Aspects of the theory of syntax.

Noam Chomsky

Chapter 1.............................................................................................................................................
1. Generative grammars as theories of linguistic competence...........................................................................
2. Toward a theory of performance....................................................................................................................
3. The organization of a generative grammar.....................................................................................................
4. Justification of grammars................................................................................................................................
5. Formal and substantive universals.................................................................................................................
6. Further remarks on descriptive and explanatory theories..............................................................................
7. On evaluation procedures..............................................................................................................................
Useful links.........................................................................................................................................................
 Chapter 1

1. Generative grammars as theories of linguistic competence.

Important concepts/ key words.

The book is concerned “with the syntactic components of a generative grammar, that is, the
rules that specify the well formed strings of minimal syntactically functioning units
(formatives) (...)” (1965, p. 3)

Chomsky is concerned with “an ideal speaker- listener” in a completely homogeneous

speech-community.

Chomsky discards the role of “memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and
interest, and errors in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.”

Competence: the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language.

Performance: This actual use of language in concrete situations.

Performance does not perfectly reflect competence. However, Chomsky does not focus on
performance.

“The problem for the linguist (...) is to determine from the data of performance the underlying
system of rules that has been mastered by the speaker-hearer’s (...)”

Generative grammar: The grammar of a language that aims to be a description of the IDEAL
speaker-hearer’s intrinsic competence.

Generative grammar assigns sentences a structural description indicating how the sentence
is understood by the ideal speaker-hearer.

Traditional grammars are deficient in that they leave unexpressed many of the basic
regularities. Traditional grammar does not go “beyond classification of particular examples to
the stage of formulation of generative rules on any significant scale.”
2. Toward a theory of performance.

3. The organization of a generative grammar.

https://nlppod.com/nlp-deep-surface-structure/

Deep structure: the inside of the iceberg. Internal representation of meaning

Surface structure: external representation of meaning. Phonetic interpretation.

Elementary objects of which deep structure is constituted

Base of the syntactic component = system of rules that generate a set of basic strings

Base - associated with an structural description = phrase-marker

Phrase marker = elementary units of which deep structures are constituted.

Sequence of Base phrase-markers (generated by base) = basis of the sentence

Sentences with a single base phrase marker as basis = kernel sentences

In transformational grammar, a kernel sentence is a simple declarative construction with

only one verb. A kernel sentence is always active and affirmative. Also known as a
basic sentence or a kernel.

The concept of the kernel sentence was introduced in 1957 by linguist Z.S. Harris and
featured in the early work of linguist Noam Chomsky.
 Noam Chomsky introduced the concept of "deep structure" as part of his
transformational-generative grammar theory. Deep structure represents the
underlying, abstract syntactic and semantic structure of a sentence before
transformations occur.

It is the idea that there is an innate, universal grammar shared by all languages, and the
deep structure captures the essential meaning and grammatical relations within a
sentence. Transformations then convert this deep structure into surface structure,
which is the actual arrangement of words in a specific language.

In essence, deep structure helps to explain the commonalities in the core structure of
sentences across different languages, highlighting the universal principles that
underlie human language.

In Chomskyan linguistics, a "base" typically refers to the underlying structure of a

sentence before any transformations or derivations have taken place. It is part of the
transformational-generative grammar framework. The base is synonymous with the
"deep structure," representing the essential syntactic and semantic relationships
within a sentence.

Chomsky proposed that a sentence undergoes a series of transformations from its base
or deep structure to its surface structure, which is the actual arrangement of words in
a specific language. Understanding the base helps linguists analyze the fundamental
elements of meaning and structure that are shared across different languages.

4. Justification of grammars.
Chomsky states that “(...) No adequate formalizable techniques are known for obtaining
reliable information concerning the facts of linguistic structures(...)”. There are very few
reliable experimental or data-processing procedures for obtaining significant information
concerning the linguistic intuition of the native speaker.

There is an assumption that the speaker-hearer’s linguistic intuition is the ultimate

standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. This tacit
knowledge may not be immediately available to the user of the language.
- Flying planes can be dangerous.

This sentence has two interpretations.

