1.Language and speech.

The distinction between language and speech was made by

Ferdinand de Saussure, the Swiss scholar usually credited with
establishing principles of modern linguistics. Language is a collective
body of knowledge, it is a set of basic elements, but these elements can
form a great variety of combinations. In fact the number of these
combinations is endless. Speech is closely connected with language, as it
is the result of using the language, the result of a definite act of speaking.
Speech is individual, personal while language is common for all
individuals. To illustrate the difference between language and speech let
us compare a definite game of chess and a set of rules how to play chess.
Language is opposed to speech and accordingly language units are
opposed to speech units. The language unit phoneme is opposed to the
speech unit sound: phoneme /s/ can sound differently in speech - /s/
and /z/). The sentence is opposed to the utterance; the text is opposed
to thediscourse.
Speech Speech refers to the sounds that come out of our mouth and
take shape in the form of words, (Hamaguchi, 1995) The speech process
is extremely complicated when you study the scope and sequence of its
development.
A number of events must occur for us to speak. The brain MUST:
Want to communicate an idea to someone else.
Send the idea to the mouth.
Tell the mouth which words to say and which sounds make up those
words.
Incorporate patterns and accented syllables (to avoid sounding like a
robot).
Send the signals to the muscles that control the tongue, lips, and jaw;
however, the muscles, must have the strength and coordination to carry
out the brains commands.
The muscles in the lungs must be strong enough to control sufficient
amounts of air while forcing the vocal cords to vibrate. The air must be
going out, not in, for functional speech to occur. The vocal cords must be
in good condition in order for ones speech to sound clear and loud
enough to hear. Our sense of hearing monitors and reviews what we say
and hears new words to imitate and use in other situations. If we cannot
hear clearly, we tend to reproduce sounds that are equally mumbly.
Also, someone must be willing to communicate with us by listening and
reacting to what we say, or there is no point in speaking. The process of

developing speech occurs naturally. However, if there is a glitch or

disruption in the process, it will affect ones language.
Language Language is what we speak, write, read, and understand.
Language is also communicating through gestures (body language or sign
language). There are two distinct areas of language: receptive (what we
hear and understand from others speech or gestures) and expressive
(the words we use to create messages others will understand).
In order for children to begin using and understanding spoken language,
they must:
Hear well enough to distinguish one word from another.
Have someone model what words mean and how to put sentences
together.
Hear intonation patterns, accents, and sentence patterns.
Have the intellectual capability to process what words and sentences
mean, store the information, and recall words and sentences heard
previously when communicating an idea to someone else.
Have the physical capability to speak in order for others to hear and
understand the words they are saying.
Have a social need and interest in using words to communicate with
others.
Have another person to positively reinforce their attempts at
communication.

2.Language as a structure
When we think about the components of human language, we think of it as consisting of
the following:
1. A sound-system (or phonological component).
2. A set of vocabulary items (the "lexicon").
3. A grammatical system ("morphology") which puts meaningful elements together into
'words'.
4. A syntax, or set of rules to state what the order of elements is in larger utterances, such
as 'sentences.'
5. A semantic component, where meanings are interpreted.
We think of these components as being in some ways finite and in other ways nonfinite. And the building blocks of one component form the units of the ones higher than it.

