CHAPTER IINTRODUCTIONIn the 1950s the school of linguistic thought known as transformational-generative grammar received wide acclaim through the works of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky postulated a syntactic base of language (called deep structure), which consists of a series of phrase-structure rewrite rules, i.e., a series of (possibly universal) rules that generates the underlying phrase-structure of a sentence, and a series of rules (called transformations) that act upon the phrase-structure to form more complex sentences. The end result of a transformational-generative grammar is a surface structure that, after the addition of words and pronunciations, is identical to an actual sentence of a language. All languages have the same deep structure, but they differ from each other in surface structure because of the application of different rules for transformations, pronunciation, and word insertion. Another important distinction made in transformational-generative grammar is the difference between language competence (the subconscious control of a linguistic system) and language performance (the speaker's actual use of language). Although the first work done in transformational-generative grammar was syntactic, later studies have applied the theory to the phonological and semantic components of language.In linguistics, a transformational grammar or transformational-generative grammar (TGG) is a generative grammar, especially of a natural language, that has been developed in the syntactic structures of phrase structure grammars (as opposed to dependency grammars). Transformational grammar is the tradition of specific transformational grammars. Much current research in transformational grammar is inspired by Chomsky's Minimalist Program.

CHAPTER IIDISCUSSIONA. Revision of Syntactic Structures ModelAfter a slow start, transformational-generative grammar finally took hold. Chomsky and others worked at extending and refining the early theoretical model, and eventually arrived at enough modifications and revisions that the original theory had to be formulated. In addition to the work on the TG model, Chomsky devoted much time to enlarging and refining the assumptions and the philosophical views which had led him to develop a TG grammar in the first place, and to defending his views to a still-skeptical group of linguists.One of the most controversial of these assumptions was Chomskys assertion that the linguist must rely on the linguistics institutions of native speakers. Most structuralist balked at the word intuition, and they condemned Chomskys method as subjective, unscientific, and the circular.Chomsky answered such charges by insisting first of all that it is far more dangerous to view objectivity as an end in itself. If the goal is insight and understanding, objectivity is used merely insight as a tool for the search. Besides, as with any science, it scarcely makes sense to begin by demanding the very evidence you are looking for. He admitted that there are certainly problems inherent in relying on intuition, but at the moment he knew of no better way to begin. As for reliance on intuition as the ultimate test of his theory, Chomsky answered that if linguistic intuition is what the linguist seeks to explain, there is no better way to test result than to see if they are satisfactory explanation to native speakers.Still not convinced, the structiralists retorted that if Chomskys grammar has as its aim the study of intuition, then its results will not tell us anything we do not already know, since we are all native speakers. They accused Chomsky of describing intuition, not grammar. Chomsky agreed that intuition was indeed precisely what he was describing. His empirical data were the native speakers linguistic intuitions, for which his grammar was seeking an explanation. The goal of transformational generative grammar theory is to gain insight into and understanding of the nature of the language users intuitive linguistic judgments.Chomsky pointed out that the study of linguistic intuition poses many problems, however. For example, a speakers knowledge that a given sentence is or is not grammatical is most often a tacit knowledge, below the level of conscious awareness and not therefore immediately available to him. The task of linguist, as Chomsky saw it, was to provide explanations and to present them in such a way that a language users linguistic consciousness would be raised to the level of awareness. He was not suggesting, however, that such consciousness-raising would involve teaching the speaker anything new about language; the goal is to find ways of pointing out things that language users have known all along, of making them aware of their considerable linguistic intuition.To illustrate the point that explanations are not always ones to which a competent speaker has ready access, Chomsky discussed the problem ambiguity. At the first impression the speaker-hearer may not, for a number of reasons, recognize a sentence as ambiguous. Or he or she may realize that it can be interpreted in two ways but miss a third of forth. For example:I had a book stolen at the libraryAt first glance, most speakers of English will probably recognize that the sentence is ambiguous. Yet, they will very likely not be aware that there are at least five ways it can be interpreted-and possibly more:1. A book of mine was stolen while I was at the library.2. A book of mine was stolen while it was at the library.3. I arranged for someone to steal a book while it was at the library.4. I had in my possession a book which had been previously stolen at the library.5. I almost completed the stealing of a book at the library (but was caught).Another interesting fact about language use on which linguists have focused in recent years is that the speakers linguistic performance (the actual use of language in concrete situation) is different from and seldom fully reflects linguistic competence (the speaker-hearers knowledge of his language). The actual sentences native speakers utter can tell us very little about their language competence, for in the normal course of daily living it is inevitable that all kind of distraction are bound to interfere with linguistic performance. In other words, there are limits to performance that have nothing to do with grammatical ability.It was the realization that led Chomsky to reject the structuralists data-collecting approach to language study by deliberately confining themselves to a description of actual spoken utterances; the structuralists limited themselves to the study of linguistic performance.The research of Chomsky and other transformationalists into linguistic competence led them into turn to new inquiries. As soon as one reflects upon the actual mish-mash performance (of others) from which a child inevitably learns his language, it becomes all the more astonishing that language acquisition is possible at all. Transformational linguists, like Plato to Descartes before them, came to marvel at the awesome fact that every normal child is able to acquire so undeniably complex an ability as language competence. Chomsky had four principal aims in writing aspects:1. To clear up misunderstandings and to answer the questions that had been raised about TG theory, especially those raised by the strucuralists;2. To point out the weakness and defects in the early model, along with the arguments and evidence that had convinced him of validity of some criticisms;3. To suggest revisions and modifications which would merely these defects;4. To call attention to unresolved problems still in need of investigation.Among those things which made some linguists unhappy withthe early form