DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Generative Syntax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction to Generative Syntax Introduction to generative syntax Xavier Villalba, Dept. de Filologia Catalana Foundations and Structure of Language. 2019-20 2 Contents 1 Constituent structure 7 1.1 The grounds for constituent structure . .7 1.1.1 Ambiguity . .7 1.2 Making a hypothesis . .8 1.3 Testing the hypothesis . .8 1.3.1 Case 1 . .8 1.3.2 Case 2 . 10 1.3.3 Case 3 . 11 1.4 Taking stock . 12 1.5 Beyond syntactic ambiguity . 13 1.5.1 Lexical ambiguity . 13 1.5.2 Vagueness . 14 1.6 Exercises . 14 2 X-bar Theory 17 2.1 Background . 17 2.2 The bare bones of X-bar theory . 18 2.2.1 Complements vs. adjuncts: transparency to extraction phenomena . 20 2.2.2 Complements vs. adjuncts: extraction from weak islands . 20 2.2.3 Complements vs. adjuncts: word order . 21 2.2.4 Complements vs. adjuncts: ellipsis phenomena . 22 2.3 Some refinements . 26 2.3.1 Binary branching . 26 2.3.2 Functional categories . 28 2.3.3 Sentences . 30 2.4 Conclusions . 32 2.5 Exercises . 32 3 C-command 37 3.1 Beyond precedence . 37 3.2 Binding theory . 40 3.2.1 Anaphors . 41 3.2.2 Pronouns . 43 3 4 CONTENTS 3.2.3 Referential expressions . 43 3.3 Adding binary branching to the picture . 44 3.4 Exercises . 47 4 Transformational rules 59 4.1 Classical transformational grammar . 60 4.1.1 Phrase structure grammar . 61 4.1.2 Deep Structure . 64 4.1.3 Transformational component . 64 4.1.4 Surface Structure . 65 4.2 Revising the framework . 66 4.2.1 Phrase structure grammar . 66 4.2.2 Deep structure . 66 4.2.3 Transformations . 67 4.2.4 S-structure . 74 4.3 The minimalist program . 75 4.3.1 Basic components . 76 4.3.2 Lexicon . 77 4.3.3 Operations . 78 4.3.4 Copy theory of movement . 80 4.3.5 Economy . 82 4.4 Conclusions . 86 4.5 Exercises . 86 5 Empty categories 89 5.1 Traces . 89 5.1.1 The internal subject hypothesis . 91 5.2 Null pronouns . 94 5.2.1 Subjects of nonfinite verbs . 94 5.2.2 Null subject languages . 94 5.3 Ellipsis . 96 5.3.1 Identity problems . 97 5.4 Exercises . 97 6 Sentence syntax 99 6.1 Intransitive verbs . 99 6.1.1 Unergatives and unaccusatives . 99 6.1.2 Formal proposal . 104 6.2 Transitives . 105 6.3 Class changes . 106 6.3.1 Passive . 107 6.3.2 Impersonals . 108 6.3.3 Causative alternation . 109 CONTENTS 5 6.3.4 Causative construction . 110 6.4 Summary . 111 6.5 Exercises . 113 7 The periphery of sentence 115 7.1 Wh-movement . 115 7.2 Evidence for further structure . 117 7.2.1 PP fronting and negative inversion . 117 7.2.2 Multiple complementizers . 117 7.3 Exercises . 119 6 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Constituent structure 1.1 The grounds for constituent structure 1.1.1 Ambiguity The key to understanding the role of constituent structure is recognizing the many cases of syntactic ambiguity.1 Consider a very simple example: (1) Old men and women will receive a money reimbursement. We can easily appreciate that this utterance has two different interpretations: (2) a. Old men and old women will receive a money reimbursement. b. Women and old men will receive a money reimbursement. This is a typical case of syntactic ambiguity, which we can describe in informal terms saying that the adjective old is related to the conjunct of men and women in the former case, and saying that it is only related to men in the latter. Yet, even these informal terms presuppose a hierarchical relation, for we need to relate old to another unit resulting from the combination of men and women: (3) a.[ α Old men ] and women will receive a money reimbursement. b.[ α Old [β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement. One can think of a simple rule for saying that an adjective modifies the first noun to its right, which works fine for (3)-a , but then we need the rule to identify β as ‘the first noun to its right’, which cannot be done on purely linear terms. Moreover, if we allow such a rule to affect any noun to its right, we would get into trouble with examples like the following: (4) I am a 22 year old man and women my age do not like me. 1On the differences between syntactic ambiguity, lexical ambiguity, and vagueness, see 1.5. 