1 DOCUMENT RESVAE 1 ED 022 771 TE 000 681 By-Hayes. Curtis W. SYNTAX: SOME PRESENT-DAYCONCEPTS. Pub Date Jan 67 Note-9p. Journal Cit-English Journal; v56 ri p89-96 Jan 1967 MRS Price MF-S025 HC-S0A4 Descriptors-ENGLISH INSTRUCTION, KERNEL SENTENCES.LINGUISTICS. PI-RASE STRUCTURE. *SENTENCE STRIXTURE. *STRUCTURAL GRAMIAR. *SYNTAX. *TRANSFORMATION GEMRATIVE GRAMAR. TRANSFORMATIONS (LANGUAGE). TRANSFORMATION THEORY (LANGUAGE) The valueof a transformational model of syntax can be Illustrated by comparing the taxonomic grammatical description ofa complex sentence to a transformation-oriented description of the same sentence. The taxonomic approach. an immediate constituent analysis. requires10 steps to break the sample sentence onto its grammatical components; the transformational approach. incorporatingboth phrase structure rules and transformational rules, requires three steps toexplain the sentence. Because the transformational method allowsfor generalaations about the process of embedding. it canmake more economical statements about syntax. Furthermore. since the transformational theory holds that afinite set of phrase structure rules plus a finite set of transformational rules canexplan any sentence, it is linguistically more complete and consistent and, thus, more practical on theclassroom than the taxonomic theory which assumes that an infinite set of phrase structurerules is necessary to describe all sentences. (LH) ENGLISHJOURNAL The Official Journal of theSecondary Section of r4 National Council of Teachersof English ND Editor:Ric:man S. ALM Pato University of Hawaii evki tv 0 Volume56 January 1967 Cil Number 1 tiJ Matter and Meaning of MotionPictures 23The Rev. I. Paul Calico, C.S.C. The Faculty Club, Wittenberg(Verse) 37 William F. Gavin Reeling in English Class 38Sister Mary Labouré Hang, S.N.D. LoneliEess of the Long DistanceRunner: First Film Fare 41Sister M. Amanda Ely, ,O.P. Macbeth for the Busy Reader(Verse) 44 Richard Gaggin Aboard the Narcissus 45Evalee Hart An Approach to TeachingThe Secret Sharer 49 Marian C. Powell The Role of Order and Disorderin The Long March 54Welles T. Brandriff A Letter to J. A. (Verse) 59Pansye H. Powell The IV eltanschauung of Steinbeckand Hemingway: An Analysis ofThemes 60 Samuel Scoville Miss Brownstone and theAge of Science 64 John H. Bens Helping Students See TheirLanguage Working 67W. Wilbur Hatfield ...... The Feature System in theClassroom 74 Keith Schap Cho Syntax: Some Present-DayCcncepts NO 89Curtis W. Hayes Some Usage Forms Die Hard o Thanks to College EntranceExams 97Evelyn Schroth o Is Composition Obsolete? 100Solomon S. Simonson oTeaching Writing Today Composition or Decomposition? Lk, 103 Edward Lueders t. Priming the Pump andControlling the Flow109Vivian Buchan How To Write Lcss Efficiently 114Arthur A. Stern IMAM. EDUCATION &WEUARE U.S. DEPARTMENT Of NIKE OF EDUCATION

RECEIVED FROM TIM DM DOCUMENT HM KENREPRODUCED EXACTLY AS 01116I0A1016 U. POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONS PERSON OR ORGANIZATION REPRESENT Off ICIAl OFFICEOF EDUCATION STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY POSITION OR POLICY.

