WEBSITE.
Linguistic Books by Noam Chomsky.
Introduction

A profound change in linguistics studies bas taken place as a resuit of

work done by Noam Chomsky. He bas proposed an approach to

language description known as Transformational Generative Grammar.

Chomsky mentioned some principles and distinctions which served as a

Framework for his language study. Questions therefore arise such as

what are those trends?

1) Chomskysviews of linguisties:
«General linguistic theory can be viewed as metatheory which is concerned with
thé problem of how to choose such a grammar in thé case of each particular language
on thé basis of a finite corpus of sentences. In particular, it will consider and attempt
to explicate thé relation between thé set of grammatical sentences and thé set of
observed sentences. In other words, linguistic theory attempts to explain thé ability of
thé speaker to produce and understand new sentences and to reject as ungrammatical
other new séquences, on thé basic of his limited linguistic expérience». ... (1)

« Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an idéal speaker- listener in

completely homogeneous speech community who knows its language perfectly and is
unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant condition asrmemory limitation ,
distraction, shifts of attention and interest and errors ( random or characteristic )
applying his knowledge of thé language in actual performance» (2)

«The fondamental aim in thé linguistic analysis of a language L is to separate thé

grammatical séquences which are thé sentences of L from thé ungrammatical séquence
which are not sentences ofL and to study thé structure of thé grammatical
séquences ". (3)
His view of linguisties, is outlined for instance in his book " language and mind",is
that thé most important contribution linguisties is accordingly best seen as branch of
cognitive psychology . This is not an altogether surprising thing in view of mentalistic
claims of parts of his theory and his particular views on thé nature of language
acquisition in children, (4)
2)His définition of Language :
«From now on^I will consider a language to be a set (finite or infinité) of
sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite éléments. Ail natural
ianguages in their spoken or written form are languages in thèse sensé , since each
natural language has a finite number of phonèmes ( or letters in its alphabet ) and each
sentence is representable as a finite séquence of thèse phonèmes ( or letters ) , though
there are infinitely many sentences . Similarly, thé set of sentences of some formalized
System of a mathematics caH be considered a language» (5)

1- Chomsky Noam, Three models for thé description of language, p 113

2- Chomsky Noam, 1965. Aspects of thé theory of syntax , p 3
3 and 5- Chomsky Noam, 1957 Syntactic Structures, p: 13
4-Crystl, D.Linguistics.p263-264
_
3.GENERATIVE GRAMMAR :
Since thé 1950s,particularly developing from thé work of thé American
linguist Noam Chomsky, there hâve been attempts to produce a particular type
of grammar which would hâve a very explicit System of rules specifying what
combinations of basic éléments would resuit on well-formed sentences. This
explicit system of rules, it was proposed, would hâve much in common with
thé type of rules found in mathematics. Indeed, a définitive early statement in
Chomsky's first major work betrays this essentially mathematical view of
language:*; from now on, I will concéder a language to be a set (finite or
infmite)of sentences^Chomsky, 1957,p: 13)
This mathematical point of view helps to explain thé meaning of thé term
generative, which is used to describe this type of grammar. If you hâve an
algebraic expression like 3X + 2Y ,and you can give X and Y thé value of any
whole number, then that simple algebraic expression can generate an endless
set of values, by following thé simple rules of arithmetic. When X=5 and
Y=10, thé resuit is 35. When X=2 and Y=l, thé resuit is S.These resuit will
follow directly from applying thé explicit rules. The endless set of such resuit
is ^generated» by thé opération of thé explicitly formalized rules .If thé
sentences of language can be seen as a comparable set, then there must be a set
of explicit rules which yield those sentences. Such a set of explicit rules is a
generative grammar.
A grammar of this type must hâve a number of properties, which can describe
in thé following terms. The grammar will generate ail thé well-formed
structures (ex .sentences) of thé language and fail to generate any ill-formed
structures. This is thé "ail and only "criterion. (i.e. ail thé grammatical
sentences and only thé grammatical ones).
The grammar will hâve a finite number of rules, but will be capable of
generating an infinité number of well-formed structures. In this way, thé
productivity of language (i.e. thé création of totally novel, yet grammatical,
sentences) would be captured within thé grammar,...(1)
The term grammar is being used hère (TGG) in all-embracing sensé, covering
thé subject-matter of phonology and semantics as well as morphology and
syntax (2)