7 8 CHAPTER 1. CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE Here, it is pretty obvious that old just combines with man, whereas women is a different sentence. A surface linear analysis not taking constituent structre into account would predict the combination of [ old [ man and women ] ] to be possible, against fact. 1.2 Making a hypothesis Once we have confirmed that a syntactic ambiguity exists, we make a hypothesis, namely a proposal for analyzing the ambiguous sentence with as many different constituent structures as meanings are found. meaning 1 $ syntactic structure 1 meaning 2 $ syntactic structure 2 ...... meaning n $ syntactic structure n Table 1.1: Syntactic ambiguity Let’s take again the case considered before, where we are making the hypothesis that a different constituent structure is associated to each interpretation. In the first case, the adjective forms a constituent α with the noun to its right, but not with the constituent β: (5)[ α Old men ] and [β women ] will receive a money reimbursement. In the second case, the adjective forms a constituent a constituent α with a constituent β containing both nouns: (6)[ α Old [β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement. These two proposal are reasonable for they explain why the adjective old only affects men in (5), but men and women in (6). Now, we must test the hypothesis. 1.3 Testing the hypothesis Hypotheses (i.e. the syntactic analyses proposed) are tested empirically by checking the accuracy of their predictions. In syntactic terms, if we propose a particular constituent structure, which are the consequences of such a move regarding syntactic operations? 1.3.1 Case 1 Take the first meaning and its associated structure of the sentence introduced above, namely the one where the adjective old only affects men: (7)[ α Old men ] and [β women ] will receive a money reimbursement. 1.3. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS 9 We can predict that if α is a real constituent –say a noun phrase– it will be affected as a whole by syntactic operations like movement. For instance, since the order of the coordinates by and is indifferent (Mary and John came = John and Mary came), we can predict that the change of order between old men and women will have no impact on the meaning of the sentence: (8) Women and [α old men ] will receive a money reimbursement. This is indeed the case: (8) retains the meaning where old just affects men. We can also expect this structure to associate with certain continuations ((9)-a), but not with others ((9)-b): (9)[ α Old men ] and [β women ] will receive a money reimbursement, so. a. young men will be discriminated again. b. #young women will be discriminated again. Obviously, since old is not affecting women, the continuation in (9)-b is a blatant contradiction. Since the predictions are correct, we could confirm that the hypothesis is on the right track, namely that old men do form a constituent. Consider now, the other meaning and its associated structure, namely the one where both men and women are old: (10)[ α Old [β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement. Here, rearranging the order of men and women will have no impact, and the same meaning will be obtained: (11)[ α Old [β women and men] ] will receive a money reimbursement. Let’s see now the possible continuations of this sentence: (12)[ α Old [β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement. a. young men will be discriminated again. b. young women will be discriminated again. As predicted from the structure, since the adjective affects both nouns, we are excluding from the reimbursement both young men and young women. Moreover, note that the syntactic structure is a typical case of distributive relation: (13) A × (B + C) = A × B + A × C As a consequence, we can predict that the following two sentences will be synonymous: (14)[ α Old [β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement. (15)[ α Old men ] and [β old women] will receive a money reimbursement. The prediction is borne out. 10 CHAPTER 1. CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE Hence, since the predictions we made for this analysis are confirmed, we can confirm our hypothesis that the constituent structure associated for this meaning.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Will Distributional Semantics Ever Become Semantic?