1) Planes that fly are dangerous

2) The action of flying is dangerous

- I had a book stolen

Internalized grammar provides at least three structural descriptions.
1) I had a book stolen from my car - someone stole a book from my car.
2) I had a book stolen from his library by a thief - I had someone steal a book.
3) I almost had a book stolen, but they caught me - I had almost succeeded in
stealing a book.

1) I persuaded John to leave.

2) I expected John to leave.
Chomsky says that these two sentences are DIFFERENT in structure.

1) I persuaded John to leave.

a) I persuaded a specialist to examine John.
b) I persuaded John to be examined by a specialist.

a) “a specialist” is the DO of the VP and the logical subject of the embedded

sentence.

b) John is the DIRECT OBJECT of the VP as well as the grammatical subject of the
embedded clause. John is the logical DO of the embedded sentence

2) I expected John to leave.

c) I expected a specialist to examine John.
d) I expected John to be examined by a specialist.

The NPs “John”, “a specialist” have no grammatical functions other than those that are
internal to the embedded sentence. “John” is the logical DO and “a specialist” the
logical SUBJ in the embedded sentences.

https://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/syntax/17.expect+persuade
PersuadeExpect.pdf (huji.ac.il)

The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction > Analyticity and Chomskyan Linguistics (Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A. I persuaded a specialist to examine John.

SUBJ VP DO PC DO
LA UNDERLYING ES DISTINTA PORQUE “A SPECIALIST” ES OBJETO DIRECTO
DE PERSUADE Y SUJETO DE EXAMINE
CTV + DO + PC

B. I persuaded John to be examined by a specialist.

SUBJ VP DO PC SUBJ - examine

LA UNDERLYING ES DISTINTA PORQUE JOHN ES OBJETO DIRECTO DE

PERSUADE Y DE EXAMINE AL MISMO TIEMPO

I persuaded John that a specialist will examine John.

I persuaded John that a specialist will examine John.

C. I expected a specialist to examine John.

SUBJ VP SUBJ of to examine VP D.O

D. I expected John to be examined by a specialist.

SUBJ VP DO VP SUBJ

I expected John of the fact that a specialist will examine John. X

I expected John that a specialist will examine John. X =
I EXPECTED THAT JOHN WOULD BE EXAMINED BY A SPECIALIST

EXAMINE Y PERSUADE NO SON LO MISMO PORQUE SI FUESEN LO MISMO SE

PODRÍA USAR UNA THAT CLAUSE DE LA MISMA FORMA. NO SON PARALLEL
STRUCTURES PORQUE NO HAY PARAPHRASING POSIBLE

Por otro lado, al pasivizar, si bien ambos siguen el patrón verbal, cambia totalmente la
función de cada elemento. Persuade en voz pasiva tiene una interpretación distinta
que en voz activa. Mientras que expect mantiene las funciones de cada elemento en
voz pasiva y voz activa.

I persuaded = I spoke to him and he did what I wanted him to do.

I expected = based on some previous evidence, I felt sure that something would happen.
--------------------------
babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/syntax/17.expect+persuade

(19) and (20) are synonymous, while (21) and (22) are not:

(19) Bill expected the doctor to examine Betty.

 (20) Bill expected Betty to be examined by the doctor.

(21) Bill persuaded the doctor to examine Betty.

(22) Bill persuaded Betty to be examined by the doctor.

CREO QUE ENTENDÍ:

en 19 y 20, si se quita la pasiva significa lo mismo

en cambio en 21 y 22 al pasivizar, cambia la persona que es PERSUADIDA. en 21 es el
doctor y el 22 es Betty

(5) *I expected Bill that the beer should be warm.

(6) I persuaded Bill that the beer should be warm.
(7) I expected the whisky to warm Bill.
(8) The whiskey was expected to warm Bill.
(9) *I persuaded the whisky to warm Bill.
10) I expected there to be a fly in your beer.
11) There was expected to be a fly in the beer.
12) *I persuaded there to be a fly in your beer.
13) I expect close tabs to be kept on her whereabouts.
14) Close tabs are expected to be kept on her whereabouts.
15) *I will persuade close tabs to be kept on her whereabouts.
16) I expect it to be clear that I like your plan.
17) *I will persuade it to be clear that I like your plan.
18) Harvey expects himself to be imitated by his associates.

