I. Introduction
Transformational Grammar is a version of a larger set of different versions of Generative Grammar. Generative Grammar developed in the 1950s in the context of what came to be known as ‘the cognitive revolution’, which marked a shift to focusing on the mental processes underlying human behaviour from a mere concern with human behaviour for its own sake. As far as language is concerned, it marked a shift from a concern with the mechanics of certain limited aspects of language (mostly, morphophonemics) to a concern with the mental processes underlying a broader range of the properties of language. This change led to the articulation of certain ideas about the mental processes underlying language, some of which have been mentioned in the previous sections. Here we will limit ourselves to a brief and broad description of the evolution of some of the major ideas which have influenced the development of Transformational Grammar. Inevitably, some of the specialised terminology will not be transparent to the uninitiated reader, but, hopefully, will become so in the course of reading this book.
Initially, grammar was considered to consist of a set of Phrase Structure (PS) rules which generate Phrase Markers called Deep Structures (DS), and a set of transformational rules which perform various types of operations on these Phrase Markers to derive appropriately modified Phrase Markers called Surface Structures (SS). PS rules are ‘rewrite’ rules of basically two types. The ‘context-free’ type of the form X Æ Y, and the ‘context-sensitive’ type of the form X Æ WYZ, where W and Z represent the context. The former generate phrasal categories such NP, VP, S… etc., and the latter introduce lexical items into appropriate contexts in Phrase Markers. Transformations were largely construction-specific, so that there was a transformation for passives, a transformation for yes-no questions, and so on. Universal Grammar was considered to contain a kind of blueprint which prescribes the types of possible rule systems, and an evaluation metric which restricts the range of possible grammars to the ones (ideally, one) compatible with the data available to the child.
At a later stage, it became clear that there was a conflict between the desire to provide a description of further phenomena, that is the desire to achieve descriptive adequacy, which resulted in the proliferation of rule systems, and the need to constrain this proliferation, that is the desire to achieve explanatory adequacy. The reaction to this conflict was basically to derive general principles with broad scope from existing ones and attribute them to UG. These principles would then serve as conditions on representations, the application of rules or their output, and perform a restricted range of operations. As components of UG, these principles also serve to define the notion ‘possible human language’.
The developing theory went though successive stages with distinctive properties called the Standard Theory, the Extended Theory, Government and Binding Theory, the Principles and Parameters Theory and the Minimalist Program (or Minimalism). Each of
these stages represented an improvement on the previous stage, where improvement is driven by the desire to achieve explanatory adequacy.
As the theory was developed, its empirical range was widened considerably to include a fairly broad range of diverse languages. This led to the sharpening of some of the existing ideas, but most prominently to the formulation of clearer ideas about the principles responsible for language variation. It turned out that some of the major aspects of language variation can be accounted for in terms of simple and well-defined sets of options, technically called parameters, which are largely determined by the lexical properties of a specific class of categories called functional or inflectional categories. The comparative work carried out within this framework has been largely successful in identifying common underlying properties of super-ficially different languages.
(Jamal Ouhalla 1999: 11-12)
II. Transformational Rules or Transformations
1. Movement rules
Although phrase structure rules interact with the set of complement options permitted by individual heads to form a very wide range of patterns, there are syntactic phenomena that they cannot describe in an entirely satisfactory way. This section considers two such phenomena and discusses the changes that must be made in order to accommodate them. 1.1. Subject - Auxiliary Inversion - SAI
To begin, let us consider the English yes-no questions exemplified in (1). (1). a) Will the boy leave?
b) Can the cat climb this tree?
These sentences have an auxiliary verb to the left of the subject rather than in the specifier position of the VP, as in (2).
(2). a) The boy [will leave].
b) The cat [can climb this tree].
Our phrase structure rules place the auxiliary in the appropriate position in (1), but not in (2). How does the word order found in the former sentences come about? The question structures that we are considering are built in two steps. In the first step, the usual phrase structure rules are used to form a structure in which the Aux occupies its normal position within the VP. This allows us to express the fact that even in question structures it functions as a specifier, making more precise the meaning of the verb.
S
NP VP
Det N I V (Aux)
the boy will leave
The second step in the formation of question structures requires a transformation, a special type of rule that can move an element from one position to another. In the case we are considering, a transformation known as Inversion moves the Aux from its position within the VP to a position to the left of the subject. This transformation is called Subject-Auxiliary
Inversion (SAI)
--> Will the boy leave? --> Can the cat climb this tree?