    Will Distributional Semantics Ever Become Semantic? Alessandro Lenci University of Pisa 7th International Global WordNet Conference January 28, 2014 - Tartu Alessandro Lenci GWC 2014 @ Tartu - January 28, 2014 1 Distributional semantics Theoretical roots What is Distributional Semantics? Distributional semantics is predicated on the assumption that linguistic units with certain semantic similarities also share certain similarities in the relevant environments. If therefore relevant environments can be previously specified, it may be possible to group automatically all those linguistic units which occur in similarly definable environments, and it is assumed that these automatically produced groupings will be of semantic interest. Paul Garvin, (1962), “Computer participation in linguistic research”, Language, 38(4): 385-389 Alessandro Lenci GWC 2014 @ Tartu - January 28, 2014 2 Distributional semantics Theoretical roots What is Distributional Semantics? Distributional semantics is predicated on the assumption that linguistic units with certain semantic similarities also share certain similarities in the relevant environments. If therefore relevant environments can be previously specified, it may be possible to group automatically all those linguistic units which occur in similarly definable environments, and it is assumed that these automatically produced groupings will be of semantic interest. Paul Garvin, (1962), “Computer participation in linguistic research”, Language, 38(4): 385-389 Alessandro Lenci GWC 2014 @ Tartu - January 28, 2014 3 Distributional semantics Theoretical roots The Pioneers of Distributional Semantics Distributionalism in linguistics Zellig S. Harris To be relevant [linguistic] elements must be set up on a distributional basis: x and y are included in the same element A if the distribution of x relative to the other elements B, C, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology
    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05b2s4wg ISBN 978-3946234043 Author Schütze, Carson T Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.17169/langsci.b89.101 Data Availability The data associated with this publication are managed by: Language Science Press, Berlin Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language Classics in Linguistics 2 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language science press Carson T. Schütze. 2019. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/89 © 2019, Carson T. Schütze Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-02-9 (Digital) 978-3-946234-03-6 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-04-3 (Softcover) 978-1-523743-32-2
    [Show full text]
  • The Linguistics Wars Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE LINGUISTICS WARS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Randy Allen Harris | 368 pages | 09 Mar 1995 | Oxford University Press Inc | 9780195098341 | English | New York, United States The Linguistics Wars PDF Book As a non-linguist, this book also served as a serviceable introduction to some of the field's basic ideas, and it was interesting to read about Chomsky in his original role. Javascript is not enabled in your browser. It has also been noted that the complex adaptive system view of language is highly compatible with those strands of language evolution research that focus on the cumulative cultural evolution of language see e. We can begin with very simple notions that depend on bodily orientation: front-back, before-after, left-right, etc. The book is certainly not suitable for people outside the field because it involves too much linguistic theory, so in a sense the book fails to do what it wants to do. Protolanguage and mechanisms of meaning construal in interaction. It''s just a matter of fact. Spivey, M. The major research project was aimed at overcoming this tension by showing that the apparent complexity and variety of language was only superficial, the result of minor changes in a fixed and invariant system. Since the mid-twentieth century, the field of linguistics has been a tumultuous discipline. Jul 30, Tom rated it it was ok. Leaving the myth behind: a reply to Adger The shape of the human language-ready brain. However, Christiansen and Chater , p. Oxford: OUP. Wang Taiwan: Pyramid Press , — It should be stressed that these matters are presented in an entirely different light by intellectual opinion, which has its own tasks and commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did Pragmatics Comme From
    n°19, Juin 2003, pp. 7-12 Where did pragmatics come from ? Abstract The present study is concerned with the early beginnings of pragmatics. It investigated the linguistic and philosophical backgrounds of this field. It was argued that pragmatics grew within philosophy and its emergence as an independent field Dr. A. HAMAD was, for some time, delayed by the influence of some linguistic Associate Prof. of Linguistics theories especially the generative-transformational theory. An-Najah Nat. University Finally, it was pointed out that this field was freed from the Nablus, Palestine influence of this theory. lthough many scholars, philosophers and A linguists, have been studying various types of pragmatic topics such as indexicality, implicatures, illocutionary force, speech acts, presuppositions, etc. For hundreds of years, pragmatics as a field has not emerged until recently. Not only that, but it has been denied the status of a component of grammar besides the phonological, syntactic, and semantic components which altogether constitute the core components of human language grammar. Critics have questioned the nature and the domain of this field; that is the theoretical as well as the practical status of the field in general. It seems that the scholars’ attitude toward pragmatics has been the result of radical theorizations in the main trend of theoretical linguistics motivated primarily by the structural and ملخص generative-transformational linguistic theories. The تهدف هذه الدراسة للتعرف على present study will attempt to explore briefly the البدايات المبكرة لعلم المقا مية. بحثت background of this field, its development, and the الدراسة في الخلفيات اللغوية والفلسفية reasons that stood behind the delay of its emergence التي تقف وراء هذا العلم.ثم حاولت .and institutionalization الدراسة التدليل على أن علم المقامية Philosophy and the Study of Language قد نشأ في حضن الفلسفة وأن بعض النضريات اللغوية عملت ولبعض In order to have a better understanding of the الوقت على تأخير ظهور هذا العلم.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    A fox knows many things but a hedgehog one big thing Mark Aronoff Stony Brook University 1. Introduction Isaiah Berlin’s little book, The Hedgehog and the Fox (1953), takes its title from a line by the Greek poet Archilochus: πόλλ᾽ οἶδ᾽ ἀλωπηξ ἀλλ᾽ ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα ‘many [things] knows [a] fox but [a] hedgehog one big [thing]’. Since it is impossible to do justice in a paraphrase to Berlin’s prose, I will quote the relevant passage in full: [T]aken figuratively, the words can be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general. For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think, and feel—a single, universal, organizing principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance—and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related by no moral or aesthetic principle; these last lead lives, perform acts, and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal, their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves, without, consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary vision.