A grammar can be regarded as a theory of a language. It is descriptively

adequate to the extent that it correctly describes the intrinsic competence of the idealized
native speaker.

A child who learned the language has developed an internal representation of a

system of rules that determines how sentences are to be formed, used and understood.
The child has developed and internally represented a generative grammar. He has done
this on the basis of observation of what we call primary linguistic data. This must include
examples of linguistic performance that are taken to be well formed sentences and may
also include examples designated as non sentences. The child constructs grammar, that
is a theory of a language of which the well formed sentences of the primary linguistic data
constitute a small sample.

To learn a language a child must have a method for devising an appropriate

grammar. As a precondition for language learning, he must possess a linguistic theory
that specifies the form of the grammar of a possible human language and a strategy for
selecting grammar of the appropriate form that is compatible with the primary linguistic
data.

A generative grammar is justified on one level to the extent that it correctly

describes its object, namely the linguistic intuition, the tacit competence, of the native
speaker. The grammar is justified on external grounds corresponding to linguistic facts.
On a deeper level, grammar is justified to the extent that it is a principled descriptively
adequate system. The grammar is justified on internal grounds, on grounds of its relation
to a linguistic theory that constitutes an explanatory hypothesis about the form of
language as such.
Formal and substantive universals
A theory of linguistic structure that aims for explanatory adequacy incorporates an
account of linguistic universals. Linguistic universals contain tacit knowledge.
Linguistic universals are divided as formal or substantive

substantive linguistic universal: drawn from a fixed class. Elements that are
characterized in terms of some small number of fixed, universal, phonetic features.
Certain fixed syntactic categories (Noun, Verb, etc) can be found in the syntactic
representations of the sentences of any language. These provide the general
underlying syntactic structure of each language. Each language will contain terms
that designate persons of lexical items referring to certain specific kinds of objects,
feelings, behavior, and so on. They are concerned with the vocabulary for the
description of language.

formal linguistic universals: the property of having a grammar meeting a certain abstract
condition. They involve the character of the rules that appear in grammars and the
ways in which they can be interconnected. They limit the choice of a descriptive
grammar, given primary linguistic data.

These concepts imply that all languages are cut to the same pattern, but does not imply
that there is any point of correspondence between particular languages.

Further remarks on descriptive and explanatory theories.

Conditions for language learning (acquisition model).

A. What a child must have

1. a technique for representing signals
2. a way of representing structural information about these signals
3. some initial delimitation of a class of possible hypotheses about
language structure
4. a method for determining what eac such hypothesis implies with
respect to each sentence
5. a method for selecting one of the infinite hypotheses that are
allowed by 3 and are compatible with primary linguistic data

B. A theory of linguistic structure must have

C. a universal phonetic theory that defines the notion “possible sentence”
1. an enumeration of the class S1, S2 of possible sentences
D. a definition of “structural description”
★ an enumeration of the class SD1, SD2 of possible structural
descriptions (Structural Description)
E. a definition of “generative grammar”
★ an enumeration of the class G1, G2, of possible generative
grammar
F. a method for determining the structural description of a sentence, given a
grammar
 1. specification of a function (f) such that SD is the structural
description assigned to sentence S by grammar G for arbitrary i, j.
G. a way of evaluating alternative proposed grammars
1. specification of a function m such that m(i) is an integer associated
with the grammar G, as its value.
.

primary linguistic data: finite amount of information about sentences. Certain signals
might be accepted as properly formed sentences while others are classed as
nonsentences. It consists of sentences, non sentences and a partial and tentative
pairing of signals with structural descriptions.

Innate concept forming abilities of the child and the system of linguistic universals that
these abilities imply. The child has an innate theory of potential structural
descriptions that is sufficiently rich and fully developed so that he is able to
determine, from a real life situation in which a signal occurs, which structural
descriptions must be appropriate to this signal.

A language acquisition device that meets conditions from B is capable of utilizing such
primary linguistic data as the empirical basis for language learning. This device must
search through the set of hypotheses (G1, G2) which are available by virtue of
condition 3 and must select grammars that are compatible with the primary linguistic
data. The device would select one of the potential grammars by the evaluation
measure guaranteed by 5. The selected grammar now provides the device with a
method for interpreting an arbitrary sentence by virtue of 2 and 4.