1-YuIe, George . The Study of Language.prlOl

2-Crystal, D.Linguistics.p216.
4. Recuresivness:
The rules of this grammar will also need thé crucial property of recursion, that
is, thé capacity to be applied more than once in generating a structure. For
example, whatever raie yields thé component that chased thé cat in sentence
this is thé dog that chased thé cat, will hâve to be applied again to get that
killed thé rat and any other similar structure which could continue thé sentence
this is thé dog that chased thé cat that killed thé rat...
You can do thé same recursive thing with phrases specifying a location;
beginning with thé book was on thé table. This sentence tells us where thé
book was .where was thé table? Near thé window? Okay, where was thé
window? In thé hallway? Okay. Putting this type of recursive into a single
sentence will lead us to: thé book was on thé table near thé window in thé
hallway beside thé.... There is, in principle, no end to thé recursion which
would yield ever-longer version of this sentence, and thé grammar must provide
this fact.
Basically, thé grammar will hâve to capture thé fact that a sentence can hâve
another sentence inside it, or a phrase can hâve another phrase of thé same type
insideit (1)
The phrase structure rules, as presented, hâve no recursive éléments.
Each time we rewrote a symbol firom thé left, we did not include that symbol on
thé right side of any arrow. We hâve to be able to repeat some symbols on thé
right side of thé arrow. That is thé essence of recursion. We need, for example,
to hâve sentences included within other sentences. We know that Mary helped
George is a sentence. We also know that Cathy thought Mary helped George
is a sentence. And, being tediously recursive, we know that John said Cathy
thought Mary helped George is a sentence.
In order to capture thèse sentences in our raies, we need to add V -*• {said,
though} and NP-*-{Cathy, John} to our lexical raies. We also need to add a
cracial recursive raie to say: VP-^V+S. with thèse minor additions, we can
know represent thé structure of more complex sentence.
In principles, there is no end to thé recursion of structures of his type in thé
English language and our raie (VP -nV+S) represents that fact.

1-Yule, George .The study of Language.p:101-102.

John said Cathy thought Mary helped George (i)
This grammar (TGG) should also be capable of revealing thé basis of two
other phenomena: first, how some superficially distinct sentences are closely
related, and second, how some superficially similar sentences are in fact distinct.
We need some exemplification for thèse points.(2)
5. Deep and surface structures
Two superficially distinct sentence structures would be, for example, Charlie
broke thé window and thé window was broken by Charlie. In traditional
terminology, thé first is an active sentence and thé second is passive. The
distinction between them, it can be claimed, is différence in their surface
structure, that is, thé syntactic from they take as actual English sentences.
However, this différence in superficial form disguises thé fact that thé two
sentences are very closely related, even identical, at some less 'superficial'
level. This other 'underlying' level where thé basic components shared by thé
two sentences would be represented has been called their deep structure. The
deep structure is an abstract level of structural organization in which ail thé
éléments determining structural interprétation are represented. So, thé grammar
must be capable of showing how a single underlying abstract représentation can
become différent surface structures (3)

1-Yule , George. The Study of Language.p: 107-108.