    [Show full text]
  • The Twilight of Structuralism in Linguistics?*
    Ewa Jędrzejko Univesity of Silesia in Katowice nr 3, 2016 The Twilight of Structuralism in Linguistics?* Key words: structuralism, linguistics, methodological principles, evolution of studies on language I would like to start with some general remarks in order to avoid misunderstandings due to the title of this paper. “The question that our title / has cast in deathless bronze”1 is just a mere trigger, and a signal of reference to animated discussions held in many disci- plines of modern liberal arts: philosophy, literary studies, social sciences, aesthetics, cultural studies (just to mention areas closest to linguistics), concerning their current methodologi- cal state and future perspectives regarding theoretical research. What I mean by that is, among others, the dispute around deconstructionism being in opposition to neo-positivistic stance, as well as some views on the current situation in art expressed in the volume called Zmierzch estetyki – rzekomy czy autentyczny? [The twilight of aesthetics – alleged or true?] (Morawski, 1987),2 or problems signalled by the literary scholars in the tellingly entitled Po strukturalizmie [After structuralism] (Nycz, 1992).3 The statements included in this article are for me one out of many voices in the discus- sion on the changes observed in linguistics in the context of questions about the future of structuralism. Since in a way the situation in contemporary linguistics (including Polish linguistics) is similar. The shift in the scope of interest of linguistics and the way it is presented may
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Transformational Grammar
    Introduction to Transformational Grammar Kyle Johnson University of Massachusetts at Amherst Fall 2004 Contents Preface iii 1 The Subject Matter 1 1.1 Linguisticsaslearningtheory . 1 1.2 The evidential basis of syntactic theory . 7 2 Phrase Structure 15 2.1 SubstitutionClasses............................. 16 2.2 Phrases .................................... 20 2.3 Xphrases................................... 29 2.4 ArgumentsandModifiers ......................... 41 3 Positioning Arguments 57 3.1 Expletives and the Extended Projection Principle . ..... 58 3.2 Case Theory and ordering complements . 61 3.3 Small Clauses and the Derived Subjects Hypothesis . ... 68 3.4 PROandControlInfinitives . .. .. .. .. .. .. 79 3.5 Evidence for Argument Movement from Quantifier Float . 83 3.6 Towards a typology of infinitive types . 92 3.7 Constraints on Argument Movement and the typology of verbs . 97 4 Verb Movement 105 4.1 The “Classic” Verb Movement account . 106 4.2 Head Movement’s role in “Verb Second” word order . 115 4.3 The Pollockian revolution: exploded IPs . 123 4.4 Features and covert movement . 136 5 Determiner Phrases and Noun Movement 149 5.1 TheDPHypothesis ............................. 151 5.2 NounMovement............................... 155 Contents 6 Complement Structure 179 6.1 Nouns and the θ-rolestheyassign .................... 180 6.2 Double Object constructions and Larsonian shells . 195 6.3 Complement structure and Object Shift . 207 7 Subjects and Complex Predicates 229 7.1 Gettingintotherightposition . 229 7.2 SubjectArguments ............................. 233 7.2.1 ArgumentStructure ........................ 235 7.2.2 The syntactic benefits of ν .................... 245 7.3 The relative positions of µP and νP: Evidence from ‘again’ . 246 7.4 The Minimal Link Condition and Romance causatives . 254 7.5 RemainingProblems ............................ 271 7.5.1 The main verb in English is too high .