of transformational grammar was its failure to deal satisfactorily with the problem of meaning and meaning relationships. Many linguists came to feel that meaning is basic to language competence, and that therefore the grammar theory ought somehow to incorporate semantic considerations in the phrase-structure part of the grammar.Chomsky had argued in Syntactic Structures that a grammar is best formulated as a self-contained syntactic theory, wthour reference to and independent from considerations of semantics. This was not to deny the importance of meaning in language. He simply believed that once one discovers the syntactic structure of a language, that knowledge can be put to use in discovering the meaning function of the language. Robert Lees, writing in 1960, argued that the negative statement should be regarded as the derivation of a kernel string rather that as a tranformation. Edward Klima also presented a similar formal argument regarding the interrogative sentence. Both of these sentence types had been included among the single-base optional transformations in the early TG model. But these linguists contended that, since there is no known language in which thequestion and the negative statement fail to exist this linguistic facts shuold be reflected in the basic rules of the grammar. In effect, what they were arguing was that all optional transformations should be meaning-preserving. To undestanding this reasoning, consider the following five sentences:1. John always eats lunch.2. John does not ever eat lunch.3. John never eats lunch.4. John always eats no luch.5. John does not always eats luch.In the early form of TG grammar, all five of these sentences would be analyzed as derivations from the same underlying kernel string, John + eat + lunch. The intuition of the English speaker, however, is that there are at least three separate meanings or interpretationsof these five sentences. At first, Chomsky was skeptical. But then, Jerrold Katz and Paul Postal worked out the outlines of a transformational semantic theory which demonstrated the feasibility of assigning semantic features to particular lexical items, and which also demonstrated that the syntactic structure of a sentence is often influenced by the semantic features associated with a particular lexical choice. They speculated that the device of assigning features might make it possible to simply get rid of the notion of optional generalized transformations altogether, and to account for the generation of compound and complex sentences directly from the PS rules, instead.Chomsky had accepted the notion that all transformations should be meaning-preserving. Now he conceived a revised model with a base component called the deep structure. The base component would include syntactical rules, semantic and phonlogical information represented by feature matrixes of lexical items, and phrase markers (NEG, Q, PAS). All sentences would the be generated directly from the deep structure, or base, by means of various transformation operations, to become actual sentences or surface structures.The idea of making revisions through the early TG model was appealing, for what it would mean is that all the abstract material contained in the deep structure (the base) of the grammar would represent linguistic universals. Only the transformation operations would give instructions for the idiosyncractic forms of particular languages. Another advantage of the revised model is that the linguitic preperty of recursiveness, which the Syntactic Structures model had for the most part assigned to the transformation rules would now be completely accounted for in the base. This would mean, for example, that whenever the constituent NP appears in a deep structure derivation, we would have the option of embedding an S (sentence) after it.The most serious problem encountered in reformulating the grammar model was that of deciding how to include both semantic and syntactic information in the deep structure rules. Chomskys solution (in Aspects) was to continue to consider to consider the syntax rules primar. Semantic rules would then be merely interpretive. The difficulty with keeping the two components separate in this way, however, is that linguists cannot agree, even today, on where the line between semantic and syntax should be drawn. Clearly both syntactic features and semantic features are important, but in some cases it isnt clear whether a feature is a syntactic one, a semantic one, or both.Other Unresolved Problems In Aspects Chomsky expressed the belief that in all probability these questions will remain unanswered for some time. It isnt clear, for example, how grammar can account for the kind of semantic considerations that are beyond the scope of the lexicon; nor is it clear whether certain semantic considerations are universals or are, rather, particular language idiosyncrasies. Another unresolved problem is that of deciding how to explain the derivational process. A futher problem is that of idiom.B. Standard TG Grammar Theory: Aspects Model The aspects TG grammar model has three major components: a syntax, a semantics, and a phonology. From these three, syntax is the central. It contains a base component and a transformational component. The base component contains a finite set of phrase-structure rules (both branching rules and subcategorization rules), a lexicon or dictionary (also finite), and some preleminary context-free lexical insertion rules (L rules). The transformational component contains context-sensitive transformational rules of three types: lexical insertion rules, general transfomation rules (these are the familiar optional T rules of the syntactic stuctures grammar), and the two kinds of local transformation rules: affix-incorporation and segment structure T rules. The rules of the base component are said to be context-free, which means that each one of them applies in ignorance of any other rules.the transformation rules, on the other hand, are by their very nature context-sensitive: they apply only in certain restricted environments.The semantic component and the phonological component of aspects grammar are said to be interpretive. The semantic component operates on the deep structure level; it determines a semantic interpretation of a sentence generated by the rules of the syntactic component. In other words, the semantic component takes as input the information generated by the base rules of the grammar and assigns a semantic or meaning interpretation to the string.The function of the phonological component is also interpretive. It provides information concerning the pronunciation of constituents. That is, once all transformations have been performed, the phonological component of the grammar finishes the job of converting a deep structure to a surface structure (an actual spoken sentence) by assigning pronunciation features to it.The Total Grammar SystemI. SYNTACTIC COMPONENTThe Base (Context-Free)A. Phrase-Structure Rules1. Branching Rules2. Subcategorization Rulesa. Strict Subcategrization Rulesb. Selectional RulesB. The Lexicon and Preliminary Lexical Insertion RulesC. Transformation Rules (Context-Sensitive)1. Final Lexical Insertion T Rules2. General T Rules3. Local T Rulesa. Segment Transformationsb. Other Local TransformationsII. SEMANTIC COMPONENTOperates on the base component. Influences subcategorization rules and lexicon, and assigns a semantic interpretation to the deep structuregenerated by the PS rules.III. PHONOLOGICAL COMPONENTContributes phonological feature matrix information to the lexicon. After application of all T rules, provides a phonological interpretation for the surface structure.SEMANTIC COMPONENT(Interpretive)

