DOCSLIB.ORG

Grammaticality Judgements, Intuitions and Corpora 175-015 Syntax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grammaticality Judgements, Intuitions and Corpora 175-015 Syntax Grammaticality judgements, intuitions and corpora 175-015 Syntax Catherine Lai June 2004 1 Introduction The syntactician’s toolkit relies heavily on grammaticality judgements. Tests determining the structure of language often involve transforming a language fragment and then checking the gram- maticality of the result. For example, distributional tests for constituency. However, determining grammaticality is not always a straightforward task. Tests for grammaticality have been characterized by two forms of evidence used. Native speaker intuitions have been the preferred evidence in the past fifty years of syntactic inquiry. On the other hand, frequency data obtained from corpora have developed an increased support base in recent times. In this essay, I review native speaker intuitions and corpus derived frequencies and their appropriateness as data for grammaticality testing. Finally considering how they may be used together to form a stronger empirical base of evidence for grammaticality. 1.1 Competence and Performance The divide between these two sets of evidence has been driven by the theory that grammar is autonomous within the human mind. The theory was propelled into the mainstream by Chomsky 1 in the 1950’s (Chomksy, 1957). The corollary of this is that that our use of language (performance) does not accurately reflect our internal knowledge of language (competence). Grammar is assumed 1Note, this theory did not originate with Chomsky - see (Derwing, 1979) 1 to be part of competence. Corpus derived data reflects performance and so is not relevant to ques- tions of grammaticality. On the other hand, native speaker intuitions, unpolluted by performance factors, could be. Not everyone accepts this as the truth. Corpus linguistic work with respect to syntax continued through the peak of transformational generative grammar (McEnery & Wilson, 1996). Labov (1975) has argued the case for empiricism. Recently Abney (1996), has argued eloquently that the competence performance distinction is really just a ‘idealization of language for the sake of simplicity’. Similar thoughts have expressed in the past, for example (Lakoff, 1974). Despite this, mainstream linguistics has continued to accept intuitions as the primary data source for grammar and reject of corpus based evidence (Schutze, 1996, pg. 35). It is with this in mind that, we must consider the use of native speaker intuition. 2 Native speaker Intuitions about Grammaticality Using intuitions to test grammaticality is very simple on the surface. An informant’s intuition defines whether a sentence is grammatical. The linguist presents the sentence under question and asks the appropriate question. This is consistent with a generative grammar that can take a string of words and output its grammaticality status (e.g. true or false). Since the real grammar of a language exists inside the native speaker these intuitions should accurately reflect competence. It is generally agreed that intuitions have enabled linguistics research to reach areas outside the scope of a purely corpus driven approach (Labov, 1975; Newmeyer, 2003; Sampson, 1975). Moreover, the linguist can focus on relevant material with great ease and speed. In theory it allows access to data from an infinite sized internal corpora. Also, questioning can provide negative information about grammar absent from corpora. However, the decisive reason to use intuitions is the link to competence. The strength of this link needs to be examined. 2.1 Sentence Judgements and Competence The ellicitation of intuitions is done via judgements of sentences that are clearly affected by per- formance issues. Some sentences are clearly unacceptable while still grammatical. This can be caused by semantics, processing limitations, context and many other traditional performance fac- tors. In these cases acceptability judgements are performance data. The line between what is 2 ungrammatical and what is merely unacceptable is extremely blurred. Reactions to this problem generally call for filtering of affected data. Bever (see (Schutze, 1996, pg.31)) suggests ungrammaticality is only found when unacceptability cannot be explained by performance. According to Chomksy (1965) people are incapable of make judgements about grammaticality since they have no direct access to grammatical knowledge. However, intuition and tests might shed light on the situation anyway. In any case, using sentence judgements to study competence means performance factors need to be stripped away. This is not easy, especially since performance is not precisely defined. The linguist might appear highly qualified to provide judgements that take performance into account. However, allowing linguists to create the data used to tests their hypotheses can result in more distortion than remedy. 2.2 Data Distortions Native speaker intuitions are susceptible to bias. The source of intuitions has often been the linguist seeking to validate a theory. However, it has been shown that linguists have different ideas about language to non-linguists (Labov, 1975, pp.14-18). In fact Newmeyer (1983) claims that for the reasons above only linguists should produce intuitions. However, this ignores the fact that it can be easy to ignore counter evidence (Sampson, 1975; Manning, 2003). As Schutze (1996, pp.49- 50) wisely quips: ‘Except in those cases where they fail to suit the linguist’s purpose, subjects’ intuitions are taken to reflect their true linguistic knowledge.’ When informants are non-linguists, ellicitation of intuitions needs to be carefully controlled to make data reliable and free of external factors (Botha, 1981, pg.304). Cowart (1997) notes that linguistic background, knowledge of the experimenters intentions, over exposure to a sentence type, length of sentences can all change the way informants behave. A myriad of methods have been suggested to try to limit the influence of the experimenter, for example, asking the informant to transformations sentences and see if the part under question is changed (if it is grammatical is should not) (Schutze, 1996, pg.57). Indeed Cowart (1997) shows that when experiments are designed to control variance, sentence judgements are reasonably reliable. Unfortunately, it does not appear that such strict methodologies are mainstream practice. Evidence has been presented in Labov (1975) that informants may judge sentences as ungram- 3 matical even if they frequently use them in everyday life. A corollary of this has been that a persons intuitions of grammaticality may differ from their actual internal grammar. The justification for using intuitions is highly dependent on its unique ties to internal grammar. If Labov’s evidence is accepted then it possible that intuitions are possibly no closer to competence than corpus data. 2.3 Conflict Resolution Resolving disputes over grammaticality is difficult when the deciding factor is an intuition. The generativist motto has been to avoid this altogether and deal only with clear cases when developing theories (Chomksy, 1957). Newmeyer (1983) claimed that most reported data disputes were actually been application of a grammar to an unclear case. However, Schutze (1996) presents cases where ignoring inter-speaker variation has indeed led to data disputes. Others, such as Abney (1996) have claimed that you can make almost anything grammatical if you try, so clear cases are few and far between. To confuse matters more, evidence suggests that grammaticality is a continuous scale (Manning, 2003). Chomksy (1965, pp.10-11) concedes that ‘ grammaticalness is, no doubt, a matter of degree’. Breaking some rules is a worse than breaking others. However, a scale for intuitions has not been agreed on which it makes it virtually impossible to compared results from different studies. The key question is whether claims of grammaticality based on intuitions can be contradicted by other intuitions. Unless one set can be shown to be irrelevant or more contaminated by performance, the answer appears to be no. The danger is that there is a temptation to attribute any conflict to performance. The alternative is a stalemate that persists until the theory changes. This does not appear to be a satisfactory situation. Given this state of affairs it seems well worth considering the usefulness of a corpus approach. 3 Frequency data as evidence of grammaticality Testing grammaticality involves extracting frequencies of the sentence in question. Theoretically, higher frequencies mean a higher probability of grammaticality, vice-versa for low frequencies. The situation where a sentence has not occurred in the corpus is discussed in section 3.2 The resulting distribution can be easily conditionalized on context and meaning (Manning, 2003). More complicated methods (for example distributions over parts of speech) can also be used to determine 4 grammaticality probabilistically. The main advantage of this methodology is that the data is public and verifiable. Tests are repeatable, less dependent on the linguist, and can undergo greater scrutiny. This means that different approaches are easier to compare. The nature of corpora have changed since the objections of the 1950’s. Machine readable corpora are becoming larger and tools are being developed to make searching easier than ever. This increased usability has been one of the driving forces behind the resurge in corpus based linguistic methodologies (McEnery & Wilson, 1996). 3.1 Frequencies of Performance Accepting that frequency data reveals grammaticality requires a paradigm shift. While they contain some
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Logophoricity in Finnish
    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • II Levels of Language
    II Levels of language 1 Phonetics and phonology 1.1 Characterising articulations 1.1.1 Consonants 1.1.2 Vowels 1.2 Phonotactics 1.3 Syllable structure 1.4 Prosody 1.5 Writing and sound 2 Morphology 2.1 Word, morpheme and allomorph 2.1.1 Various types of morphemes 2.2 Word classes 2.3 Inflectional morphology 2.3.1 Other types of inflection 2.3.2 Status of inflectional morphology 2.4 Derivational morphology 2.4.1 Types of word formation 2.4.2 Further issues in word formation 2.4.3 The mixed lexicon 2.4.4 Phonological processes in word formation 3 Lexicology 3.1 Awareness of the lexicon 3.2 Terms and distinctions 3.3 Word fields 3.4 Lexicological processes in English 3.5 Questions of style 4 Syntax 4.1 The nature of linguistic theory 4.2 Why analyse sentence structure? 4.2.1 Acquisition of syntax 4.2.2 Sentence production 4.3 The structure of clauses and sentences 4.3.1 Form and function 4.3.2 Arguments and complements 4.3.3 Thematic roles in sentences 4.3.4 Traces 4.3.5 Empty categories 4.3.6 Similarities in patterning Raymond Hickey Levels of language Page 2 of 115 4.4 Sentence analysis 4.4.1 Phrase structure grammar 4.4.2 The concept of ‘generation’ 4.4.3 Surface ambiguity 4.4.4 Impossible sentences 4.5 The study of syntax 4.5.1 The early model of generative grammar 4.5.2 The standard theory 4.5.3 EST and REST 4.5.4 X-bar theory 4.5.5 Government and binding theory 4.5.6 Universal grammar 4.5.7 Modular organisation of language 4.5.8 The minimalist program 5 Semantics 5.1 The meaning of ‘meaning’ 5.1.1 Presupposition and entailment 5.2
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns
    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax
    Hardegree, Compositional Semantics, Chapter 1 : Basic Categorial Syntax 1 of 27 Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax 1. The Task of Grammar ............................................................................................................ 2 2. Artificial versus Natural Languages ....................................................................................... 2 3. Recursion ............................................................................................................................... 3 4. Category-Governed Grammars .............................................................................................. 3 5. Example Grammar – A Tiny Fragment of English ................................................................. 4 6. Type-Governed (Categorial) Grammars ................................................................................. 5 7. Recursive Definition of Types ............................................................................................... 7 8. Examples of Types................................................................................................................. 7 9. First Rule of Composition ...................................................................................................... 8 10. Examples of Type-Categorial Analysis .................................................................................. 8 11. Quantifiers and Quantifier-Phrases ...................................................................................... 10 12. Compound Nouns
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Linguistics – Syntax 1 Jirka Hana – November 7, 2011
    Intro to Linguistics – Syntax 1 Jirka Hana – November 7, 2011 Overview of topics • What is Syntax? • Part of Speech • Phrases, Constituents & Phrase Structure Rules • Ambiguity • Characteristics of Phrase Structure Rules • Valency 1 What to remember and understand: Syntax, difference between syntax and semantics, open/closed class words, all word classes (and be able to distinguish them based on morphology and syntax) Subject, object, case, agreement. 1 What is Syntax? Syntax – the part of linguistics that studies sentence structure: • word order: I want these books. *want these I books. • agreement – subject and verb, determiner and noun, . often must agree: He wants this book. *He want this book. I want these books. *I want this books. • How many complements, which prepositions and forms (cases): I give Mary a book. *I see Mary a book. I see her. *I see she. • hierarchical structure – what modifies what We need more (intelligent leaders). (more of intelligent leaders) We need (more intelligent) leaders. (leaders that are more intelligent) • etc. Syntax is not about meaning! Sentences can have no sense and still be grammatically correct: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. – nonsense, but grammatically correct *Sleep ideas colorless furiously green. – grammatically incorrect Syntax: From Greek syntaxis from syn (together) + taxis (arrangement). Cf. symphony, synonym, synthesis; taxonomy, tactics 1 2 Parts of Speech • Words in a language behave differently from each other. • But not each word is entirely different from all other words in that language. ⇒ Words can be categorized into parts of speech (lexical categories, word classes) based on their morphological, syntactic and semantic properties. Note that there is a certain amount of arbitrariness in any such classification.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Word Order Derivation and Agreement in Najrani Arabic: a Minimalist Analysis
    English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, No. 2; 2017 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Syntax of Word Order Derivation and Agreement in Najrani Arabic: A Minimalist Analysis Abdul-Hafeed Ali Fakih1 & Hadeel Ali Al-Sharif2 1 Department of English, University of Ibb, Yemen & Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia Correspondence: Abdul-Hafeed Ali Fakih, Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] Received: December 1, 2016 Accepted: January 7, 2017 Online Published: January 9, 2017 doi: 10.5539/elt.v10n2p48 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p48 Abstract The paper aims to explore word order derivation and agreement in Najran Arabic (henceforth, NA) and examines the interaction between the NA data and Chomsky’s (2001, 2005) Agree theory which we adopt in this study. The objective is to investigate how word order occurs in NA and provide a satisfactorily unified account of the derivation of SVO and VSO orders and agreement in the language. Furthermore, the study shows how SVO and VSO word orders are derived morpho-syntactically in NA syntax and why and how the derivation of SVO word order comes after that of VSO order. We assume that the derivation of the unmarked SVO in NA takes place after applying a further step to the marked VSO. We propose that the default unmarked word order in NA is SVO, not VSO. Moreover, we propose that the DP which is base-generated in [Spec-vP] is a topic, not a subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Background: an Outline of English Syntax