    [Show full text]
  • Generative Linguistics Within the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Alec Marantz
    Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language Alec Marantz Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT Standard practice in linguistics often obscures the connection between theory and data, leading some to the conclusion that generative linguistics could not serve as the basis for a cognitive neuroscience of language. Here the foundations and methodology of generative grammar are clarified with the goal of explaining how generative theory already functions as a reasonable source of hypotheses about the representation and computation of language in the mind and brain. The claims of generative theory, as exemplified, e.g., within Chomsky’s (2000) Minimalist Program, are contrasted with those of theories endorsing parallel architectures with independent systems of generative phonology, syntax and semantics. The single generative engine within Minimalist approaches rejects dual routes to linguistic representations, including possible extra-syntactic strategies for semantic structure-building. Clarification of the implications of this property of generative theory undermines the foundations of an autonomous psycholinguistics, as established in the 1970’s, and brings linguistic theory back to the center of a unified cognitive neuroscience of language. 2 1. The place of linguistics* The first decade of the 21st century should be a golden era for the cognitive neuroscience of language. Fifty years of contemporary linguistic analysis of language can be coupled with a wide range of brain imaging and brain monitoring machines to test hypotheses and refine theory and understanding. However, there is still a gulf between mainstream linguistics within the generative linguistic tradition and most of those engaged in experimental cognitive neuroscience research. Some have argued that the fault here lies with the linguists, whose generative theories are based in principle on separating the study of linguistic representations from research on the acquisition and use of language in the minds and brains of speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Grammar Is Dead 7
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2009) 32, 429–492 doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science Nicholas Evans Department of Linguistics, Research School of Asian and Pacific Studies, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia [email protected] http://rspas.anu.edu.au/people/personal/evann_ling.php Stephen C. Levinson Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, NL-6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands; and Radboud University, Department of Linguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands [email protected] http://www.mpi.nl/Members/StephenLevinson Abstract: Talk of linguistic universals has given cognitive scientists the impression that languages are all built to a common pattern. In fact, there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. Instead, diversity can be found at almost every level of linguistic organization. This fundamentally changes the object of enquiry from a cognitive science perspective. This target article summarizes decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists, showing just how few and unprofound the universal characteristics of language are, once we honestly confront the diversity offered to us by the world’s 6,000 to 8,000 languages. After surveying the various uses of “universal,” we illustrate the ways languages vary radically in sound, meaning, and syntactic organization, and then we examine in more detail the core grammatical machinery of recursion, constituency, and grammatical relations. Although there are significant recurrent patterns in organization, these are better explained as stable engineering solutions satisfying multiple design constraints, reflecting both cultural-historical factors and the constraints of human cognition.
