Grammar

A descriptive grammarian is confronted with three major tasks: 1. to construct the grammar of a particular language; 2. to supply a general theoretical frame for his grammar, based on a scientific linguistic theory; 3. to provide methods for validating and evaluating his model. Restatement of the Goals and Domain of grammar Grammar is used in the sense of a scientific theory with two interdependent goals and domains of research: a narrow one that of constructing a model of the structure of a particular language, and a broader one that of constructing a general linguistic theory. The grammar of a particular language thus appears as an attempt to relate language observables by formulating general laws in a hypothetical way and to prove that the observables follow as consequence of these laws. Grammars of this conception can improve in several ways by refinement of their formalism, by addition of new data, the discovery of simpler descriptions. A scientific theory of grammar should meet the external conditions of adequacy and it also requires a practical method for deciding which of the two proposed grammar models: 1. makes the better prediction 2. better exemplifies the general theory. Survey of pre-GTG grammatical approach Pre theoretical grammars, reached excellency with the scholarly tradition represented by H. Poutsma, G. Curme, Otto Jaspersen, were not committed to a unique, systemic, coherent language. Success aspects 1. richness of the collected corpus 2. intuition of the inter play of language level and of other phenomena. The definition and classification to be found in most traditional grammars are based on a multiplicity of criteria, including form, function and meaning. 3. insight into the diachronic study of L. Failure aspects 1. atomistic tendency, resulting from excessive emphasis on L (irregularity rather than regularity)

2. total recourse to intuitive guess-like explanations(attempts to

account for L facts by unscientific arguments like speakers feelings; some of them may be re-interpreted scientifically from the perspective of formalism) 3. misuse of criteria in defining parts of speech often leading to circular definitions 4. unbalanced organization of the grammar - an inadequate reflection of the L levels to be studied by the various components of the G 5. authoritarian, prescriptive attitude, materialized in norms and instructions based on the criterion of the propriety of usage and style. Structural grammars Their focus was the analysis of the superficial levels of linguistic form: the phonological, morphological and syntactic levels. Success aspects based their grammar description on the study of a corpus made up of utterances. They concentrate an the consistent application of a scientific method upon the corpus, a method aiming at: 1. discovering/identifying/ isolating the units 2. classifying/cataloguing them according to their formal peculiarities, distributing properties Failure aspects
1. syntactic homonymy(or ambiguity). Structuralists were unable

to supply a satisfactory explanation of the possible assignment of two or more interpretations to one and the same surface string. 2. syntactic synonymy(two or several strings underline by the same meaning). Ex : Brancusi sculptured the Flying Turtle. The Flying Turtle was sculptured by Brancusi. 3. discontinuities in surface structure Ex: What did you say he sat up late for? John has looked al the words up in the dictionary. 4. analysis of non-binary structures 5. analysis of missing constituents GTG( generative transformation model of grammar) models: basic assumptions

Structural approaches were superseded by generative trans formational grammars, mainly founded by Noam Chomsky in the sixties. Here are some of the fundamental assumption of this type of G: 1. GTG is a model of Competence, that is a G2 by making a formal statement of the set of rules enabling S/H to generate/ interpret L strings. It is a formal hypothesis about the regularities inherent in each L strings. It is based on empirically motivated rules. 2. GTG are explanatory theories, aimed at providing correct analyses for cases where, on the basic of the intuition or experiment, the S/H easily makes an unambiguous linguistic decision. The explanations should be adequate (they should correspond to the S/Hs intuitions). 3. The model is synthetic, as different from structural grammar approach. It enumerates strings starting from the abstract one number string S- which its rules further analyses in terms of constituents at a lower level of structure. 4. The model is based on the assumption of two levels of structure: - a deep level(syntactic synonymy) my representing the basic configuration of the unit S. it is upon it that meaning is determined by the specialized rules of the semantic components of the G. This assumptions facilitates the structural description of the strings. a surface structure, corresponding to one or several deep structures (syntactic homonymy) and representing the linearized string to be actualized in speech or writing. 5. The dynamic nature of the model is materialized in: Generation of the basic strings by special rules of the ayntactic component Phrase Structure rules (PS rules) Transformations of these basic strings, by means of T rules into derived strings, in other words conversion of the deep structure representations into surface structure ones.

PS rules

Deep structure

Generation of basic strings

T rules Surface structure

Transformation into derived strings

Structural discontinuities are clearly explained as instances of structural changes by application of certain produced by application of certain T s upon the basic strings. 6. The model is both formal and formalized. It is formal by virtue of the fact it deals with PORM, rather then meaning, it being mostly concerned with the shape and arrangement of symbols (LIKE any other distributional theory). Besides it is formalizes, that is rigorous; it is formatted in accordance with certain canons of precision, and it makes use of explicit definitions, precisely stated axioms, methods of proof, a.s.o. Theories of meaning for instance, can also be formalized. 7. GTG has a formalized apparatus of its own (see II). The organizations of GTG is based upon the priority given to the syntactic component. Syntax, - is, as we are going to see, central within GTG models . 8. The primes the model works with are syntactic categories including S and Phrase. They are conceived of as abstract linguistic objects. S description is, therefore, made in terms of these categories

hence the Standars GTG model is categorical, rather than functional/relational. 9. GTG grammar accounts for the degree of well/ill formedness of the S-s or L, possibly allowing the setting up of a scale of grammaticalness. Deviant sentences may result from the violation of the various types of rules making up the syntactic component. 10. GT models deliberately confine their scope to the study of sentences in isolating, in the following two sentences: S-s isolated from their co text S s isolated from the communicative context Evaluating Procedure A scientific theory of G has to provide a method of evaluating a G, a procedure for deciding which of two proposal G s makes the better empirical prediction. Empirical criteria, which are theory external Theory internal criteria, centered on the internal apparatua of the theory itself.