Syntax: SomePresent-Day Concepts "PENSION TO mega THIS MONO NAM NAS 1111 GIANTS Curtis W. Hayes gy, 71076..,1_ 102..../41744.4 TO MC AID MAMA OPENATVW Department of English MEI MOWS WM TIE LS. OfFICE University of Nebraska MC*UIL MINE MOWN* NM Lincoln, Nebraska NE Mt SYSTEM MOUES !MISSION OF COPTIMIT OWNEL" THE APPEARANCE in1957of These attacks have taken severalpaths, Noam Chomsky's monograph en-but in general the Chomskyanshave titled Syntactic Structures(The Hague:judged the older grammar(frequently Mouton and Co.) dividedlinguistic sci-labeled the taxonomic grammar) tobe ence into twoschools, sharply divergent.inadequate in its power to describe cer- The older of these two,which by nowtain linguistic facts and processes.Chom- of his may almost becalled the traditional orsky himself, for instance, in one structural school, traces itsorigin tomore recentpublications, argues "that 1933, the year of LeonardBloomfield'sa taxonomicmodel (or any of its variants is monumentalLanguage.Thenewerwithin a modern study of language) school, which may be calledthe MIT,far too oversimplified to be able to ac- or Chomskyan,school, had its birth incount for the factsof linguistic structure 1958. The Chomskyansmaintain thatand that the transformationalmodel of their own system describes humanlan-generative grammar is much closer to ge "as in itself itreally is" (to borrowthe truth."' In Syntactic Structures(pp. tthew Arnold's phrase); allcompeting18 If.), he had argued that the taxonomic theories they feel to beunsophisticated,grammar WO madequatebecauseit inherently incapable of describingthewould not generate all the grammatical complexities of language. In a numberofsentences of a languageand only those. fairly recentpublications, they haveSpecifically, he held, it would not gen_ drawn attention to what they fecl tobeerate the "nesting" (orself-embeddmg) the inadequacies of the older school.' properties typicalof certain English sentences. 'The traditional system is representedby Linguistic Structures: Front Sotmd to Sentence Charles C. Fries,Tbe Smwture of English: An Introduction to the Construction of English in English(New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc., 1958), to mention only a few. Sentences(New York: Harcourt, Braceand Co., Inc., 1952); George L. Trager andHenry 2See, for example, Chomsky's paper, "The An Outline of English Structure Logical Basis of Linpistic Theory," which Lee Smith, Jr., Proceedings of the Ninth Interna- (Studies in Linguistics,Occasional Papers, No.appears in the tional Congress of Linguists(The Hague: Mou- 3),(Norman, Oklahoma: BattenburgPress, 1951); and Archibald A. Hill,Introductim to ton and Co., 1964), pp. 914-1008.

89 .1 . 90 - ENGLISH JOURNAL Another member ofthis school, Paul tional rules. Then, inaccordance with Postal, discusses ina recent monographthese rules, he the inadequacies of may construct an infinite traditional modelsnumber ofsentences. This avoids the of linguisticdescription.3 Taxonomic notion thata human speaker learnsto models, accordingto Postal, cannotac- talk by mastering allthe complexsen- count for the intuitively-feltrelation- ships among tence patterns of his language, eachone sentences such 2S active andseparately. Take, for instance,the fol- passive,interrogative and declarative,lowing example: assertive and negative,incorporated and non-incorporated. Nor, headds, can this Union Oil sells oilmay be considered grammar account for such grammatical a kernel (a base sentence) forfurther processes as the following: transformations, suchas the passive: Deletion: XAY Oil is sold by Union Oil. ----) AY the negative: Substitution: XA Union Oil doesn't sell oil. XBY the negativelpassive: ThW Oil isn't sold by UnionOil. the interrogative: Permutation: XAYBZ XBYAZ Does Union Oil sell oil? Adjunction (embedding ofconstituents): the negativelinterrogative: Doesn't Union Oil sell oil? the negative/passive/interrogative: ZBWX1 XABY Isn't oil sold by UnionOil? THE GENFRALtenet of transfor- For the linguist(as well as those A mational/generativegrammar (i.e., aschooled in logicor mathematics), the Chomskyan grammar) isthat every adultabove algebramay give rigor, consis- possesses a relatively few, simplesentencetency, and exactnessto statements about patterns (the kernels4) anda complex setlanguage. But, for theoutsider, including of rules (calledtransformations) whichperhaps the classroomteacher, these rules describe the operationsby which hemay be repellent and thusmay have combines and modifiessimple sentencesonly negligible valuein a classroom into the infinite numberof complicatedsituation. It is with thisdifficulty in sentences he can produce. Theprocessesmind that thispaper is written; first, to oi combining andmodifyingsentencesexplain a few of theinsights of transfor- to form evenmore complex sentencesmationalgrammar and how they