1. The sound-system is capable of infinite minute differences in sound, but no language

uses all, or even a large part of the possible differences. Sound systems divide things
up into finite units (called "phonemes" or classes of sounds) and therefore the number
of sound units is finite i.e. English has a finite number of vowels and consonants; the
number of vowels is around 11 or 12, varying by dialect.
2. A set of vocabulary items (the "lexicon"). The set of meaningful units is finite, or sort
of: there are often 'old' (archaic, obsolete) words floating around in the language,
especially in print. Some may be used by older speakers; some may be recognized for
their meaning in context, but wouldn't be 'known' in isolation. So old meanings are
going out, and new words are constantly being invented.
3. The set of meaningful units in the lexicon is therefore more or less finite, but not
exactly the same for every speaker. Some meaningful units have
only grammatical meaning, e.g. suffixes on words such as -ing, -s, -ed, -th (as in
width etc.) and so on. So we distinguish between
o lexical meaning and
o grammatical meaningful units.
The grammatical morphemes are more finite in number than the former. One example
of a fairly new grammatical marker is the suffix 'guys' as in 'you-guys' which marks
plurality for a lot of people. Other dialects have 'y'all' for this. The fact that it is
becoming a grammatical marker is shown by the way some people make it possessive,
i.e. 'you-guys's' [yugayzIz], or in southern dialects 'yallz':
o 'You guys needs to give me you-guys's receipts so you can get reimbursements.
o Y'all need to give me y'all's receipts so you can get reimbursements.
4. A grammatical system ("morphology") which puts meaningful elements together into
'words'. The grammar is finite, at any given moment.
5. A syntax, or set of rules to state what the order of elements is in larger utterances, such
as 'sentences.' But the output of the syntax, i.e. the sentences people know and
recognize, is infinite.
6. A semantic component, where meanings are interpreted. Number of possible meanings
is probably also infinite.
Put these together in a kind of hierarchical structure, using the sound system as the
first building blocks and working upward from there, gives us the following structure:
Level of structure:
Semantics:
Syntax: sentences
Grammar: rather rigid and fixed.

Possibilities:
Infinite.
INFINITE
finite

Innovation at this level is slow

Vocabulary, meaningful units:
somewhat open-ended, but essentially
Sound system, units of sound
Phonetic level

finite
finite
Infinite

We see this kind of structure, built from the ground up, as possessed solely by humans, and
not observed for other animals, even primates such as chimps, gorillas, etc. The structure of
their communication system is much simpler: fewer 'vocabulary' items, simple syntax, very
little innovation.
General characteristics of language as a functional system.
Any human language has two main functions: the communicative function
and the expressive or representative function human language is the
living form of thought. These two functions are closely interrelated as the
expressive function of language is realized in the process of speech
communication.
The expressive function of language is performed by means of linguistic
signs and that is why we say that language is a semiotic system. It
means
that
linguistic
signs
are
of
semiotic
nature:
they
areinformative and meaningful. There are other examples of semiotic
systems but all of them are no doubt much simpler. For instance, traffic
lights use a system of colours to instruct drivers and people to go or to
stop. Some more examples: Code Morse, Brighton Alphabet, computer
languages, etc. What is the difference between language as a semiotic
system and other semiotic systems? Language is universal, natural, it is
used by all members of society while any other sign systems are artificial
and depend on the sphere of usage.
Notions of system and structure. General characteristics of
linguistic units.
Language is regarded as a system of elements (or: signs, units) such as
sounds, words, etc. These elements have no value without each other,
they depend on each other, they exist only in a system, and they are
nothing without a system. System implies the characterization of a
complex object as made up of separate parts (e.g. the system of sounds).
Language is a structural system. Structuremeans hierarchical layering of
parts in `constituting the whole. In the structure of language there are
four main structural levels: phonological, morphological, syntactical and
supersyntatical. The levels are represented by the corresponding level
units:
The phonological level is the lowest level. The phonological level unit is
the`phoneme. It is a distinctive unit (bag back).

The morphological level has two level units:

1. the `morpheme the lowest meaningful unit (teach teacher);
2. the word - the main naming (`nominative) unit of language.
The syntactical level has two level units as well:
1. the word-group the dependent syntactic unit;
2. the sentence the main communicative unit.
The supersyntactical level has the text as its level unit.
All structural levels are subject matters of different levels of linguistic
analysis. At different levels of analysis we focus attention on different
features of language. Generally speaking, the larger the units we deal
with, the closer we get to the actuality of peoples experience of
language.
To sum it up, each level has its own system. Therefore, language is
regarded as a system of systems. The level units are built up in the same
way and that is why the units of a lower level serve the building material
for the units of a higher level. This similarity and likeness of organization
of linguistic units is called isomorphism. This is how language works a
small number of elements at one level can enter into thousands of
different combinations to form units at the other level.
We have arrived at the conclusion that the notions of system and
structure are not synonyms any system has its own structure (compare:
the system of Ukrainian education vs. the structure of Ukrainian
education; army organization).
Any linguistic unit is a double entity. It unites a concept and a sound
image. The two elements are intimately united and each recalls the other.
Accordingly, we distinguish the content side and the expression side.
The forms of linguistic units bear no natural resemblance to their
meaning. The link between them is a matter of convention, and
conventions differ radically across languages. Thus, the English word
dog happens to denote a particular four-footed domesticated creature,
the same creature that is denoted in Ukrainian by the completely different
form. Neither form looks like a dog, or sounds like one.
3. Basic notions of grammar.
The basic notions of Grammar are the grammatical meaning, the
grammatical form and the grammatical category.

GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES.
1. The notion of grammatical meaning.
The word combines in its semantic structure two meanings lexical and
grammatical. Lexical meaning is the individual meaning of the word
(e.g. table). Grammatical meaning is the meaning of the whole class or
a subclass. For example, the class of nouns has the grammatical meaning
ofthingness. If we take a noun (table) we may say that it possesses its
individual lexical meaning (it corresponds to a definite piece of furniture)
and the grammatical meaning of thingness (this is the meaning of the
whole class). Besides, the noun table has the grammatical meaning of a
subclass countableness. Any verb combines its individual lexical
meaning with the grammatical meaning of verbiality the ability to
denote actions or states. An adjective combines its individual lexical
meaning with the grammatical meaning of the whole class of adjectives
qualitativeness the ability to denote qualities. Adverbs possess the
grammatical meaning of adverbiality the ability to denote quality of
qualities.
There are some classes of words that are devoid of any lexical meaning
and possess the grammatical meaning only. This can be explained by the
fact that they have no referents in the objective reality. All function words
belong to this group articles, particles, prepositions, etc.
2. Types of grammatical meaning.
The
grammatical
meaning
may
be
explicit
and
implicit.
The implicit grammatical meaning is not expressed formally (e.g. the
word table does not contain any hints in its form as to it being inanimate).
The explicit grammatical meaning is always marked morphologically it
has its marker. In the word cats the grammatical meaning of plurality is
shown in the form of the noun; cats here the grammatical meaning of
possessiveness is shown by the form s; is asked shows the explicit
grammatical meaning of passiveness.
The implicit grammatical meaning may be of two types general and
dependent. The generalgrammatical meaning is the meaning of the
whole word-class, of a part of speech (e.g. nouns the general
grammatical meaning of thingness). The dependent grammatical
meaning is the meaning of a subclass within the same part of speech. For
instance, any verb possesses the dependent grammatical meaning of
transitivity/intransitivity,
terminativeness/non-terminativeness,
stativeness/non-stativeness; nouns have the dependent grammatical
meaning
of
contableness/uncountableness
and
animateness/inanimateness. The most important thing about the
dependent grammatical meaning is that it influences the realization of
grammatical categories restricting them to a subclass. Thus the

dependent grammatical meaning of countableness/uncountableness

influences the realization of the grammatical category of number as the
number category is realized only within the subclass of countable nouns,
the grammatical meaning of animateness/inanimateness influences the
realization of the grammatical category of case, teminativeness/nonterminativeness - the category of tense, transitivity/intransitivity the
category of voice.

