LINGUISTIC MODELS 2

Noam Chomsky (1928- ); MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Development
1957 Syntacic Structures (generative component

of TGG) 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (transformational component of TGG : Standard Theory 1966 Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (freedom from instincts>; the creative aspect of language; unity of body and mind, language and thought; universality thesis) 1970s through 1980s Extended Standard Theory, Government Binding Theory 1990s P&P; Minimalism

Philosophical Background
From Decartes to Humboldt ( Enlightement to Romanticism) : from dualism to unity of mind/body Man vs Brute: mentalism vs mehanicism: criticism of behaviourism Freedom from instinct : allows for reasoning Universality The Port Royal Grammar : identity of mental processes and grammar Deep vs Surface Structure

Basic tenets of Theory

Standard

The aim of linguistics is not only to provide a descriptive grammar of language, but also to provide an explanatory grammar It is not possible if the focus is on form and distribution only
It is necessary to take meaning into account

Chomsky recognises a level of DEEP STRUCTURE and a level of SURFACE STRUCTURE

 The level of deep structure provides basis for semantic

interpretation of the sentence; it is an abstract underlying structure that incorporates all the syntactic information required for the interpretation of a given sentence It represents an explicit description of sentence parts, regardless of whether those parts will appear in the surface structure or not; a structure that incorporates all the syntactic features of a sentence required to convert the sentence into a spoken or written version The level of surface structure represents the form of the sentence it takes either in speech or writing The two levels are related by sets of transformations, which link the deep with the surface structure of language

The generative component

The term generative combines two senses (Lyons:1968:155) : 1) projective (predictive) and 2) explicit Projective / predictive sense: generative grammar attempts to define rules that can generate the infinite number of grammatical (wellformed) sentences possible in a language. Aim of grammar: to assign to each of an infinite range of sentences a structural description that indicates how a sentence is understood by the ideal speakerhearer. E.g. Grammar 1: S -> NP + Vtr + NP produces an infinite number of grammatical sentences, some of which may be

John loves Mary John detests sloppy housewives. Sloppy housewives hate house chores. Etc. ... Such a grammar establishes not only actual, but also potential sentences

Phrase structure rules

The rules used to generate, or DESCRIBE the deep structure
The sentence of a natural language is broken

down (rewritten as ->) into two constituent parts (syntactic categories) , namely phrasal categories (NP; VP, PrepP) and lexical categories (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.)

Children play dangerous games.

S

NP N

Aux Pres V

VP NP NP N S

 Aux = affix of tense, aspect or modality

[+/- past], [+/- perfective], [+/- modal ] S = embedded sentence By embedding the propositon (sentence) S,

the meaning of the sentence is explicitly described , or, in Chomskys terms formalized Proposition = an afirmative statement which assigns a quality to an entity (here: games are dangerous)

Phrase structure rules

FORMATIVES
The elements of deep structure, whose relation is explicitely described by means of PSR, are further assigned sets of featurs , which subcategorize the constituents of the deep structure: children +N + plural + count + animate + human

Terminal string
Apart from the PSRs and the formatives, the deep structure consists of the lexicon too, so at the very end of the phrase structure

diagram (tree) lexis that corresponds to the formatives is assigned .

The transformational component

A set of rules that transform the deep into the surface structure, i.e. into its phonological component Meaning of the deep structure is not changed in the process The deep structure [children play games [games are dangerous] ] Is transformed into Children play dangerous games By means of application of the following rules

 Relative Clause Formation (RCF)

Relative Clause Reduction ( RCR) Modifier Shift (MS) i.e.

Children play games (games are dangerous) =>

RCF: Children play games which are dangerous => RCR: Children play games dangerous => MS: Children play dangerous games

 The first TR is applied to the terminal string, which represents the STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTION (BASE) The effect of the rule is a STRUCTURAL CHANGE, which becomes the structural description for the TR applied next Each rule makes an effect , i.e. a structure that differs from the previous one These middle structures are called TRANSFORMS

Effects of transformation rules

Addition (something is added)
Reduction (something is deleted) Substitution ( something is replaced by

something else) Permutation (something changes its place)

Competence vs. Performance

We thus make a fundamental distinction between competence (the speaker-hearers knowledge of his language) and performance (the actual use of language in concrete situations). [...] A record of natural speech will show numerous false starts, deviations from rules, changes of plan in mid-course, and so on. The problem for the linguist, as well as for the child learning the language, is to determine from the data of performance the underlying system of rules that have been mastered by the speakerhearer and that he puts to use in actual performance. (Chomsky:1965:4)

 Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who know its (the speech community's) language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of this language in actual performance. (Chomsky: 1965: 3)

 Chomsky separates 'competence,' an idealized capacity, from the production of actual utterances, 'performance.' Additionally, competence, being an ideal, is located as a psychological or mental property or function . This is in contrast to performance, which refers to actual, real world linguistic output. This definition of linguistic competence has come to be associated with a rigid and narrowly defined concept of grammatical competence. Therefore, Hymes (1974) introduced the idea of 'communicative competence."

Grammaticalnees vs. Acceptability

Apart from the knowledge of rules, the linguistic competence includes the ability to recognize: Grammatical and ungrammatical sentences: The boy stood up. /*The boy standed up. Synonymous sentences (passives): He sold his estate. /His estate was sold. Ambiguous sentences : I found the chair on the lawn. Elided sentences: His car is newer than mine. Acceptable sentences : Colourless green ideas sleep furiously

 Generative grammars can only produce grammatical sentences; therefore, the speaker need not have special skills - a native

speaker automatically, intuitively recognizes a grammatical/ungrammatical sentence Very mentalistic !!! Some sentences are felt as grammatical, but nonsensical (Colourless green ideas...)

Language is creative
Reaction to mechaniscistic views of behaviourism (Chomsky vs. Sinner)
Language is not a mere response to the

outside stimuli; if it were so, we could only produce sentences that we had already been exposed to Creativity = ability to produce an infinite number of sentences using a limited set of rules and data

Language is universal; language is innate

Every child is born with a predisposition to acquire a language All languages are , if not identical, then very similar in the deep structure

Recommended reading
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. Mouton . The Hague
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of

Syntax. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass. James, C. ( 1980) Contrastive Analysis. Longman. London and New York. 27 60 orevi, R. (2002) Uvod u kontratsiranje jezika . Filoloki fakultet. Beograd. 21 39.