leadto are technically knownas transforma-a complete 2S well as toa simple view of tions. In other words,a speaker learnsgrammaticalprocesses. And second, to a finite set of basicsentence patternscompare a description ofa complex sen- together witha finite set of transforma-tence provided by a taxonomicgrammar and a description ofthat samesentence *"Constituent Structure:A Study of Con-using the transformationalapproach. In Models of SyntacticDescriptions,"the course of this /tefAir,r;akrPartIII (January 1964). paper, I should like *The notion of kernelperhaps is outmoded into make more easily understandablethe its original definition (i.e.sentences which havecomplex equations ofthe transforma- had no optionaltransformations performedontional/generativegrammar. them), yet it is still usefulto think of a human speaker as havinga set of basic sentences,per- haps from which hecan produce an NVYMAY take thissentence from infinite number ofsentences. In this paper the -laroldWhitehall's book, Struc- term kernel can be liberalizedto include thetural Essentials ofEnglish (Harcourt, notion of basesentence. 1956), for analysis:5 SYNTAX: SOMEPRESENT-DAY CONCEPTS 91

old man prepositional group: to a poorold man To sing such songs to a poor approaching persuaded of his own approachingdeath persuaded of his own had been a charitable actI had not death I contemplated. The verbal group then parsesinto a The traditional or taxonomiclinguist, following the rules ofimmediate con- 3. head: to sing analyze such a noun group:such songs (with songs stituent analysis, would as its head) sentence inlinear order; that is, he would use a "straightline" approach and wouldThe prepositional group parsesinto a not incorporate atransformational com- ponent into his grammar.He would con- 4. prepositional phrase: to apoor old sider all sentences to becapable of being man generated (enumerated) by phrase struc- a modifier group:persuaded of his ture rules.The process of analysis then own approachingdeath is essentially one ofparsing. (The term parsing is a very old one ingrammaticalTo a poor old man canbe further sub- analysis. It is used here, but notin thedivided into a strictest traditional sense. Ido not wish 5. preposition: to to suggest thatimmediate constituent (with exercise of the noun group: a poor old man analysis and the traditional man as its head) parsing are identical. They aresimilar, and in point of fact ICanalysis was 2AThe modifier grouppersuaded of his attempt to addrigor to the traditionalown approachingdeath divides into a notion of parsing.) Successive cuts,first into subject-predicate, *ultimatelyinto its 6. modifier head:persuaded final constituents, reveal thecomplexity prepositional group: of his own ap- of the sentence.6 The sentence(which proaching death may be a string)divides first into The prepositional group canthen be 1. subject: to sing such songs to a poorsubdivided into a old man persuaded of his own ap- proaching death 7. preposition: of predicate: had been a charitable act I noun group:his own approaching bad not contemplated death (with death as its head) On the second level of analysis the sub-(This analysis could continueuntil one ject divides into a reached "ultimate units" [singlewords], e.g.approaching:death). 2. verbal group: to sing such songs Whitehall gives the predicate asimilar analysis. The predicate first dividesinto a 'The analysis is Whitehall's. In some cases I have rephrased the analysis for clarity. See pp. 8. verb group: had been(with been as 17-19. its head) 'See Rulon Wells, "Immediate Constituents," complement: a charitable act I had Language, 23 (1947) 81-117, and Eugene Nida, A Synopsis of English Syntax, (Norman, Okla- not contemplated homa: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Univer- sity of Oklahoma, 1960). Immediate Constituent The complement divides into a analysis is essentially an analysis in which one begun with the largest syntactical unit (subject (with and predicate) and continues to divide until 9. noun group: a charitable act one reaches single words. act as its head) 92 ENGLISH JOURNAL

subject-predicate group: 1 had notphrase structure rules of that grammar.8 contemplated Phrase structure rules in thisgrammar generate simple,declarative sentences, The subject-predicate group then dividessuch as, the boy kicked the ball; and into a these simple sentencesare usually given 10. subject: I an abstract representation in the gram- predicate:hadnotcontemplatedmar. We will see this below. For our (with contemplated as its head) purposes we do not need an exact de- Whitehall observes (p. 18) that "thelineation of these rules; however, the value of such analyses in depth is thatfollowing explication isnecessary for a they reveal the Chinese-puzzle intricacyreader to grasp the processesnecessary of English utterances without confusingto generate a