Transformational Generative Grammar: A Deep Dive
Unit 5: Transformational Generative Grammar
1. Cognitive Linguistics as a Science
Noam Chomsky and the generative school conceived of language as a system of knowledge. Chomsky’s basic intention was to present linguistic knowledge and structures with different philosophical and epistemological bases than those seen before. Previous theories focused on language learning through repetition and analogy. His theory is one of individual language acquisition and an explanation of its structures and deepest principles. The main focuses of generative grammar are: the postulation of innate/universal linguistic knowledge, which has led to a redesign of acquisition theory; the importance of the syntactic component as the locus of universal language properties; the generative nature of human language, associated with recursion as a fundamental property; and the assumption of intermediate units between words and sentences. Chomsky posited that linguistics should be an explanatory science, seeking the rules governing language.
2. Generative Grammar
Chomsky’s problem of Descartes highlights how speakers generate infinite grammatical sentences from finite units and rules. This idea is central to generative grammar (generativism). Generative grammar posits that linguistics is the finite set of rules and principles enumerating the infinite sentences of a language. This mechanism is internalized in the speaker’s mind, and the linguist’s goal is to explicitly describe it. The proposed grammar is a model of this mechanism, including syntax, semantics, and phonology, each with some autonomy. Generative grammar is the set of rules generating all linguistic expressions of a language. Several possibilities exist for linguistic theory: discovering a language’s grammar based on a representative corpus; deciding whether an existing grammar is adequate; or rating several grammars to approach a perfect description. Chomsky considers all of these achievable.
3. Competence and Performance
Humans have the ability to speak and learn language, which Chomsky calls linguistic competence. This internalized competence manifests in speech acts, which Chomsky calls linguistic performance. The competence-performance dichotomy distinguishes observable linguistic behavior (performance) from the underlying knowledge system (competence). Chomsky rejects the structuralist view that communication is language’s inherent function and that language should be studied within human interaction.
4. Deep Structure and Surface Structure
Generative grammar operates on two levels: the deep structure (latent in competence) and the surface structure (reflected in performance). Every sentence has this dual structure. The deep structure generates the surface structure through transformational processes.
5. Grammatical Components
Given phonological, syntactic, and semantic levels of language, grammar includes these components: a) Syntactic component: generates and primes structures. b) Semantic component: assigns meaning to structures. c) Phonological component: makes structures perceptible.
Generative capacity resides in the syntax, constructed by: a) The base: rules generating deep structures. It consists of a categorial component (defining grammatical relations) and a lexicon (defining terms with semantic features). These features are applied after the categorial component rules, providing semantic interpretation. b) Transformations: rules converting deep structures into surface structures. Discourse chains appear where the phonological component acts.
6. Grammaticality and Acceptability
Generative grammar must meet the requirement of grammaticality (grammar’s adequacy to competence) and generate acceptable sentences (grammar’s adequacy to performance). These concepts assess a grammar at the competence and performance levels. A language’s grammar must account for word, phrase, and sentence formation at all linguistic levels (phonological, syntactic, semantic). Chomsky proposes three degrees of adequacy: 1. Observational adequacy: predicting sentences of the language it describes. 2. Descriptive adequacy: explaining the syntactic, phonological, and semantic structure of sentences. 3. Explanatory adequacy: accounting for everything through a limited set of universal principles, representing mental processes. The key difference between structuralist and generative theories lies in this last step. Structuralist grammars can achieve descriptive adequacy but not explanatory adequacy.