Languages & Linguistics
Generative Grammar
Generative grammar is a linguistic theory that aims to describe the structure of language and how it is generated in the human mind. It focuses on the rules and principles that underlie the formation of grammatically correct sentences, emphasizing the innate knowledge and cognitive processes involved in language production. This approach has been influential in shaping our understanding of language acquisition and universal grammar.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
11 Key excerpts on "Generative Grammar"
eBook - PDFUniversalism versus Relativism in Language and Thought
Proceedings of a Colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf Hypotheses
- Rik Pinxten(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Other items could be added to this list. This is mentioned here to absolve me of the duty of making excursions into history when I come to discuss issues which, in my opinion, are essential for the comprehen-sion of the set of concepts used in transformational Generative Grammar. Here is the attempt to reconstruct that set of concepts. The starting point is the definition of .language as a set (finite or not) of sentences, which are constructed from elements whose set is finite (Chomsky 1957: 13). (From the point of view of filiations of ideas it is worth noting that such precisely was the standpoint formulated by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philo-sophicus, 4.001: 'The totality of propositions is the language'.) The grammar of a given language is a device which serves to produce sentences which have a specified structure and are in this sense grammatical (Chomsky 1957: 13; see also 1969a: 9). Thus the task is not so much to describe the structures of statements actually made, but to simulate and to explain the behavior of a language user who in the light of his limited experience with a given language can produce and understand infinitely many new sentences in that language. This idea is fundamental for the definition of Generative Grammar as distinct form traditional grammar. Only a grammar so conceived can explain linguistic creativity, understood as the ability to produce infinitely many sentences from a finite set of elements. The point is, obviously to produce grammatical sentences, i.e. sentences which comply with the rules of a given grammar. Hence grammar may be defined as a set of rules (identical with the concept of device) which makes it possible to produce in a given language an infinite set of grammatical sentences and to describe their structures (Chomsky 1964a: 119—120). Generative Grammar, when assimilated by a person who has the command of the language, coincides with what de Saussure termed langue.
No longer available |Learn moreSyntax
A Generative Introduction
- Andrew Carnie(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Wiley-Blackwell(Publisher)
A number of alternate theories of syntax have also branched off of this research program; these include Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). These are also considered part of Generative Grammar; but we won’t cover them extensively in this book, except in chapters 16 and 17. The particular version of Generative Grammar that we will mostly look at here is roughly the Principles and Parameters approach, although we will occasional stray from this into the more recent version called Minimalism . The underlying thesis of Generative Grammar is that sentences are generated by a subconscious set of procedures (like computer programs). These procedures are part of our minds (or of our cognitive abilities if you prefer). The goal of syntactic theory is to model these procedures. In other words, we are trying to figure out what we subconsciously know about the syntax of our language. In Generative Grammar, the means for modeling these procedures is through a set of formal grammatical rules . Note that these rules are nothing 1 Whether language constrains what abstract things we can think about (this idea is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) is a matter of great debate and one that lies outside the domain of syntax per se. 6 Preliminaries like the rules of grammar you might have learned in school. These rules don’t tell you how to properly punctuate a sentence or not to split an infinitive. Instead, they tell you the order in which to put your words (in English, for example, we put the subject of a sentence before its verb; this is the kind of information encoded in generative rules). These rules are thought to generate the sentences of a language, hence the name Generative Grammar. You can think of these rules as being like the command lines in a computer program. They tell you step by step how to put together words into a sentence. We’ll look at precise examples of these rules in the next chapter.
eBook - PDF- (Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Returning now to the central topic, a Generative Grammar (that is, an explicit grammar that makes no appeal to the reader's 'faculté de langage' but rather attempts to incorporate the mechanisms of this faculty) is a system of rules that relate signals to TOPICS IN THE THEORY OF Generative Grammar 5 semantic interpretations of these signals. It is descriptively adequate to the extent that this pairing corresponds to the competence of the idealized speaker-hearer. The idealization is (in particular) that in the study of grammar we abstract away from the many other factors (e.g., memory limitations, distractions, changes of intention in the course of speaking, etc.) that interact with underlying competence to produce actual performance. If a Generative Grammar is to pair signals with semantic interpretations, then the theory of Generative Grammar must provide a general, language-independent means for representing the signals and semantic interpretations that are interrelated by the grammars of particular languages. This fact has been recognized since the origins of linguistic theory, and traditional linguistics made various attempts to develop theories of universal phonetics and universal semantics that might meet this requirement. Without going into any detail, 1 think it would be widely agreed that the general problem of universal phonetics is fairly well-understood (and has been, in fact, for several centuries), whereas the problems of universal semantics still remain veiled in their traditional obscurity. We have fairly reasonable techniques of phonetic repre-sentation that seem to approach adequacy for all known languages, though, of course, there is much to learn in this domain. In contrast, the immediate prospects for uni-versal semantics seem much more dim, though surely this is no reason for the study to be neglected (quite the opposite conclusion should, obviously, be drawn).
