Contrastive Analysis by Carl James

Chapter 3
The linguistic components of contrastive analysis 27
Transformational Generative grammar

Submitted By: Shireen Abdulqadir

Supervised By; Assist.Prof Dr. Wafaa' Mudhafar

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE PRINCEPLIES OF TGG

3. The strong points of Transformational Generative grammar

4. Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Transformational Rules in Contrastive Analysis

5. The CA is more interested in how rules differ in their applicability to congruent deep
structures of two languages. There are several types of difference in rule application
1
Page
 1. Introduction

Transformational-Generative Grammar (T-GG) was elaborated by Chomsky in his

Syntactic Structures (1957) and his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965). It aims to
relate deep structure and surface structure by transformations. To derive a surface
structure, we have to formulate rules. It is believed that deep structures in all languages
are common, and transformation used with deep structures is also universal. Our brain
has a mechanism that can create language following the principles and grammar by
adding, deleting, moving, or substituting. These processes are called Transformation
Rules. The syntactic component of the grammar is 'generative', while the semantic
component is 'interpretative.' 'generative' means combining two senses: 'projective' (or
‘predictive’) and ‘explicit.’ Such a grammar is' projective' in that it establishes as
grammatical not only actual sentences (of a corpus) but also 'potential' sentences. CA
focuses on how transformational rules are applied differently in two languages.

The key points: Transformational Generative Grammar TGG, deep structure DS,
surface structure SS, Universal Base Hypothesis UBH, 'formal universals'

2. The principle of TGG

The main principle of generative grammar is that all humans are born with an
innate capacity for language and that this capacity shapes the rules for what is
considered "correct" grammar in a language. The idea of an innate language
capacity—or a "universal grammar"—is not accepted by all linguists. Some
believe, to the contrary, that all languages are learned and, therefore, based on
certain constraints.

Proponents of the universal grammar argument believe that children are not
exposed to enough linguistic information to learn grammar rules when they are
very young. That children do, in fact, learn the rules of grammar is proof,
according to some linguists, that there is an innate language capacity that allows
2 Page

them to overcome the "poverty of the stimulus."

3. The strong points of Transformational Generative grammar

(T-GG), as developed by Noam Chomsky, has both strong and weak points, which
are important to consider when evaluating its utility in linguistic analysis. One
reason for using T-GG in CA is the same as that for using it in unilingual
description –

1. its explicitness. An explicit rule must be formulated for each step in deriving
surface from deep structures.

2. Other reasons are particularly attractive to CA: first, it has been claimed that
deep structures are ‘universal’ or common to all languages, so we are provided
with a common point of departure for CA: the so-called Universal Base
Hypothesis;

3. The transformations applied to deep structures are taken from a universal stock,
which Chomsky calls the ‘formal universals’, so we have a second criterion for
comparison or ‘tertium comparationis’.

4. Some have gone so far as to claim that a T-GG is a sine qua non for CA,

5. A further bonus in this approach is that it provides for the two languages
identical means for explaining in an explicit fashion the nature of sentential
ambiguities. attributive adjectives can be ambiguous: Chomsky’s own example is,
one reading derives from the adjectival relative clause deep structure, the other
from a deep structure in which beautiful is an adverb in a relative clause

Mary is a dancer, who dances beautifully.

Mary is a beauty

Mary is a dancer, who is beautiful.

6. Another virtue of the approach through T-GG is that the contrastive analyst is
receptive to the significance of linguistic phenomena which he would otherwise
3

tend to overlook as trivial.

Page
7. And finally, the T-GG approach provides the contrastive analyst with some kind
of measure of degree of difference between compared constructions in LI and L2.

4. Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Transformational Rules in

Contrastive Analysis

We have suggested that deep structure is common to all languages and that
languages differ most in their surface structures. The degrees to which they differ
are determined by where, in their derivational histories, the compared
constructions begin to diverge. As Di Pietro (1971: 26) puts it: “... the differences
between languages must come at various levels of intermediate structure”, while
Whitman justifies the contrastivist’s reference to these ‘intermediate structures’:
“If deep structures are what we fed into the transformational component, and
surface structures are what came out, then one can usefully talk about inter¬
mediate structures as well.” The difference, therefore, between the Structuralist
and this approach in CA is that instead of looking for surface-structural
correspondence, we look for correspondence between transformational rules
(Nickel and Wagner, 1968).

5. The CA is more interested in how rules differ in their applicability to congruent

deep structures of two languages. There are several types of differences in rule
application

1. One of the languages applies the rule, whereas the other either does not or does
so less generally.

I know it + They see

2. In LI, the rule is obligatory, but in L2, it is optional (or vice versa). By
‘optional’, we mean that the grammar generates equally correct sentences
irrespective of whether the particular rule is applied

3. Transformations are ‘extrinsically ordered’ or apply in a certain fixed order

(Chomsky, 1965: 133). In English, Reflexivisation is a rule that can only be
applied after pronominalisation: i), then ii) are the steps leading to = John shaves
4

John, (the two ‘Johns’ being coreferential) ii) John shaves him. (= John)
Page
 iii) John shaves himself

4. Some transformations are less specialised or have a broader scope than others.
It may therefore happen that two transformations which are recognised as ‘the
same’, although they operate in two different languages, are different in their scope

My brother [is a] student . In the English language, a copula (auxi) should

be inserted

In Russian, it should be inserted only with (non-present tense) past, future

5. A fifth advantage of the T-GG approach is that it yields ‘significant

generalisations’: this happens when two different areas of the grammar call for
applying one and the same transformational rule. The problem about which John
thought... ii) the problem which John thought about... whereas in German deal with
the first rule but don’t accept the second

6. Not only do some transformational rules strictly precede or follow others, but as
we have seen, some rules imply others. Transformational rules can be used to
explain the error that a learner of German might make when they produce the
sentence Hans wird geglaubt, ein kluger Junge zu sein. This sentence is not
grammatical in German but analogous to the English sentence, "John is believed to
be a clever boy." The paragraph explains that the learner is likely to make this error
because they are transferring the transformational potential of English to German. 5
Page