Deep StructureSYNTACTIC COMPONENT

The BaseTransformation RulesFinal Lexical Insertion T RulesGeneral T RulesLocal T Rules

Base (PS) Rules Branching rules

Subcategorization rulesStrict subcat rulesSelectional rulesThe LexiconPreleminary Lexical Insertion

Surface Sentence(Phonetic Structure)PHONOLOGICAL COMPLEMENT(Interpretive)

C. Aspects Model: The Base Component, IThere are two aspect of about the base component of context-sensitive transformation rules (1) Phrase structure rules two types of branching rules and sub categorization phrase structure rules, and (2) the lexicon rules. We shall be applying these rules the order in which they are listed:Phrase Structure RulesBranching Rules or RewritingThe branching rules is context-free rules which act blindly to produce any one of a number of strings terminating in category nodes. The generation of a sentence begins with the rewriting or branching rules. You are already familiar with this kind of rule, because we used branching rules in the earlier Transformational Generative model. A few significant changes have been made in the branching rules of the aspect grammar. One important change is that of including transformation signaling abstract phrase markets in the phrase structure rules of the grammar. The rewriting rules of the revised grammar contain, in addition to formative constituents, abstract phrase markets Q, NEG, PAS, and so on which will not be realized as actual words or word parts. These phrase markers, which appear only in the deep structure, provide semantic information to the semantic component and trigger a particular transformation process at some point in the generation of a sentence. In addition to the old single-base optional transformations, now signaled by abstract markers, the revised phrase structure rules have also moved the explanation of the multiple-base transformations to the base component of the grammar. Thus, whereas in the early model the universal language property of indefinite reclusiveness was wholly accounted for by the optional double base transformation rules, this property can now be explained by the branching rules of the base component. These are major changes all transformational signal to the phrase structure rules of the base the grammar is to move with the result that the base rules are now capable of explaining a much deeper level of abstraction than was permitted by the earlier phrase structure rules. Moreover, and this is the real justification for the change the base rules are now able to reflect at least two properties of language which transformational linguists recognize as linguistic universals.The other is the fact that all known natural languages make use of transformations or to put it another way, every sentence in every known natural language is a transformation. These rule changes mean that we will no longer speak of optional transformations at least not in the same sense as we used that term in the early transformational generative model. The very abbreviated deep structure tree diagrams illustrate some of these rule change.Figure T1Negative Transformation Deep Structure