- Jorg Roche, Moiken Jessen(Authors)
- 2023(Publication Date)
- LIT Verlag(Publisher)
The UG consists of general principles and lan- guage-specific parameters, that are set depending on the type of input (for more details see Chapter 6.1). It is not the goal of Generative Grammar to describe the grammar of one specific language. In contrast, UG aims to uncover the general regularities that form the basis of all languages. This so-called deep structure is the abstract level underlying the concrete reali- zation of linguistic forms with their differences in word and phrase order called surface structure. 148 Since the turn of the millennium, representatives of Generative Grammar itself have more and more frequently been questioning the assumptions presented. In particular, the task-specific innate universal grammar is hardly compatible with recent findings from language acquisition research (cf. Fanselow 2002: 233). That is why, as mentioned above, only the prin- ciple of recursion is considered innate by Chomsky himself. However, generative approaches did not stagnate at this point, but have evolved to a large extent. Many advocates of Generative Grammar have turned to optimality theory over the past years, a meta-theory that consists of different components and principles. This approach is used to explain first, second as well as foreign language acquisition, with a focus on pho- nology (cf. Bhatt/Bolonyai 2011, Fikkert/de Hoop 2009, Hancin-Bhatt 2008). 4.1.4 Functional Grammar The general characteristics of functional grammar, as presented below, also apply to construction grammar a theory we will focus on in Section 4.1.5 and that will be elaborated in even more detail in Section 4.2. Functional grammars are usually grouped together as those streams which explicitly distance themselves from formal grammar theories like genera- tive grammar. All functional approaches are of the opinion that language cannot only be analyzed in isolation, but only in relation to its role in in- terpersonal communication (cf. Smirnova/Mortelmans 2010: 13).
eBook - PDF- James McElvenny(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Language Science Press(Publisher)
At the centre of the newly established discipline was the syntactic or formal engine, the structures of which were revealed through modelling grammatical form. Te generativist paradigm in linguistics initially relied heavily upon the proof-theoretic techniques intro-duced by Emil Post and other formal logicians to model the form language takes (Tomalin 2006; Pullum 2011; 2013). 1 Yet despite these aforementioned formal be-ginnings, the generative theory of linguistics has changed its commitments quite 1 Here my focus will largely be on the formal history of generative syntax but I will make some comments on other aspects of linguistics along the way. Ryan M. Nefdt. 2019. Linguistics as a science of structure. In James McEl-venny (ed.), Form and formalism in linguistics , 175–195. Berlin: Language Sci-ence Press. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2654361 Ryan M. Nefdt drastically over the intervening years, eschewing among other things formaliza-tion, cognitive science for evolutionary biology, derivations for constraints, rules for schemata, phrase structure for cyclic phases of the merge operation and other theoretical choices. Given signifcant theory change, the fecundity of the enterprise and its so-called discoveries are inevitably called into question (Stokhof & van Lambalgen 2011; Lappin et al. 2000; Jackendof 2002). A related, more ontological, question is, if the grammars of linguistics are scienti fc theories (as Chomsky and others have insisted over the years), then what are the objects being explained by these grammars? Te former question has received li tle aten tion as compared to the later. 2 I will not directly add to the ontological debate here, but I do hope to draw some needed aten tion to the question of theory change in linguistics. Tus, in this chapter, I argue that linguistics as a science faces the problem of pessimistic meta-induction, more generally discussed in the philosophy of the hard science such as physics.