sentence. the various levels of grammaticalstruc- A sentence first is re-written (--9 ture. Yet merely to break down theas noun phrase plus predicate: statement into its more obvious groups The arrow (-->) in phrasestruc- and to recognize their types is oftenture operations mean consists of. Thus S sufficient to reveal its major grammaticalconsists of a noun phrase plusa verb dynamics." phrase. In contrast to this procedure, the transformationaliste holds to the notion S NP + pred (the boy + kicked the ball) that complex sentences are the results of processes performed on them. A com- The predicate is re-written2S auxiliary plex sentence, he would point out, in-+ verb phrase: corporates into its structure two or morc basic (source) sentences which have been pred -* aux + VP (ed + kick the embedded, added, or nested into the ball) complex sentence through transforma- tional processes. Basic sentences and only The auxiliary, only forour purposes, is basic sentences are generated by phrasere-written as tense of verb. structure rules. The addition of a transformational aux -te (-ed, which is the past component isthe transformationalist's tense of the verb kick) main departure from taxonomic theory. Where a taxonomic grammarian would The auxiliary may contain othercom- represent any and all senzences with oneponents, and usually does, for example, labeled diagram, the transformationalistmodals (may,,could, would, should, etc.); it may also contain would not, saying that this methoddoes a form of have plus not take into account the intuitive notionthepastparticipleinflection(have that some sentencesare related to others.7walked or have ridden); itmay contain a form of be plus the -ing suffix) (is walk- rr 0 COMPREHEND the transfor-ing). It would bestrange and unusual, J- mational viewpoint, the 'reader firstyet permissible by the rules of English, should know something about the basicto have all the above symbols and in- flections representedat the same time in

For a discussion of native speaker intuition, 8For an admirable attemptat explicating see Charles J. Fillmore's review of Studies in Chomsky's notion ofgrammar, see Paul Olson's American English: Third Texas Conferenceon paper, "Transformatoins," whichappears in Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English.This Dudley W. Bailey, ed. Introductory Language review may be found in Word, 20(1964) 471- Essays (New York: W. W. Norton andCo., 487. Inc., 1965). SYNTAX: SOME PRESENT-DAYCONCEPTS 93 an English sentence.For example, the atnminal: hei -te sing such songs to a poor old man sentence,the boy should have been kick- his own unlikely sentence, The man was persuaded of ing, is to my mind an approaching death but one which at least has achance of I had not contemplated the act. occurring. For a description of the sentence at /nominal:it/he/ is a device, a typeof hand, we need only to note thatthelinguistic shorthand, for indicatingthe aux containsthe tense of the verb. Onepresence of a slotand its hypothetical of the most obvious advantagesof takinp;filler. The brackets indicate a slot, a noun the tense affix and placing it infront ofor nominal slot inthis case, which pre- the verb is that it allows thelinguist tosumably could have beenfilled by it delete it, a necessary process when creat-or he. Thereconstructed sentences, then, ing infinitival nominals, as wewill see.would read, It had been a charitable act, The sentence that Whitehall describes,and He sings such songs.Transforma- using the taxonomic approach, is not ationalists often have to reconstruct hypo- simple sentence but is a complex sentencethetical sentences and parts of sentences, which has been generated from fourRichard Ohmann says, "Since deletions underlying source sentences. The sen-and additions will probably havetaken tence, in other words, is acomposite ofplace in the course of the derivation two types of source sentences.TheLan& the complex sentence will natu- matrix (independent) sentence forms therally not contain all and only all of the overall pattern of the ultimate sentence.linguistic elements contained in the com- Those sentences which are embedded,ponent sentences. These mustbe recon- nested, or added to the matrix sentencestructed and supplied with appropriate are the constituent(dependent)sen-hypothetical elements but there is gen- tences. This view of matrix and con-erally a strong formal motivation for stituent sentence, Robert B. Lees says,reconstructing the component sentences "makes essential use of the notion thatin one way rather than another."1° part of the syntactic structureof a sen- tence is the set of underlying, sometimesT HE FIRST rule to be applied is the veryabstract,representativesof the -1- relative-clause transformation, an ad- simple sentences from which it may bejective-formingtransformation.Some said to be derived by explicit