    [Show full text]
  • AVAILABLE from 'Bookstore, ILC, 7500 West Camp Wisdom Rd
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 401 726 FL 024 212 AUTHOR Payne, David, Ed. TITLE Notes on Linguistics, 1996. INSTITUTION Summer Inst. of Linguistics, Dallas, Tex. REPORT NO ISSN-0736-0673 PUB DATE 96 NOTE 239p. AVAILABLE FROM 'Bookstore, ILC, 7500 West Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236 (one year subscription: SIL members, $15.96 in the U.S., $19.16 foreign; non-SIL members, $19.95 in the U.S.; $23.95 foreign; prices include postage and handling). PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) JOURNAL CIT Notes on Linguistics; n72-75 1996 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC10 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Book Reviews; Computer Software; Conferences; Dialects; Doctoral Dissertations; Group Activities; *Language Patterns; *Language Research; *Linguistic Theory; Native Speakers; Phonology; Professional Associations; Publications; Research Methodology; *Syntax; Textbooks; Tone Languages; Workshops IDENTIFIERS 'Binding Theory ABSTRACT The four 1996 issues of this journal contain the following articles: "Sketch of Autosegmental Tonology" (H. Andrew Black); "System Relationships in Assessing Dialect Intelligibility" (Margaret Milliken, Stuart Milliken); "A Step-by-Step Introduction to Government and Binding Theory of Syntax" (Cheryl A. Black); "Participatory Research in Linguistics" (Constance Kutsch Lojenga); "Introduction to Government and Binding Theory II" (Cheryl A. Black); What To Do with CECIL?" (Joan Baart); "WINCECIL" (Jerold A. Edmondson); "Introduction to Government and Binding Theory III" (Cheryl A. Black); and "Mainland Southeast Asia: A Unique Linguistic Area" (Brian Migliazza). Each issue also contains notes from the SIL Linguistics Department coordinator, a number of reports on linguistics association conferences around the world, book and materials reviews, and professional announcements. (MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • GRAMMATICALITY and UNGRAMMATICALITY of TRANSFORMATIVE GENERATIVE GRAMMAR : a STUDY of SYNTAX Oleh Nuryadi Dosen Program Studi Sa
    GRAMMATICALITY AND UNGRAMMATICALITY OF TRANSFORMATIVE GENERATIVE GRAMMAR : A STUDY OF SYNTAX Oleh Nuryadi Dosen Program Studi Sastra Inggris Fakultas Komunikasi, Sastra dan Bahasa Universitas Islam “45” Bekasi Abstrak Tulisan ini membahas gramatika dan kaidah-kaidah yang menentukan struktur kalimat menurut tatabahasa transformasi generatif. Linguis transformasi generatif menggunakan istilah gramatika dalam pengertian yang lebih luas. Pada periode sebelumnya, gramatika dibagi menjadi morfologi dan sintaksis yang terpisah dari fonologi. Namun linguis transformasi generatif menggunakan pengertian gramatika yang mencakup fonologi. Kalimat atau ujaran yang memenuhi kaidah-kaidah gramatika disebut gramatikal, sedangkan yang berhubungan dengan gramatikal disebut kegramatikalan. Kegramatikalan adalah gambaran susunan kata-kata yang tersusun apik (well-formed) sesuai dengan kaidah sintaksis. Kalimat atau ujaran yang tidak tersusun secara well-formed disebut camping atau ill-formed. Gramatika mendeskripsikan dan menganalisis penggalan-penggalan ujaran serta mengelompokkan dan mengklasifikasikan elemen-elemen dari penggalan-penggalan tersebut. Dari pengelompokan tersebut dapat dijelaskan kalimat yang ambigu, dan diperoleh pengelompokkan kata atau frase yang disebut kategori sintaksis. Kegramatikalan tidak tergantung pada apakah kalimat atau ujaran itu pernah didengar atau dibaca sebelumnya. Kegramatikalan juga tidak tergantung apakah kalimat itu benar atau tidak. Yang terakhir kegramatikalan juga tidak tergantung pada apakah kalimat itu penuh arti
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Minimalist Syntax
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF MINIMALIST SYNTAX Timothy Hawes Northeastern University Senior Honors Project Dec, 15 2005 Introduction Many animals communicate with sounds and signs. Birds have elaborate songs to attract mates, some monkeys have special warning cries for different threats and some animals have even been taught to communicate with people using limited vocabularies of signed or spoken words. Each of these forms of communication represents some sort of paring between sound (or actions) and meaning. However, all of these forms of communication differ from human language in one very important feature, productivity. Not only can humans produce sounds that have abstract relations to meanings, but humans have a system of language that is both hierarchically organized and recursive, thus making it infinitely productive. As the only species on earth with language in this sense, it seems logical to conclude that there must be some sort of biological basis for this property. Though the degree to which language is biologically specified has been argued for many years now, it has been generally agreed that there is something specific to humans that gives them the ability to produce language. This special property is known as the “Faculty of Language”, and has long been the object of linguistic inquiry. By studying the Faculty of Language, linguists hope not only to be able to describe languages with all of their variation, but be able to explain the basic properties of language and how children are able to acquire it so easily despite the many factors working against them. In the early 1960’s, linguists were trying to explain language acquisition and linguistic variation with the “format framework”, which relied on rules and constructions to explain grammar.
    [Show full text]