Negative Surface Structure: Janice may not like this book.Figure T2Question TransformationDeep Structure

Question Surface Structure: Will the woman be happy?Figure T3Passive Transformation Deep Structure

Passive Surface Structure: The roadwas ruined by the tractorFigure T1, T2, and T3 are tree structures which illustrate the revised rewriting rule for sentence:S(SM) NP VPSM (NEG),(Q), (PAS)The first of these rules says that preceding an entire string there may occur one or more abstract phrase markets or sentence modifiers (SM). The second rule explains that a sentence modifier may be one or more abstract dummy symbols like NEG (negative), Q (question), and PAS (passive). All such abstract phrase markers will continue to appear in the phrase marker tree until we reach the stage in the sentence generation process for the application of the general Transformation rules. This procedure will not take place until after all phrase structure rules have been run through and lexical insertion transformations have taken place.This revised derivational concept has two advantages:1. It permits us to see that two sentences like Janice may like this book and Janice may not like this book are different in meaning at the deep structure semantic level.2. It also provides an explanation for the speakers intuition that the sentences are otherwise syntactically identical.Figure 4Embedded Restrictive Relative Clause Transformations Deep Structure

Surface Structure: The girl who lost the ticket criedFigure 5The triangle represents an approximated structure

Surface Structure: The fact that Tom likes books is true After Reduction: That Tom likes books is trueFigure 6Embedded Nominalized that clause deep structure

Surface structure: the fact that Tom likes books is trueAfter reduction T: That Tom likes books is true. The tree structures in Figures T4, T5, and T6 illustrate sentence embedding, one of the two sentence combining processes. In each of the three diagrams there are two underlying deep structure sentences, one of which will become embedded, the other of which will dominate by the time the structure surfaces. Notice that these phrase marker trees offer a satisfying explanation for the structure fact that one string (the main clauses) is felt to be more important than the other (the subordinate clause). In all such derivations, only the main clause will have immediately branched off from the original S node. All embedded sentences, on the other hand, are shown to be immediately dominated by an NP node.Figure 7Conjunction Transformation Deep Structure

Surface structure: Mary dances and Jane singsFigure 8Nonrestrictive relative clause conjunction transformation Deep structure