3. Grammatical categories.
Grammatical categories are made up by the unity of identical
grammatical meanings that have the same form (e.g. singular::plural).
Due to dialectal unity of language and thought, grammatical categories
correlate, on the one hand, with the conceptual categories and, on the
other hand, with the objective reality. It may be shown with the help of a
triangle model:

It follows that we may define grammatical categories as references of the

corresponding objective categories. For example, the objective category
of time finds its representation in the grammatical category of tense, the
objective category of quantity finds its representation in the
grammatical category of number. Those grammatical categories that
have references in the objective reality are
called referential grammatical categories. However, not all of the
grammatical categories have references in the objective reality, just a few

of them do not correspond to anything in the objective reality. Such

categories correlate only with conceptual matters:

They are called significational categories. To this type belong the

categories of mood and degree. Speaking about the grammatical
category of mood we can say that it has modality as its conceptual
correlate. It can be explained by the fact that it does not refer to anything
in the objective reality it expresses the speakers attitude to what he
says.
6.Grammatical form
There are 3 fundamental notions: grammatical form, grammatical meaning, and grammatical category.
Notional words possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical meanings. They determine the
grammatical form of the word.

Grammatical form is not confined to an individual meaning of the word because grammatical meaning is very
abstract & generalex: oats-wheat: The grammatical form of oats is clearly plural and grammatical form of wheat
is singular, but we cant say that oats are more than one& wheat is one. So here we say that oats is
grammatical. Plural & wheat is grammatical singular. There is no clear one-to-one correspondence between
grammatical category of singular & plural and counting them in reality in terms of one and more than one.
A very vivid example confirming the rightness of this statement is connected with the category of gender with
biological sex ex:bull-cow, so the grammatical form presents a division of a word of the principle of expressing a
certain grammatical. meaning.

The grammatical meaning must have a grammatical form of expression (inflexions, analytical
forms, word-order, etc.). The term form may be used in a wide sense to denote all means of
expressing grammatical meanings. It may be also used in a narrow sense to denote means of
expressing a particular grammatical meaning (plural, number, present tense, etc.).
Grammatical elements are unities of meaning and form, content and expression. In the
language system there is no direct correspondence of meaning and form. Two or more units
of the plane of content may correspond to one unit of the plane of expression (polysemy;
homonymy). Two or more units of the plane of expression may correspond to one unit of the
plane of content (synonymy). Means of form-building and grammatical forms are divided into
synthetic and analytical.

7. THE PARTS OF SPEECH PROBLEM. WORD CLASSES

The parts of speech are classes of words, all the members of these
classes having certain characteristics in common which distinguish them

fr om the members of other classes. The problem of word classification

into parts of speech still remains one of the most controversial problems
in modern linguistics. The attitude of grammarians with regard to parts of
speech and the basis of their classification varied a good deal at different
times. Only in English grammarians have been vacillating between 3 and
13 parts of speech. There are four approaches to the problem:
1. Classical (logical-inflectional)
2. Functional
3. Distributional
4. Complex
The classical parts of speech theory goes back to ancient times. It is
based on Latin grammar. According to the Latin classification of the parts
of
speech
all
words
were
divided
dichotomically
intodeclinable and indeclinable parts of speech. This system was
reproduced in the earliest English grammars. The first of these groups,
declinable words, included nouns, pronouns, verbs and participles, the
second indeclinable words adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and
interjections. The logical-inflectional classification is quite successful for
Latin or other languages with developed morphology and synthetic
paradigms but it cannot be applied to the English language because the
principle of declinability/indeclinability is not relevant for analytical
languages.
A new approach to the problem was introduced in the XIX century by
Henry Sweet. He took into account the peculiarities of the English
language. This approach may be defined as functional. He resorted to
the functional features of words and singled out nominative units and
particles. Tonominative parts of speech belonged noun-words (noun,
noun-pronoun, noun-numeral, infinitive, gerund), adjectivewords (adjective, adjective-pronoun, adjective-numeral,
participles), verb (finite verb, verbals gerund, infinitive, participles),
while adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjectionbelonged to the
group of particles. However, though the criterion for classification was
functional, Henry Sweet failed to break the tradition and classified words
into those having morphological forms and lacking morphological forms,
in other words, declinable and indeclinable.
A distributional approach to the parts to the parts of speech
classification can be illustrated by the classification introduced by Charles