gram-transformationalistspositthatpre- matical rules called transformations." nominal adjectives may be ultimately In contrast to the procedure of suc-derived from the reduction of the rela- cessive cuts which the taxonomist wouldtive-clause construction. For example, use, the transformationalist would firstthe poor of the poor man, they submit, re-write the textual sentence into simplecan be derived fromthe source sentence, source sentences. Then the history (de-the man is poor, where poor appears in rivation) of the sentence (an analysis ofpredicate position." Other linguists who the transformations which the complexcombine transformational and taxonomic sentence could be assumed to have un-approaches, say that a phrase such as dergone) can be revealed. the poor man is not derived from any kind of sentence in which the word poor Matrix sentence: /nominal: it/ had been a charitable act 10See note 9 in "Generative Grammars and Source or constituent sentences: the Concept of Literary Style," Word, 20 (1965) 430. 11For example, scc Carlotta Smith, "A Class of °"The Promise of Transformational Gram-Complex Modifiers in English," Language, 37 mar," English Journal, 52 (1963) 330. (July-September 1961) 342-365. . ... 94 ENGLISH JOURNAL

occurs in predicate position. Archibald d A. Hill argued ina paper before the (Loominabili -te sing suchsongs to Linguistic Society of America (Decem- e ber 1964) that the two approachesseem a poor old man) (who was) (persuaded to be falling together in this one respect, f in that the transformationalist isaccept- of his own approaching death) ing the notion of slots for modifiers If the verb isa form of be and if the which can occur before thenoun. Therewh- word is the subject of its clause, is perhaps then no necessity toassume in this paper at leastthat the phrasethen wh + V can be optionally deleted. the poor man is anything We give who wasa description of e, since more than awho was is to be deleted. slot with a filler in it, whereas the phrase the man has the same slot but has left it Transformation: (deletion) d +e + f empty. ---)d + f The relative-clause transformation in- volves these operations. Lettersmay be There is one other relative clause with assigned for purposes of giving thesen-deletion in the textualsentence: tences a structural description. A, b, c,. ..and wh- are again shorthandsym- g bols which allow the linguist to combine Senterce 1: (Znominal:41had been 1 and delete portions of sentences without charitable act) resorting to a full scale representation of h the sentence, thereby simplifyingopera- Sentence 2:(I had not contemplated) tions. The entire process can be visual- i ized in the followingway: (the act) Transfor- a mation: g Sentence 1: (thominahisi -te sing sg+wh-+h such songs to a poor old man) h i1 b c Result: Znominal:ilj had been1 chari- Sentence 2: (the man)(was persuaded table act which I had notcontem- of his own approaching death) plated. This time, only wh- (which )can be Transformation:16 deleted. a 1 }---) a + wh- +c One further transformation remains,a b + c J nominalizing transformation. Thenom- inalizing transformation in thissentcnce The arrow (---,) in thetransforma- tional component converts a sentence having the structure means becomes byNP + pred intoa hominal elements of structural change. Sentence1 has thethe form to 4- VP (the NP is deleted). structural description ofa. Sentence 2,In other words, thenoun slot and its which is to be embedded intosentence 1,filler are deleted and to is placed before has the description of b+ c. B repre-the verb. This crippled version of the sents the man, which will have in theNP + pred patternmay then be em- final version the wh- word who sub-bedded into the nominal slot of thema- stituted for it. Partc of the sentence re-trix sentence. In traditional terminology mains as is. The combinedsentences willthis is the infinitival nominal. thus read after the transformation,sen- tence 1 + who + part c of sentence i 2. The result is Sentence 1:(Znominali) (had beena - SYNTAX: SOMEPRESENT-DAY CONCEPTS 95 For the linguist, simplicityimplies econ- charitable act I had not contem-omy of statement.The transformation- plated) alist approach is simpler,because it re- 1 duces the numberof steps needed to Sentence 2: a...nominal/-te) (sing suchexplain complex structure.In the gross songs to a poorold man persuadedsense, thecomplexity of Whitehall's sen- of his own approachingdeath) tence, usingthe transformationalist ap- three steps, while descriptionproach, is revealed in Notice that sentence 1 has a the taxonomic approachtakes ten steps. of j+k. Slot j, whichis an empty slot, is inherent in the nominalBut these added steps are to bedeleted and filled by a tixonomic model, sincethis model in- infinitival nom- element, in this case the corporates aninfinite set of phrase struc- inal. Sentence 2has a description