2-Yule , George. The Study of Language.p: 101-102.
3-Yule , George. The Study of Language.p: 102.
 6. Structural ambiguity:
On thé second point noted above, let us say that we had two distinct deep
structures expressing , on thé one hand, thé fact that 'Annie had an umbrella
and she whacked a man with if; and , on thé other hand, that 'Annie
whacked a man happened to be carrying an umbrella '. Now, thèse two
différent concepts can, in fact, be expressed thé same surface structure from:
Annie whacked a man with an umbrella. This sentence is structurally
ambiguous. It has two différent underlying interprétations which would be
represented differently in thé deep structure.
Grouch Marx knew how to hâve fun with structural ambiguity. In thé film
'Animal Cockers', he first says One morning I shot an éléphant in my
pyjamas, then follows it with How he got into many pyjamas Pli never
know. In thé non-funny interprétation, thé structural unit in my pyjamas is an
addition; attached to thé structural unit I once shot an éléphant. In thé
alternative (ho, ho) interprétation thé structural unit an éléphant in my pyjamas
is a necessary internai part of a structure that would otherwise be incomplète, I
once shot...
Phrases can also be structurally ambiguous, as when you corne across an
expression like old men and women. The underlying interprétation can be
either old men plus old women or old men plus women (no âge specified).
The grammar will hâve to be capable of showing thé structural distinction
between thèse underlying représentations (1)
7. Compétence vs. Performance:
Chomsky thus makes fondamental distinction between a person's knowledge of
their language -thé System of rules they mastered -and their actual use of rules
they hâve mastered -and their actual use of thé language in real-life situations.
He calls thé first compétence ,the second performance^ Linguistics, he says, has
as its most important task thé study compétence. He makes this point succinctly
in Aspects ofTheory ofSyntax (apart from a lengthy footnote on mentalistic:
The problem for thé linguist, as \vell as for thé child learning thé language, is to détermine
from thé data of performance thé underlying system of rules that has been mastered by thé
speaker-hearer and that he puts to use in actual performance .Hence, in thé technical sensé,
linguistic theory is mentalist , since it is concerned with discovering a mental reality
underlying actual behavior .Observed use of language or hypothesized dispositions to
respond, habits, and so on, may provide évidence as to thé nature ofthis mental reality, but
surely cannot constitute thé actual subject matter of linguistics, if this is to be a serious
discipline.
The implications in this shift of focus are far-reaching. Compétence, as thé
quotation makes very clear, is an underlying mental system', it underlies actual
behaviors, and is thus not available to direct empirical study .If it is not directly

1-Yule , George. The Study of Language.p:102-103

observable ,then (carrying thé argument a stage further ) thé main way in which
we can find out about it is by introspection ,by asking ourselves how we react to
(or interpret ,or analyze) a given sentence .The native speaker of thé language
and thé linguist (who may of course be two personae in thé one individual) are
therefore credited with a linguistic intuition , which allows them to analyze
language according to requirements (e.g. detecting ambiguities, ignoring
mistakes , underçtanding new sentences ,and so on). And thé conclusion follows
from this : if thetof linguistics is thé description of compétence, and if thé only
direct access to this is our intuition about language then intuitions become part
of thé évidence for thé nature of this compétence . Putting this way, if
compétence is thé 'actual subject matter of linguistics' (cf. thé above quotation),
then our intuitions must be part of thé data on which a theory of compétence is
based.
Intuitions as data; part of that object, as well as thé tool of investigation « (1)

8) Introspection:
Chomsky believes that a speaker of a language knows whether sentences
are grammatical or not. This fact émerges from introspection (study from thé
inside) or by intuition. E.g.:
«I was surprised by John refusai to corne»
This sentence implies internai relations which are identical to those found
in thé sentence «John refused to corne», although there is nothing in thé l'st
sentence which says that thé internai relations between (John's and refusai) are
thé same as those between (John and refused). In addition, thé speaker of a
language is able to perceive thé ambiguity in thé sentences like: «Visiting
relatives is a nuisance». In this sentence there is only one surface structure but at
least two deep structures according to whether thé speaker means " he visits
relatives " or " relatives visit him " (2)

1- Crystal, D.Linguistics.p: 103-104

2- Dr Ghawr. Course in linguistics (3rd year). Biskra University.

WT
9-Innateness:
The limitation /reinforcement view of acquisition led in thé 1960s to an
alternative proposai, arising out of thé generative account of language.
It was argued that children must be born with an innate capacity for language
development: thé human brain is "ready" for language, in thé sensé that when
children are exposed to speech, certain général principles for discovering or
structuring language automatically begin to operate. Thèse principles constitute
a child's language acquisition device (LAD).
The child uses its LAD to make sensé of thé utterances heard around it, deriving
from this 'primary linguistic data' hypothèses about thé grammar of thé
language - what thé sentences are, and how they constructed. This knowledge is
then used to produce sentences that, after process of trail and error, correspond
to those in adult speech: thé child has learned a set of generalization, or rules,
governing thé way in which sentences are formed.
This séquence of events can be summarized in thé following way:

INPUT LAD OUTPUT

Primary General Grammatical Child's

linguistic language knmvledge speech
data learning (rules)
(adult principles
speech)

There hâve been many différences of opinion over how best to characterize
LAD. Some hâve argued that LAD provides children with knowledge of
linguistic universal, such as existence of word order and word classes; other, that
it provides only général procédures for discovering how language is to be
learned. But allof its supporters agreed that some such notion is needed in order
to explain thé remarkable speed with which children learn to speak, and thé
considérable similarity in thé way grammatical patterns are acquired across
différent children and languages. Adult speech, it is felt, cannot of itself provide
a means of enabling children to work out thé regularities of language for
themselves, because it is too complex and disorganized; however, it has proved
difficult to formulate thé detailed properties of LAD in an uncontroversial
manner, in thé light of thé changes in generative linguistics theory that hâve
taken place in récent years; and meanwhile, alternative accounts of thé
acquisition process hâve involved (1)

1- Crystal, David. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language.

 10-LinguisticsUniversals:
General linguistics attempts to develop a theory of natural language as such, a
System of hypothèses concerning thé essential properties of any human
language. Thèse properties détermine thé class of possible natural languages and
thé class of potential grammar for some human language. The essential
properties of natural language are often referred to as ^linguistic universals.'
Certain apparent linguistics universals may be thé resuit merely of historical
accident. For example, if only inhabitants of Tasmania survive a future war, it
might be a property of ail then existing languages that pitch is not used to
differentiate lexical items. Accidentai universals of this sort are of no
importance for général linguistics, which attempts rather to characterize thé
range of possible human languages. The significant linguistics universals are
those that must be assumed to be available to thé child learning a language as an
a priori, innate endowment. That there must be a rich System of a priori
properties-of essential linguistic universals-is fairly obvious from thé following
empirical observations. Every normal child acquires an extremely intricate and
abstract grammar, thé properties of which are much undermined by thé available
data. This takes place with gréât speed, under conditions of that are far from
idéal, and there is little significant variation among children who may differ
greatly in intelligence and expérience. The search for essential linguistics
universals is thé study of thé a priori faculté de language that makes languages
acquisition possible under thé given conditions of time and access to data.
It is useful to divide linguistic universals roughly into two catégories. Thèse are,
first of ail, certain "formai universal" that détermine thé structures of grammars
and thé form and organization of rules. In addition, there are "substantive
universals" that define thé sets of éléments that may figure in particular
grammars. For example, thé theory of transformational generative grammar
proposes certain formai universals regarding thé kinds of thé rules that can
appear in grammar, thé kinds of structures on which thèse rules may apply. We
shall study thèse questions in_^ej^l^_jn_^pjrjje^ting withjthe jDhpnplogiçal
£omponentx)f a^enerative grammar. Similarly, général linguistic theory might
propose, as substantive universals, that thé lexical items of any language are
assigned to fixed catégories such as noun, verb, and adjective, and thé phonetic
transcriptions must make use of particular, fixed set of phonetic features. We
will be concerned with thé theory of " universals phonetics," that part of
général linguistics that spécifies thé class of "possible phonetic représentation"
of sentences by determining thé universals set of phonetic features and thé
conditions of their possible combinations. The phonetic form of each sentence in
each language is drawn from this class of possible phonetic représentations.
(1)
1-Chomsky, Noam and HalleyMorris. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English.
P;H-
8
11-Transformational ruies :
One featuré of our phrase structure ruies is that they will générale ail
sentences with fairly fixed word order to thé constituents. For example,
adverbs will always corne at thé end of their sentences if we follow thé
ruies we hâve just illustrated. That is fine for generating thé first
sentence bellow, but how would we get thé second sentence?

(1) George helped Mary vesterdav.

(2) Yesterdav George helped Mary.

We can think of vesterdav élément as having been 'moved' to thé

beginning of thé sentences in (2). In order to do this, we need a set of
ruies which will change or move constituents in thé structures derived
from thé phrase structure ruies. Thèse are called transformational
ruies. Essentially ; what we do is take a 'branch' of thé 'tree' away from
one part of thé tree diagram, and attach it to a différent part . Hère is an
example of a movement transformation:

Adv NP VP

NP Adv V NP

(George helped Mary yesterday) (Yesterday George helped Mary)

We would, of course, specify which constituents can be moved, from

where and to where.