Fries. He wanted to avoid the traditional terminology and establish a

classification of words based on distributive analysis, that is, the ability of
words to combine with other words of different types. At the same time,
the lexical meaning of words was not taken into account. According to
Charles Fries, the words in such sentences as 1. Woggles ugged diggles;
2. Uggs woggled diggs; and 3. Woggs diggled uggles are quite evident
structural signals, their position and combinability are enough to classify
them into three word-classes. In this way, he introduced four
major classes of words and 15 form-classes. Let us see how it worked.
Three test frames formed the basis for his analysis:
Frame A - The concert was good (always);
Frame B - The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly);
Frame C The team went there.
It turned out that his four classes of words were practically the same as
traditional nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. What is really valuable
in Charles Fries classification is his investigation of 15 groups of function
words (form-classes) because he was the first linguist to pay attention to
some of their peculiarities.
All the classifications mentioned above appear to be one-sided because
parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of only one aspect of the
word: either its meaning or its form, or its function.
In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated according to three
criteria: semantic, formal and functional. This approach may be defined
as complex. The semantic criterion presupposes the grammatical
meaning of the whole class of words (general grammatical meaning).
The formalcriterion reveals paradigmatic properties: relevant
grammatical categories, the form of the words, their specific inflectional
and derivational features. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic
function of words in the sentence and their combinability. Thus, when
characterizing any part of speech we are to describe: a) its semantics; b)
its morphological features; c) its syntactic peculiarities.
The linguistic evidence drawn fr om our grammatical study makes it
possible to divide all the words of the language into:
1. those denoting things, objects, notions, qualities, etc. words with
the
corresponding
references
in
the
objective
reality
notional words;

2. those having no references of their own in the objective reality; most

of them are used only as grammatical means to form up and frame
utterances function words, or grammaticalwords.
It is commonly recognized that the notional parts of speech are nouns,
pronouns, numerals, verbs, adjectives, adverbs; the functional parts of
speech are articles, particles, prepositions, conjunctions and modal words.
The division of language units into notion and function words reveals the
interrelation of lexical and grammatical types of meaning. In notional
words the lexical meaning is predominant. In function words the
grammatical meaning dominates over the lexical one. However, in actual
speech the border line between notional and function words is not always
clear cut. Some notional words develop the meanings peculiar to function
words - e.g. seminotional words to turn, to get, etc.
Notional words constitute the bulk of the existing word stock while
function words constitute a smaller group of words. Although the number
of function words is limited (there are only about 50 of them in Modern
English), they are the most frequently used units.
Generally speaking, the problem of words classification into parts of
speech is far fr om being solved. Some words cannot find their proper
place. The most striking example here is the class of adverbs. Some
language analysts call it a ragbag, a dustbin (Frank Palmer), Russian
academician V.V.Vinogradov defined the class of adverbs in the Russian
language as . It can be explained by the fact that to the
class of adverbs belong those words that cannot find their place
anywhere else. At the same time, there are no grounds for grouping them
together
either.
Compare:perfectly
(She
speaks
English perfectly) and again (He is here again). Examples are numerous
(all temporals). There are some words that do not belong anywhere e.g. after all. Speaking about after all it should be mentioned that this unit
is quite often used by native speakers, and practically never by our
students. Some more striking examples: anyway, actually, in fact. The
problem is that if these words belong nowhere, there is no place for them
in the system of words, then how can we use them correctly? What makes
things worse is the fact that these words are devoid of nominative power,
and they have no direct equivalents in the Ukrainian or Russian
languages. Meanwhile, native speakers use these words subconsciously,
without realizing how they work.

8,9
Systemic relations
Syntagmatic relations.

in

language.