of transformational com- nominal slot plus theture rules and no 1-1-m. 1 represents a ponent. Thetransformationalist, unlike tense of theverb. The transformationthe taxonomist, does notbelieve that allows the linguist toplace to beforecomplexity in any interesting sensecan sing such songs ...and to nest the entirebe revealed by aninfinite set of phrase construction into thenominal slot of What is interesting to The entire process canbestructure rules. sentence I. the transformationalistis the basic sen- represented tences which areproduced by phrase structure (simplesentence) rules and the Nominalizing transformation involved in bring- to + VP: j + processes which are ) to + m+ king phrase structuresentences together 1 + m into more complex structures. The concept offiniteness is basic to The above operationwould completethe transformationalapproach. If a gram- the processes necessary to generatethematicalmodelincorporatesintoits textual sentence. In summary,the trans-framework a finite set ofrules which can formations can be viewed ascomprisingbe used to describe aninfinite set of the following operations: sentences, ascontrasted to a model which has an infinite set ofrules, then the first (To sing such songs to a poorold approach is simpler. Forexample, in the man) = Infinitival Nominal sentenceunder discussion, thematrix (persuaded of his ownapproachingsentence couldbe expanded in various deletions death) = Relative clause with ways usingphrase structure rules,but (had been a charitable act) the sentence would Relativethe complexity of (I had not contemplated) = increased. Adverbs andadjectives clause with deletion not be can be placedbefore the noun act: THERE ARE several advantages, both It was 1 charitable act theoreticalandpractical,tothe It was a beneficial charitable act transformational model of representing It was a very beneficialcharitable act syntax. First, it meets the testof simplic- ity, which, together with completeness All expansions here,theoretically, can and consistency, is one of the three basicbe explained by phrase structurerules. criteriaof modern linguistic science.But when other elements(constituent Simplicity, however, involves more thansentences) are either embedded ornested complexity is mere readability of a grammaticalmodel.into the matrix sentence, Most would agree that transformationalincreased. And this is the basicdistinc- rules in their sophisticatcd and abstracttion to be made: the taxonomicmodel form are difficult to read and understand.cannot generalizeabout the process of ENGLISH JOURNAL

embedding or nesting. As the transfor-a taxonomic model is thatit hasno tnationalists would say, "it lacks power."transformational component. Thetax- The transformational modelcan explainonomic model forces the linguistto des- this complexity, and thus allow admir-cribe a sentence as if itwere a linearly ably economical statements aboutsyntax,ordered set of words. By definition, then, something which before the taxonomicthe model would therefore showno re- linguist had only stumbled at. latedness among and betweensentences. It may be further observed that ifoneThe taxonomic model thus forcescom- of the aims of language science istoplexity of description, whereas thetrans- reduce the number of items to be dealtformational model reduces complexity with, then the transformational approachand allows the linguist to makemore is more scientific than the taxonomicconcise generalizations aboutsyntax. approach. Taxonomic theoryassumes Language scienceand thus the models that each sentence is a unique event,used to represent syntactic porocesseshas forcing the conclusion thata taxonomicalways had to justify itselfon practical grammar would need an infinite set ofgrounds, and whether goodor bad the phrase structure rules in order to des-principlestillholds The transforma- cribe all sentences. Byway of contrast,tional grammar is more practical than the thetransformationalistsarguethata taxonomic grammar inthe classroom grammar must reveal the facts of sen-situation. The formulaic operationsem- tence-relatedness; that is, complexsen-ployed in transformational analysiscan tences, in the broad sense, consist ofbe of practical use when the teacher simple source sentences. wants to explain the use of certain syn- The addition of transformational rulestacticfeatures, or characteristics, and allows a systematic description of thishence alternative choices in expression. relatedness. Instead of havingan infiniteWhether teaching Johnny the complex number of rules, the transformationalistbusiness of creating relative clausesor the holds that any sentence is a product ofprocesses of writinabsophisticated sen- a finite set of phrase structure rules plustences, the transformational model of a finite set of transformational rules. Cer-syntax holds immense value. tainly one of the major weaknesses of