eBook - PDF- Doris Schönefeld(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
120 Linguistic models under scrutiny And it is precisely such a comprehensive and well-rounded theory that I am looking for in my attempt to judge the naturalness/plausibility of linguistic models and to further generalize from corpus-linguistic research. 4.3. Generative approaches Generative approaches are often collectively referred to as Generative Grammar. The latter term does not simply denote a particular linguistic model, but stands for a whole paradigm in Kuhn's (1978) sense. Chomsky, its leading and most renowned proponent, initiated a new orientation in linguistics or rather re-discovered a number of views about what linguistics is about and what it is meant to do, which were already held by Descartes, Humboldt, Leibniz and others: He relates th questions discussed recently to those discussed from the 17 century onwards. This re-orientation to classical topics led to a re-discovery of facts that were self-evident at that time, a time which Chomsky calls the period of Cartesian Linguistics. In his book with the same title he focuses on some of those ideas that have re-appeared in current work, in order to make their relation to older considerations explicit (cf. Chomsky 1966: 1-3). Some of the essential connections which Chomsky sees between Generative Grammar and Cartesian Linguistics refer to the assumptions made about language acquisition and language universals. Both views start out from the existence in the human being of an innate language faculty. This is taken to consist of the principles of Universal Grammar (UG), by which Chomsky means the universal conditions that predict the form of any human language. They are not acquired, but the human mind is genetically endowed with them. They represent the principles which make language acquisition possible, the principles that must be there for the human being to be able to acquire knowledge from input.
eBook - PDFComputers and Languages
Theory and Practice
- A. Nijholt(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- North Holland(Publisher)
Other factors deal with non-linguistic information which depends on the context in which the sentence appears, or on general common-sense knowledge. In Chapter 10, 11, and 12 we will return to case grammar and the AI approach to natural language understanding. 182 7. GENERATIVE LINGmSTICS Conclusions Since 1965 the theory of transformational grammar has further developed. Refinements and new paradigms have been introduced. However, the distinction between a base component and a transformational component, together with the observation that the meaning of a sentence is determined to a certain degree by its deep structure have become rather established ideas. In the Extended Standard Theory of transformational grammar, which has developed since the seventies, the semantic interpretation of a sentence is again partly determined by the transforma-tions which have been applied. Presently, the theory has moved into a direction where the surface structure of a sentence suffices to determine the meaning. For that purpose the surface structure is enriched with markers that relate to the deep struc-ture. Instead of continuing work on phrase structure and transformational rules there has been a shift to the study of certain linguistic principles. A consequence of this shift from the Standard Theory to the present so-called Government-Binding Theory is that phrase structure and transformational rules have been almost abandoned from the theory. In fact, it is assumed that they can be derived from more general princi-ples (cf. Chomsky[1982b]). Because of the changing points of view and the continuous modifications of the theory of transformational grammar Fodor et al [1974] (page 112) have expressed the following view: Contemporary linguistics is an unfinished science. Its methodology is, in many respects, more interesting than its firm results. In the early 1980s theories have been developed which eschew the use of transformations.
- James W. Ney(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
In the same way that all grammars are taxonomic, all grammars are genera-tive. Jespersen did not write his grammar merely to describe the sentences in a corpus. His idea, and the idea of all that preceded and followed him, was to provide models, examples and rules for language learners to create sentences in the languages that they are learning. For instance Longacre (1964) specifi-cally points out the generative power of his tagmemic formulae. Although Chomsky should be commended for formalizing the notion of generativity, this concept cannot be used to certify the validity of one grammar or the non-validity of another since all grammars are generative in On the Use of Data for Theory Building 3 one sense of the word or another. Furthermore, Chomskyan grammars fail on the issue of generativity on one point: they cannot generate intentionally ambiguous sentences. (See Chapter 4, Section 3.1 and Chapter 5, Section 3.8 for support of this statement). Nevertheless, the Chomskyan point has been well made. It is not possible now to attempt to write a grammar or a portion of a grammar without paying attention to the concept of language as an indefinitely large system which is capable of generation from a finite set of rules. This concept is adhered to in this study and, as a result, much of the Aspects-moAtl for linguistic description is assumed. 3.0 ON THE USE OF DATA FOR THEORY BUILDING Currently, there are two widely divergent views on the use of data for theory building. On the surface, this seems not to be the case since Chomsky himself frequently refers to 'empirical motivation' (1965:73,99) or 'empirical justifi-cation' (1970:204) in his writings. He even states: Of course, it is necessary to stipulate with care the precise conditions under which complex symbols can be formed, at each level, or else the system of a grammar becomes so powerful as to lose empirical interest (Chomsky, 1970:208; Italics, mine).