Paradigmatic

and

A linguistic unit can enter into relations of two different kinds. It enters
into paradigmatic relationswith all the units that can also occur in the
same environment. PR are relations based on the principles of similarity.
They exist between the units that can substitute one another. For
instance, in the word-group A PINT OF MILK the word PINT is in
paradigmatic relations with the words bottle, cup, etc. The article A can
enter into PR with the units the, this, one, same, etc. According to
different principles of similarity PR can be of three types: semantic,
formal and functional.
1. Semantic PR are based on the similarity of meaning: a book to read
= a book for reading. Heused to practice English every day
He would practice English every day.
2. Formal PR are based on the similarity of forms. Such relations exist
between the members of aparadigm: man men; play played will
play is playing.
3. Functional PR are based on the similarity of function. They are
established between the elements that can occur in the same
position. For instance, noun determiners: a, the, this, his, Anns,
some, each, etc.
PR are associated with the sphere of language.
A linguistic unit enters into syntagmatic relations with other units of the
same level it occurs with. SR exist at every language level. E.g. in the
word-group A PINT OF MILK the word PINT contrasts SR with A, OF, MILK;
within the word PINT P, I, N and T are in syntagmatic relations. SR are
linear relations, that is why they are manifested in speech. They can be of
three different types: coordinate, subordinate and predicative.
1. Coordinate SR exist between the homogeneous linguistic units that
are equal in rank, that is, they are the relations of
independence: you and me; They were tired but happy.
2. Subordinate SR are the relations of dependence when one linguistic
unit depends on the other: teach + er morphological level; a smart
student word-group level; predicative and subordinate clauses
sentence level.
3. Predicative SR are the relations of interdependence: primary and
secondary predication.

As mentioned above, SR may be observed in utterances, which is

impossible when we deal with PR. Therefore, PR are identified with
language while SR are identified with speech.
10. Prescriptive grammar describes when people focus on talking
about how a language shouldor ought to be used. One way to remember
this association is to think of going to a doctors office. When a doctor
gives you a prescription for medication, it often includes directions about
how you should take your medication as well as what you should not do
when taking your medication. In a similar way, a prescriptive grammar
tells you how you should speak, and what type of language to avoid. This
is commonly found in English classes as well as other language classes,
where the aim is to teach people how to use language in a very particular
(typically described as proper or correct) way.
Descriptive grammar, on the other hand, focuses on describing the
language as it is used, not saying how it should be used. For example,
think about a prescriptive rule like Dont split infinitives. A descriptive
grammarian would see a sentence like To boldly go where no man has
gone before and would try to describe how the mental grammar can
cause that ordering of words, rather than saying that the surface form is
faulty due to prescriptive rules (which would require the sentence To go
boldly where no man has gone before). Linguistics takes this approach to
language.
A key contrast is to be found between these two approaches. A
descriptive grammarian would say that a sentence is grammatical if a
native speaker of the language would produce that sentence in speaking.
The descriptive grammarian would then try to describe how that sentence
is produced through theorizing about the mental processes that lead up
to the surface form. A prescriptive grammarian, on the other hand, would
say that something is grammatical only if the surface form conforms to a
set of rules that the grammarian believes should be followed in order for
a certain grammar style is achieved. (Note that I have tried to emphasize
that the descriptive grammarian hears a form and tries to describe the
mental processes underneath the produced (spoken) form, while a
prescriptive grammarian does not hypothesize about the mental grammar
at all, but is merely concerned with editing the surface form.)
Descriptive Grammar:
A descriptive grammar looks at the way a language is actually used by its
speakers and then attempts to analyse it and formulate rules about the
structure. Descriptive grammar does not deal with what is good or bad
language use; forms and structures that might not be used by speakers of
Standard English would be regarded as valid and included. It is a
grammar based on the way a language actually is and not how some
think it should be.