Surface structure: John, who is my friend, likes televisionAfter reduction: John, my friend, likes televisionThe last two tree diagrams Figures T7 and Figure T8 are illustrate the second sentence combining process, conjunction. Figure T7 shows the deep structure combining for two equally dominant surface structure main clauses. Notice that each of them branches off from the original S node simultaneously, and thus each clause has a separate but equal existence of its own from its initial inception. Moreover, neither sentence is immediately dominated by an NP (noun phrase) node (as in the case of an embedded sentence) but rather by an S (sentence) node.Figure T8 illustrates a sentence which will surface with an embedded nonrestrictive relative clause. This kind of sentence, most linguists thought, had simply not been adequately explained by the old rewriting rules, for these early rules had treated restrictive and no restricted relative clauses as if they are alike. Although they are somewhat alike, the English speaker also knows that there is an important difference both in the meaning and in the pronunciation of the two sentences: The girl who is wearing the red dress was late. Joyce, who is wearing the red dress, was late.The relative clause in sentence 1 is felt by the speaker to be a vital and intimate part of the dominant subject noun phrase. It is essential to have this relative clause modifier if we are to understand which girl the sentence is talking about and grammar have recognized this fact by labeling such a relative clause restrictive. In sentence 2 on the other hand, the relative clause is not essential. It is not necessary to restrict the subject noun with a modifier which further identifies it, for the proper name Joyce is specific identification enough (the assumption being, of course that there is not more than one Joyce in the context in which the sentence is spoken).Joyce and Joyce is wearing the red dress was lateOrJoyce (Joyce is wearing the red dress) was late.Thus the tree diagram shows the nonrestrictive relative clause as branching off immediately from the main Sentence node (as a conjoined sentence does) but from the same S node and at the same time as its fellow triplet constituents, NP and VP.Subcategorization PS RulesWhich define the syntactic requirements to be met by each constituent in a given string and define the semantic requirements which are required of these constituents? When all of the branching phrase structure rules are exhausted, we cannot make these lexical insertions at random, we must replace a noun node with a word that the dictionary says is a noun, a verb node with a verb, and etc. Strict sub categorization rules are considering the following sets of sequences.Set Ago should the not he and workBy however book this sad is ofSet B he will lie the book on the tableThe girl seemed the pencilThey hit a sadSet CJohn frightened the houseThe milk that he ate admired themThe little boy is pregnantThere are sets ungrammatical, for they all violate basic phrase structure rules. The string in Set a native speaker of English would no doubt agree is the worst of the lot. The explanation for their complete unacceptability is that they violate the most basic of the Phrase Structure rules is the branching rules. Except for the accident of recognizable English words, these sequences cannot be even be called English. The strings Set B are better at least we recognize something of English syntax in them. These sequences violate the strict sub categorization phrase structure rules which tell us that certain verbs require complements of specific part of speech categories.A noun phrase must follow a transitive verb an adjective must follow a verb like seem, and etc. The early Transformational generative grammar model made an effort to handle strict sub categorization problems of this sort by identifying transitive, intransitive, and linking verb types in the branching rules and indeed, those rules would prevent such mishaps as are illustrated in the strings of set B. This change makes for more accurate specifications, for it has the added advantage of specifically identifying the particular syntactic or contextual feature characteristics of each individual lexical verb.When we discuss about the ungrammatical sequences of Set C the contextual features specified the bank space represents the place where the item possessing the feature must stand. The strings in Set C above are ungrammatical for a third reason having to do in this case semantic impropriety. They violate a second kind of sub categorization phrase structure rule is a rule of lexical selection within a given category. One does not frighten an animate object like a house, one does not eat milk, one drinks it, only a person can admire something but an animate object, a situation, an idea cannot only a woman not a little boy can be pregnant. The selection phrase structure rules it will be necessary to consult the lexicon or dictionary of the grammar. Then armed with the required information about a words meaning, we can specify its selection features. it Is at this point in the development of a grammar theory which will include feature specifications that the linguist between those features which are syntactic ones and those which are semantic.Incidentally by nothing contextual verb features in this new way, we are able to simplify the branching rules. It is no longer necessary to rewrite verb and Vt, Vi, or Vi.Eat [+V, +___NP] (eat is a verb, eat must be followed by an NP)Walk [+V, +___;;] (walk is a verb, walk requires no complement)Believe [+V, {+___NP}] (believe is a verb, believe must be followed by either an NP or {+___that-S}] a that sentence).