eBook - PDFThe Mathematics of Syntactic Structure
Trees and their Logics
- Hans-Peter Kolb, Uwe Mönnich, Hans-Peter Kolb, Uwe Mönnich(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Yet, the advances—not the least through important contributions by Chom-sky (e.g., Chomsky 1956,1959)—of Formal Language Theory in the 50s and 60s, which had provided much initial evidence for the feasibility of the basic approach, seemed to suggest a stronger röle of the formal framework in Gen-erative Grammar research. It had established, for the classes of the Chomsky hierarchy of formal languages, an intimate connection between the form of a grammar (the rule types employed), the computational resources needed to process it, and the type of (string) language specified by it. Applied to Natural Language this line of proceeding aims at establishing a formal system defined automata-theoretically and/or via rule types 3 which by its inherent restriction of expressive power provides guidance through the empirical mine-fields of linguistic theory formation. Consequently, (la) became a major concern of pre-P&P Generative theo-rizing, be it somewhat slanted towards considerations of computational com-plexity. Intricate—and not always accurate—arguments placed the natural languages on the Chomsky-Hierarchy somewhere between context-free and Introduction 3 context-sensitive, and various varieties of transformational models were ex-plored with the aim to discover the one exactly right formal framework, which, by our remarks above, would automatically provide for the right type of structures in a maximally transparent way. A first seed of doubt about the adequacy of this approach was planted by Ross (1967), who, based on careful analysis of a vast amount of empirical data, had demonstrated that many important regularities of Natural Language can only be expressed by means orthogonal to the descriptive apparatus of phrase-structural and transformational rules.
eBook - PDF- Rebecca Posner, John N. Green, Rebecca Posner, John N. Green(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The processes which were formerly grouped under this umbrella term now take place quite separately in the syntactic and phonological components. Syntax deals with the concatenation of forma-tives, whether words or smaller meaningful units, and phonology handles the adjustments which are quite often required at morpheme boundaries. Accidentally, this redistribution perpetuated in the 1957 and 1965 models the Bloomfieldian conflation of inflection and derivation, con-cepts which traditional grammar had kept distinct. It is only recently that word formation has again resurfaced as a respectable study in genera-tive circles, although the same concept (under different names) was central to the schism between Generative Semantics and Chomsky's 'Lexicalist' position. The latter takes its name from Chomsky's argument (1972: 11-61) that only nominalizations of gerundival form should be derived by transformation from underlying full sentences, whereas the theory had previously assumed that all nominalizations would be performed in situ, so that la construction del edificio would derive from an underlying structure something like X construye el edificio. A modified and much more recent proposal now allows for some productive derivational processes to be incorporated in the lexicon, Generative Grammar 385 though rather tightly constrained and subject to output filters (see Aronoff 1976). It was to be expected that Romanists, among whom derivation has long been of great interest, would experiment with the generative model. Although in several cases the outcome is a valid description of structure, the major switch in generativist thinking on this subject means that most such treatments can no longer be accommodated within the model that was expected to house them. This has happened preeminently to the only full scale, pan-Romance treatment of derivation: Les mots composes dans les langues romanes (Giurescu 1975), and somewhat less disastrously to M.
eBook - PDFReadings in Modern Linguistics
An Anthology
- Bertil Malmberg(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
16 Cf. Firth, Synopsis, p. 22 (and above 1.8 n. 11); R. H. Robins, Some Con-siderations on the status of grammar in linguistics Archiuum Linguisticum XI (1959), 101; Garvin, see below (6.3 n. 60). 17 Grammar is also the name for the study of grammar; as with level (above, 1.4 n. 8), it is unnecessary to distinguish between the grammar of a language and grammar in theory and description—though a distinction is often made between lexis and lexicology, the latter being the study of lexis. Again, not a set of discovery procedures, but a set of properties of what the linguist accounts for grammatically. The grammar of a language can only be defined as that part of the language that is accounted for by grammatical description. 162 all other items E . . . are outside the system. (b) each term is exclusive of all the others: a given term A cannot be identical with B or C or D. (c) if a new term is added to the system this changes the meaning of all the others. 18 Any part of linguistic form which is not concerned with the opera-tion of closed systems belongs to the level of lexis. The distinction between closed system patterns and open set patterns in language is in fact a cline; but the theory has to treat them as two distinct types of pattern requiring different categories. For this reason General Linguistic theory must here provide both a theory of grammar and a theory of lexis, and also a means of relating the two. A description depending on General Linguistic theory will need to separate the de-scriptions of the two levels both from each other and from the descrip-tion of their interrelations. This paper is primarily concerned with the theory of grammar, though reference will be made to lexis at various points. 2.2. The fundamental categories for the theory of grammar are four: unit, structure, class, and system. These are categories of the highest order of abstraction: they are established, and interrelated, in the theory.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
