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"