The LexiconThe lexical aspect of a verb is a part of the way in which that verb is structured in relation to time. Any event, state, process, or action which a verb expresses collectively, any eventuality may also be said to have the same lexical aspect. Lexical aspect is distinguished from grammatical aspect: lexical aspect is an inherent property of a (semantic) eventuality, whereas grammatical aspect is a property of a (syntactic or morphological) realization. Lexical aspect is invariant, while grammatical aspect can be changed according to the whims of the speaker.For example, eat an apple differs from sit in that there is a natural endpoint or conclusion to eating an apple. There is a time at which the eating is finished, completed, or all done. By contrast, sitting can merely stop: unless we add more details, it makes no sense to say that someone "finished" sitting. This is a distinction of lexical aspect between the two verbs. Verbs that have natural endpoints are called "telic" (from Ancient Greek telos, end); those without are called "atelic."Zeno Vendler (1957) classified verbs into four categories: those that express "activity", "accomplishment", "achievement" and "state". Activities and accomplishments are distinguished from achievements and states in that the former allow the use of continuous and progressive aspects. Activities and accomplishments are distinguished from each other by roundedness: activities do not have a terminal point (a point before which the activity cannot be said to have taken place, and after which the activity cannot continue for example "John drew a circle") whereas accomplishments do. Of achievements and states, achievements are instantaneous whereas states are durative. Achievements and accomplishments are distinguished from one another in that achievements take place immediately (such as in "recognize" or "find") whereas accomplishments approach an endpoint incrementally (as in "paint a picture" or "build a house").The base of the grammar consists so far of branching rules, two types of sub categorization rules are strict subcategory rules and selection rules. Up to this point, the phrase structure rules have been able to operate blindly. They are defined, therefore, as context free rules.Features MatrixesThe lexicon therefore is a kind of dictionary which lists by category all of the lexical words of a particular language. Each word will be accompanied by a dictionary definition plus two features matrixes. One feature matrix will list phonological pronunciation features, and the second feature matrix will list the semantic and syntactic features inherent in the basic meaning of a word. Some of these semantic features are cross classifications but others are hierarchically ordered. If for instance we were to list the semantic features for the word man, we could omit [+ animate] since [+human] implies animations.The typical features matrix for an adjective would include to the general category feature [+adj], any other inherent semantic or syntactic distinctive features which a particular lexical adjective automatically imposes on other related words in a string. The adjective pregnant would have to be accompanied by feature notations [+animate], [+adult], [+mase].An adverb must have a feature matrix specifying such things as [+manner], [+time],[+place], [+direction], [+condition], and etc.A pronoun, to the general category specification [+noun], [+pro], must specify whether the word is a personal pronoun [+person] a relative pronoun [+Rel] or a demonstrative pronoun [+dem].A person pronoun must be further characterized as first, second or third person: [+1], [+11], [+111] respectively as singular or plural [+plural] [-plural] and as being in the nominative [+nom], accusative (objective) [+accus] or possessive [+poss] case.A relative pronoun (who, which, that) must include the feature [+animate] for who, [-animate] for which and nothing for that, which can be assumed in the absence of a specific feature restriction to be acceptable in either situation. The relative who, must also carry the specification for case [+nom], [+accus], or [+poss] and the relative which must carry in addition to [-animate], the further feature specification [-human]. A demonstrative pronoun (this, these, that, those) must have not only the feature specification [+pro] but also [+plural] [-plural] and [+near] [-near].A determiner must have the feature [+common] [-common] (proper nouns are not preceded by a determiner), and if [+common] the additional specification [+def] [-def] (a common noun can be either definite: the boy or indefined: a boy, an apple). If it is [+def] then it must be further specified as [+dem] [-dem] and if [+dem] it must be characterized as [+plural] [-plural] and [+near][-near].The lexicon is similar to but infinitely more detailed than a large dictionary. On the following pages are some sample feature matrixes such as might appear in an English lexicon and following the feature matrixes you will find a set of phrase structure rules as they were revised for the aspects grammar model.LexiconLexicon is the second base component about aspect model. Lexicon is these entries include only semantic-syntactic features matrixes and are therefore incomplete. Phonological feature matrixes are omitted because of space limitations. The reader should never the less be aware that phonology has progressed to the stage, where phonological feature matrixes are in fact moredetailed and accurate than the semantic-syntactic matrixes here included. A short definition would also be included in a complete lexical entry. There are kinds of lexicon.NounsChicagodoctordogJane manmilk slacks+N +N+N +N+N +N +N-Common +Common+Common -Common+Common +Common +Common+Concrete +Concrete+Concrete +Concrete+Concrete +Concrete +Concrete-Count +Count+Count +Count +Count -Count +Count-Animate +Human+Animate +Human+Human -Animate -Animate-Plural +Adult -Human -Mase+Adult +Fluid +Plural+Mase -PluralVerbs Admire defyexpectfrighten+V+V+V+V+____NP+____NP+____[that-S]+___NP+ [+Human]+ [+Animate]___+___[+Animate]-Obj Del-Obj DelModalsMay will would+M+M+M+___...o+___...o+___...oAdjectivesHonestpregnant+Adj+Adj[+Human]__[-Mase]___PronounsHe I it we+N+N+N+N+Pro+Pro+Pro+Pro+III+I+III+I+Mase-Plural-Mase+Plural-Plural-Accusative-Fem-Accusative-Accusative-PluralDeterminersAn the that those+Det+Det+Det+Det-Pro-Pro-Pro-Pro-Def+Def+Def+Def-Plural-Dem+Dem+Dem+__[+Common]+Plural-Plural+Plural+__[+Vowel]+__[+Common]-Near-Near+__[+Common]+__[+Common]Aspects Phrase Structure RulesS(SM) NP + VPNP + (SM) S+VP(SM) S1 + and + (SM) S2SM(NEG) (Q) (PAS)NP NNP1 + and + NP2NP + SVP Cop + PredV (NP) (VP)VP1 + and + VP2Aux T (M) (Perfect) (Progressive)PredNPAdjPlaceT PastPresent15