    Allen 1995: Chapter 2 - An Outline of English Syntax Allen 1995 : Natural Language Understanding Contents Preface Introduction previous Part I Part II Part III - Context / World next chapter chapter Knowledge Syntactic Processing Semantic Interpretation Appendices Bibliography Index Summaries Further Readings Exercises Chapter 2: Linguistic Background: An Outline of English Syntax 2.1 Words 2.2 The Elements of Simple Noun Phrases 2.3 Verb Phrases and Simple Sentences 2.4 Noun Phrases Revisited 2.5 Adjective Phrases 2.6 Adverbial Phrases Summary Related Work and Further Readings Exercises for Chapter 2 [Allen 1995: Linguistic Background: An Outline of English Syntax 23] http://www.uni-giessen.de/~g91062/Seminare/gk-cl/Allen95/al199502.htm (1 / 23) [2002-2-26 21:16:11] Allen 1995: Chapter 2 - An Outline of English Syntax This chapter provides background material on the basic structure of English syntax for those who have not taken any linguistics courses. It reviews the major phrase categories and identifies their most important subparts. Along the way all the basic word categories used in the book are introduced. While the only structures discussed are those for English, much of what is said applies to nearly all other European languages as well. The reader who has some background in linguistics can quickly skim this chapter, as it does not address any computational issues. You will probably want to use this chapter as a reference source as you work through the rest of the chapters in Part I. Section 2.1 describes issues related to words and word classes. Section 2.2 describes simple noun phrases, which are then used in Section 2.3 to describe simple verb phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007
    Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007 Jean Mark Gawron San Diego State University December 10, 2008 1 Theta Criterion 1.1 There are three ways the criterion can be violated: a. Too many arguments b. Too few arguments c. The wrong kind of argument i. Syntactically ii. Semantically Evaluate this claim: the following sentence under the indicated coindexing, is a theta- criterion violation. (1) Johni believes that hei is a genius. Justification: One guy, John, has 2 theta roles. True or False? False. Read theta-criterion (p. 225) (2) a. Each argument is assigned one and only one theta role. b. Each theta role is assigned to one and only one argument. Restating (more explicitly) (3) a. Each argument position of a predicate is assigned one and only one theta role.by the predicate b. Each theta role of a predicate is assigned to one and only one argument of the predicate. Observations: 1.1 The Theta-criterion does not preclude coreference between NP arguments, even between arguments in the same clause. But each NP must receive its own theta role from the predicate that it is an argument of. Thus NPs in separate clauses must receive tehta roles from separate predicates. 1.2 The theta criterion does preclude a predicate from assigning theta roles to NPs other than its OWN subject and complements. For example, a verb may not assign roles to NPs in another clause. 1.3 The theta criterion is not only about verbs. It is about ANY head and its complements and/or subject. (4) a. *Thebookofpoetryofprose b.
    [Show full text]
  • Symbolic Logic: Grammar, Semantics, Syntax
    Symbolic Logic: Grammar, Semantics, Syntax Logic aims to give a precise method or recipe for determining what follows from a given set of sentences. So we need precise definitions of `sentence' and `follows from.' 1. Grammar: What's a sentence? What are the rules that determine whether a string of symbols is a sentence, and when it is not? These rules are known as the grammar of a particular language. We have actually been operating with two different but very closely related grammars this term: a grammar for propositional logic and a grammar for first-order logic. The grammar for propositional logic (thus far) is simple: 1. There are an indefinite number of propositional variables, which we have been symbolizing as A; B; ::: and P; Q; :::; each of these is a sen- tence. ? is also a sentence. 2. If A; B are sentences, then: •:A is a sentence, • A ^ B is a sentence, and • A _ B is a sentence. 3. Nothing else is a sentence: anything that is neither a member of 1, nor constructable via successive applications of 2 to the members of 1, is not a sentence. The grammar for first-order logic (thus far) is more complex. 2 and 3 remain exactly the same as above, but 1 must be replaced by some- thing more complex. First, a list of all predicates (e.g. Tet or SameShape) and proper names (e.g. max; b) of a particular language L must be specified. Then we can define: 1F OL. A series of symbols s is an atomic sentence = s is an n-place predicate followed by an ordered sequence of n proper names.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Distance Reflexivization and Logophoricity in the Dargin Language Muminat Kerimova Florida International University
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons MA in Linguistics Final Projects College of Arts, Sciences & Education 2017 Long-Distance Reflexivization and Logophoricity in the Dargin Language Muminat Kerimova Florida International University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/linguistics_ma Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Kerimova, Muminat, "Long-Distance Reflexivization and Logophoricity in the Dargin Language" (2017). MA in Linguistics Final Projects. 3. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/linguistics_ma/3 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in MA in Linguistics Final Projects by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVIZATION AND LOGOPHORICITY IN THE DARGIN LANGUAGE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in LINGUISTICS by Muminat Kerimova 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVIZATION AND LOGOPHORICITY IN THE DARGIN LANGUAGE by Muminat Kerimova Florida International University, 2017 Miami, Florida Professor Ellen Thompson, Major Professor The study of anaphora challenges us to determine the conditions under which the pronouns of a language are associated with possible antecedents. One of the theoretical questions is whether the distribution of pronominal forms is best explained by a syntactic, semantic or discourse level analysis. A more practical question is how we distinguish between anaphoric elements, e.g. what are the borders between the notions of pronouns, locally bound reflexives and long-distance reflexives? The study analyzes the anaphora device saj in Dargin that is traditionally considered to be a long-distance reflexivization language.
    [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]