One of thé best arguments for having transformational ruies involves

what seems to be thé movement of a very small élément in English
sentences structures. We recognize that thé following two sentences
hâve argued deal in common:

(3) Doobie picked up thé magazine.

(4) Doobie picked thé magazine up.

Thèse sentences contain a verb-particle construction (verb= pick;

particle=up) which can be symbolized as: V-* Vb+ part. It is clear that
thé particle can be separated from thé verb and 'moved' to thé end o
thé sentence. A constituent structure analysis would hâve some
difficulty accommodating this type of structure. Phrase structure
analysis would hâve to crate tow distinct tree diagrams. Yet, we
intuitively recognize that those tow sentences must corne from a single
underlying source.

Let us propose a single tree diagram source which produces a string of

éléments like: NP + Verb +Particle +NP. Under circumstances like this,
let us then propose thé optional transformation called 'Particle
Movement', which takes place that structural description and yields thé
structural change to: NP + Verb + NP + Particle.

Phrase structure tree :

Doobie picked magazine

Particle Movement: Doobie picked thé magazine up.

By using this simple transformational rule, we hâve provided thé means

for explicitly relating thé two structures in sentence (3) and (4) above as
'surface' variation of single underlying structure. It may not seem much,
but this type of transformational analysis solved a number of tricky
problems for previous syntactic description.(1)

(1) Yule George. The study of language. p:108-109.

Conclusion:

As a conclusion, we can only provide thé essence of results which Sampson

and Lyons hâve corne up to at thé end of their investigation about Chomsky's
principales. Lyons concluded his book who's entitled « Chomsky 1970 » within
thé following statement: « At least we hâve to conceive that Chomsky's
jAefv»'*
Transformational Grammar will be (left) one day by linguists because it is
inappropriate for language description. In my point of view, most of linguists
share this opinion; I think that Chomsky's attempt to formalize thé concepts
used in linguistic analysis may fail one day. This attempt in itself helps us to
understand more those concepts. So, Chomsky's révolution is a successful ».
Sampson ends up thé fifth chapter of Chomsky in thé following quotation:
«Concerning Chomsky's défense of Rational Theory there is nothing which
justifies thé way by which his fellows were turned away from....But;
fortunately, many signs appeared at thé end of 1970s to preach thé return of
such linguistic brunch (TGG) with more correctness and plurality ».
We Say that thé Transformational Generative Grammar, especially after thé
later changes which relate it with Semantic, Mathematics, Biology and
Psychology has reached a level which no other théories did.
Avram Noam Chomsky stills thé first man; absolutely, among those who served
language and thought and made thé history linguistics.
REFERENCES:
l-Chomsky, Noam. (1957).Syntactic Structures .The Hogue: Mouton.

2 -Chomsky, Noam. (1965).Aspect of The Theory of Syntax. USA: MIT

. ,> -, ^ ç _ -,.- - -. .

Press.

3- Chomsky, Noam.Three Models for thé Description of Language. IRE Transactions on

Information Theory. September, 1956.
t

4- Chomsky, Noam and Halle Morris.(1968).The Sound Pattern of

English. New York: Harper and Row.

5-Crystal, David. (1971). Linguistics. London. Penguin.

6- Crystal, David. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language.

CUP. Cambridge.

7- Crystal, David.(197 ). Some Current Trends in Chomsky, p dp.

8-Yule, George. (1985). The Study of Language. CUP . Cambridge.

9-Dr Ghawar. Course of Linguistics (third year).Department of English, Biskra

University.2006-2007.

10-Linguistic Books by Noam Chotnsky.2006.pdf.MIT.

11-Chomsky. Info.
 CHOMSKY.INFO
THE NOAM CHOMSKY WEB S I T E
NEWS AND REPORTS

BOOKS TALKS

ARTICLES DEBATES

AUDIO AND VIDEO ON CHOMSKY

INTERVIEWS LEÏTERS

BIOS ABOUT

photo by John Soares

Search

add this search box to your firefox browser

CHOMSKY.INFO
Copyright Noam Chomsky 2006