The transformational analysis has at least two advantages. First, we can say that all auxiliaries function as specifiers of the verb, consistent with the simple analysis in the above sentences. Those sentences that have an auxiliary verb to the left of the subject simply undergo an ‘extra’ process - the Inversion transformation that moves the auxiliary from its position within the VP in order to signal a question.
Second, the transformational analysis automatically expresses the fact - known to all speakers of English - that the sentence Will the boy leave is the question structure corresponding to The
boy will leave. According to the analysis presented here, both sentences have exactly the same
structure after the application of the phrase structure rules. They differ only in that Inversion has applied to move the auxiliary verb in the question structure.
1.2. Wh-word Movement
Let’s look at the interrogative sentence What will the boy find?
find is a transitive verb, which must be followed by an NP.
Suppose we have the sentence: The boy will find what?
By applying Wh-word movement & Subject-Aux-Inversion (transformations), we have the sentence What will the boy find?
The transformational rules that move the auxiliary verb and the Wh-word are specific examples of a general transformation rule ‘move any constituent’, or move α (move alpha)
rule. For example, this rule may move constituents to the right called postposing, or to the
Wh- movement only moves those phrases that contain a Wh-word.
Wh- movement & SAI can occur separately, and so the application of one isn’t dependent on
the application of the other. SAI occurs alone in Yes-No interrogatives. Wh-Movement occurs alone in relative clause and indirect question.
1.3. Some of the other common T- rules
Deletion rule(s)
+ The Comp(lementizer) deletion transformation (example)
You mean you didn’t know (that) I knew she didn’t know you knew that. + Verb Phrase Deletion Yan can cook, and you can, too.
+ Imperative Subject Deletion Close the door Wash the dishes.
Insertion rule(s)
+ There insertion There is a unicorn in the garden. + -ing insertion She walked upstairs crying silently.
Passive Transformation He was bitten by the dog.
2. Deep Structure and Surface Structure
The preceding examples show that at least some sentences must be analyzed with the help of two distinct rule systems - phrase structure rules, which determine the internal structure of phrasal categories, and transformations, which can modify these tree structures by moving an element from one position to another. If we think about this in terms of the architecture of sentence structure, the transformational analysis is claiming that there are two levels of syntactic structure. The first, called deep structure is formed by the phrase structure rules in accordance with the head's subcategorization properties. As we will see in the chapter on semantics, deep structure plays a special role in the interpretation of sentences. The second level of syntactic structure corresponds to the final syntactic form of the sentence. Called
surface structure, it results from applying whatever transformations are appropriate for the
sentence in question.
Deep Structure: generated by the PS Rules in accordance with the head’s subcategorization
properties (i.e. the first underlying structure to which a transformation applies.)
The result of applying transformations to an underlying structure (D.S) (when no further transformations apply) is called Surface Structure.
In contrast, the statement pattern The boy will leave has a surface structure (final syntactic form) that looks just like its deep structure since no transformations apply.
The following diagram depicts the organization of the syntactic component of the grammar as it has just been outlined.
Phrase Structure Rules
DEEP STRUCTURE <— (Subcategorization restricts choice of complements) Transformations
SURFACE STRUCTURE
The syntactic component of the grammar
3. Kernel Sentences and Transformed Sentences
A kernel clause forms a sentence on its own - i.e. it is not part of some larger syntactic construction. Thus it is neither subordinate to, nor coordinate with, some other clauses. ...: a kernel clause can accordingly contain a non-kernel clause within it.
a. A kernel clause is structural complete, not reduced by ellipsis.
b. A kernel clause is declarative, not imperative, interrogative or exclamative. c. A kernel clause is positive, not negative.
d. A kernel clause is unmarked with respect to all the thematic system of the clause. Thus in the following pairs, (i) is the kernel clause but (ii) is not
i) My father wrote the letter.
ii) The letter was written by my father. i) They invited John.
ii) It was John that they invited. i) Two policemen are at the door. ii) There are two policemen at the door. i) He has known her father for three years. ii) Her father he has known for three years. i) That he should be so late is annoying. ii) It is annoying that he should be so late.
Questions:
1. What is Deep Structure and what is Surface structure?
Describe the deep and surface structures of the following sentences: - They go to Hawaii for their summer holidays.
- They have gone to Hawaii for their summer holidays.
2. Describe the T- rules that have operated in the following sentences: - Are you going to Scarborough Fair?
- What do you want to know?
- Which drink would you like to have? - When did you buy that new car?