The device has constructed a theory of the language of which the primary linguistic data
are a sample. The theory that the device has now selected and internally represented
specifies its tacit competence, its knowledge of the language. The child knows a
great deal more than he has “learned”.

Primary linguistic data is necessary for language learning. Certain kinds of data and
experience may be required in order to set the language acquisition device into
operation. Language learning requires use of language in real-life situations, in some
way although primary linguistic data is imperfect. Once the mechanism is put to work
the task of language learning is undertaken by the child.
Primary linguistic data has the function of initiating or facilitating the operation of innate
mechanisms and determining in part the direction that learning will take.

EXPLANATORY THEORY.
H. A theory of linguistic structure must have
1. a universal phonetic theory that defines the notion “possible sentence”
★ an enumeration of the class S1, S2 of possible sentences
2. a definition of “structural description”
★ an enumeration of the class SD1, SD2 of possible structural
descriptions (Structural Description)
3. a definition of “generative grammar”
 ★ an enumeration of the class G1, G2, of possible generative
grammar
4. a method for determining the structural description of a sentence, given a
grammar
★ specification of a function (f) such that SD is the structural
description assigned to sentence S by grammar G for arbitrary i, j.

DESCRIPTIVE THEORY

Includes all of the above + 5.

5. a way of evaluating alternative proposed grammars
★ specification of a function m such that m(i) is an integer associated
with the grammar G, as its value.

Evaluation doesn’t mean measuring appropriate grammars. A theory may be descriptively

adequate and yet provide such a wide range of potential grammars that there is no
possibility of discovering a formal property distinguishing the descriptively adequate
grammars. In other words, evaluation would mean to restrict the range of possible
hypotheses by adding additional structure to the notion of “generative grammar”. Selection
among possible grammars can be made by a formal evaluation measure.

DEFINITION OF GENERATIVE GRAMMAR: A restrictive and rich hypothesis concerning

the universal properties that determine the form of language, in the traditional sense of this
term.

Real progress in linguistics consists in the discovery that certain features of given languages
can be reduced to universal properties of language. These universals (like transformational
rules) are sometimes left “unexplained” given that they are universals to all languages.

A theory of grammar may be descriptively adequate and yet leave unexpressed major
features that are defining properties of natural language and that distinguish natural
languages from arbitrary symbolic systems. It is not necessary to achieve descriptive
adequacy before raising questions of explanatory adequacy.

To acquire language, a child must devise a hypothesis compatible with presented data. He
must select from the store of potential grammars a specific one that is appropriate to the
data available to him. It is possible that the data might be sufficiently rich and the class of
potential grammars sufficiently limited so that no more than a single permitted grammar will
be compatible with the available data at the moment of successful language acquisition. In
this case, no evaluation procedure is necessary as a part of linguistic theory.

On evaluation procedures.

Useful links

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax - Wikipedia

 https://www.britannica.com/science/linguistics/Chomskys-grammar

https://youtu.be/BsMbQvVQAqQ?si=17Fcu6aXlgphn7dl

https://youtu.be/QOLYcO-So_c?si=vWLfnc9z4yeBoRFj

https://www.thoughtco.com/kernel-sentence-transformational-grammar-1691091

Emphasis on mentalism
See also: Mentalism (psychology) § The new mentalism
In Aspects Chomsky writes that "linguistic theory is mentalistic, since it is concerned with
discovering a mental reality underlying actual behavior."With this mentalist interpretation
of linguistic theory, Chomsky elevated linguistics to a field that is part of a broader theory
of human mind, i.e. the cognitive sciences. According to Chomsky, a human child's mind
is equipped with a "language acquisition device" formed by inborn mental properties
called "linguistic universals" which eventually constructs a mental theory of the child's
mother tongue. The linguist's main object of inquiry, as Chomsky sees it, is this
underlying psychological reality of language. Instead of making catalogs and summaries
of linguistic behavioral data demonstrated on the surface (i.e. behaviorism), a
Chomskyan linguist should be interested in using "introspective data" to ascertain the
properties of a deeper mental system.

The mentalist approach to linguistics proposed by Chomsky is also different from an

investigation of the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying language. It is about
abstractly determining the properties and functions of such mechanisms.