Prescriptive Grammar:
A prescriptive grammar lays out rules about the structure of a language.
Unlike a descriptive grammar it deals with what the grammarian believes
to be right and wrong, good or bad language use; not following the rules
will generate incorrect language. Both types of grammar have their
supporters and their detractors, which in all probability suggests that both
have their strengths and weaknesses.
DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR. Contrasting terms
in LINGUISTICS. A descriptive grammar is an account of a language that
seeks to describe how it is used objectively, accurately, systematically,
and comprehensively. A prescriptive grammar is an account of a language
that sets out rules (prescriptions) for how it should be used and for what
should not be used (proscriptions), based on norms derived from a
particular model of grammar. For English, such a grammar may
prescribe I as in It is I and proscribe me as in It's me. It may
proscribe likeused as a conjunction, as in He behaved like he was in
charge, prescribing instead He behaved as if he were in charge.
Prescriptive grammars have been criticized for not taking account of
language change and stylistic variation, and for imposing the norms of
some groups on all users of a language. They have been discussed by
linguists as exemplifying specific attitudes to language and usage.
Traditional grammar books have often, however, combined description
and prescription. Since the late 1950s, it has become common in
linguistics to contrast descriptive grammars with GENERATIVE
GRAMMARS. The former involve a description of linguistic structures,
usually based on utterances elicited from native-speaking informants. The
latter, introduced by CHOMSKY, concentrate on providing an explicit
account of an ideal native speaker's knowledge of language
(COMPETENCE) rather than a description of samples (performance).
Chomsky argued that generative grammars are more valuable, since they
capture the creative aspect of human linguistic ability. Linguists generally
regard both approaches as complementary. See DESCRIPTIVISM AND
PRESCRIPTIVISM, STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS.
11. Transformational grammar
Transformational grammar is a form of language analysis that
establishes a relationship with the different elements in the sentence of
a language and makes use of rules or transformations to recognize these
relationships.
Transformational grammar which is usually generative grammar
describes a language with the help of transformational rules. It involves
logical reasoning to understand fully the meaning of the selected words.
As suchtransformational grammar goes a step ahead of structural

grammar which focuses more on the sentence structures used for

communication.
Apart
from
the
use
of
correct
sentence
structure, transformational
grammaranalyses
the
words
with
reference to its underlying thoughts. Transformational grammar employs
most of the linguistic tools such as syntax and context to explore the
possible meanings of words.
Who is the architect of Transformational Grammar?
Transformational Grammar also
known
as
Transformational
Generative Grammar (TGG) refers to the theory of generative grammar of
a
natural
language,
developed
by
Chomsky. Transformational grammar is
basically
a
theory
to
understand the processing of grammatical knowledge in the human brain.
Noam Chomsky, the U.S. linguist, was the main propagator of
transformational grammar in the 1960s.His theory opposed the earlier
theories of structuralism by rejecting the idea that each language is
different fro the other. In fact transformationalgrammar analyses
language on the basis of certain universal tenets in languages.
Define the Deep Structure and Surface Structure of Transformational
Grammar?
According to Chomskyan theory, transformational grammar involves
two levels to represent the structure of sentences known as the deep
structure and the surface structure. The deep structure implies a
more abstract form underlying the structure of a sentence. It is
represented by a phrase structure tree in which the abstract relations
between words and phrases of a sentence are depicted in a hierarchical
tree diagram. The surface structure refers to the actual form of the
structure of a sentence used. Besides the two levels of sentence
structure, transformational grammar consists of a body of formal rules to
enable transforming deep structures to surface structures.
What is a Phrase Structure Tree in Transformational Grammar?
A
phrase
structure
tree
in transformational grammar is
a
diagrammatic representation of sentences distinguished by their syntactic
characteristics. Thus we have verb phrases (VP), noun phrases (NP),
prepositional phrases (PP) and so on. Most of the sentence structures in a
language are governed by phrase structure rules. For example, sentences
in English are governed by the rule that they should contain a Noun
Phrase (NP) and a Verb Phrase (VP)
What is the use of Transformational Grammar?

Transformational grammar is used routinely to understand the

grouping of words in a particular context. For example look at the
sentences, John wrote a poem on the spring season and A poem on the
spring season was written by John. According to Chomsky these
sentences originate from a deeper and more abstract grammatical
structure. Transformational grammar explains how actual sentences
evolve by manipulating the common form of sentence structures. A
number of different theories have since evolved but they are all based on
the Chomskys original theory of transformational grammar.