LexNV Cop Place M Adj

Preliminary Lexical InsertionLinguists have worked out this system since the publication of aspects which omits mention of verb tense endings, determiners, and other such lexical formatives from the tree structure at this stage in the sentence generation process. They contend that verb and noun segments of this sort are syntactically inherent in the lexical word itself, and furthermore, that this approach makes the grammar theory more abstract and more reflective of universal linguistic requirements. Let us suppose that we are in the process of generating the sentences, we have run through all of the branching phrase structure rules, and we now have a phrase marker whose bottom line contains nothing but dummy symbols and a few formatives.Those men who lie must hate the truth.

The next step in the derivation will be replacing each of these dummy symbols with a feature matrix. Moreover the pattern of the branching indicates that the embedded clause has to be a restrictive relative clause, because its source is an embedded S node which branches from an NP node rather than from an S node. The constituent structure of the string also requires that the verb in the embedded sentence structure be an intransitive verb (no complement follows it) but that the main clause verb be transitive (an NP follows it). We have no way of knowing at this time what the inherent semantic or syntactic properties of the direct object noun must be.The next step in our derivation is to replace each dummy symbol with all of the feature specifications which are required by the sub categorization phrase structure rules. We needed context free branching rules only to determine feature specifications; it has now become necessary for us to look around so to speak, to discover the contextual restrictions imposed by this particular string. The tree structure below substitutes a complex symbol for each of these dummy symbols:

CHAPTER IIICONCLUSIONA. Revisions of Syntactic Structures ModelAlthought at the first time of its occurence TG grammar model is balked, but step by step it took hold. The thing which made some linguists unhappy with the early form of transformational grammar was its failure to deal satisfactorily with the problem of meaning and meaning relationships. Many linguists came to feel that meaning is basic to language competence, and that therefore the grammar theory ought somehow to incorporate semantic considerations in the phrase-structure part of the grammar.The idea of making revisions through the early TG model was appealing, for what it would mean is that all the abstract material contained in the deep structure (the base) of the grammar would represent linguistic universals. Only the transformation operations would give instructions for the idiosyncractic forms of particular languages. Another advantage of the revised model is that the linguitic preperty of recursiveness, which the Syntactic Structures model had for the most part assigned to the transformation rules would now be completely accounted for in the base.B. Standard TG Grammar Theory: Aspects ModelThe aspects TG grammar model has three major components: a syntax, a semantics, and a phonology. From these three, syntax is the central.C. Aspects Model: The Base Component, IThe base of the grammar consists so far of branching rules, two types of sub categorization rules are strict subcategory rules and selection rules. Branching rules is context-free rules which act blindly to produce any one of a number of strings terminating in category nodes. Strict subcategory rules is which define the syntactic requirements to be met by each constituent in a given string and selection rules is which define the semantic requirements which are required of these constituents. Up to this point, the phrase structure rules have been able to operate blindly. They are defined, therefore, as context free rules.However linguistics have worked out this system since the publication of Aspects which omits mention of verb endings, determiners and other such lexical formatives form the tree structure at this stage in the sentence generation process. They contend that verb and noun segments of this sort are syntactically inherent in the lexical word itself and furthermore that this approach makes the grammar theory more abstract and more reflective of universal linguistic requirements.Thus, we are already involved with context-sensitive rules as we will be from now on. As soon as we have made our first lexical choice that choice will automatically impose further restrictions on all the remaining lexical selections. It is for this reason that we must now turn to the transformational rules of the grammar.

REFERENCEShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspectwww.google.comhttp;/translate.google.comBinnick, R. I. (1991) Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense & Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chomsky, Noam. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.Chomsky, Noam. (2002) Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.LaPalombara, Lyda E. (1976) An Introduction to Grammar: Traditional, Structural, Transformational. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers.

21