English Syntax
(영어통사론)
Transformational Syntax
Transformational Grammar
박미숙
1. Goals
1. Goals in the study of language that Chomsky seeks
(1) Theory of Language Structure(Theory of Language): It concerns itself with what are
the defining structural properties of natural language.
(2) Theory of Language Acquisition: It concerns with the question of how children acquire
their native languages.
(3) Theory of Language Use: It concerns with the question of how linguistic and nonlinguis-
tic
knowledge interact in speech comprehension and production
⇒ In Chomsky’s view, the task of developing a (1) Theory of Language Structure is logically
prior to the other two, (2) and (3), since only if we first know what ‘language’ is can we
develop theories about how it is acquired and used. (언어가 무엇인지 먼저 알 때에만 언어가
어떻게 습득되고 사용되는지에 대한 이론도 개발할 수 있기 때문에 언어구조이론에 대한 연구가
언어습득이론과 언어사용이론 보다 우선한다
)
2. For Chomsky, the primary aim of Linguistics is to develop a Theory of Lan-
guage.
But what is it that such a theory seeks to characterize? The answer is that any adequate
Theory of Language must provide answers to questions such as the following:
a. What is language?
b. What is it that you know when you know a language?
c. What are the essential defining characteristics of natural languages which differenti-
ate
them from e.g. artificial languages like those used in Mathematics or Computing,
or other forms of communication?
d. Do languages differ from each other in unpredictable ways, or do they all share
certain common, universal properties?
⇒ Answers to those questions are the Theory of Language.
3. How do we attempt to develop a Theory of Language which will answer such
questions?
(1) The first step is to formulate detailed descriptions (known technically as grammars) of
particular languages (e.g. English): this is the study of Particular Grammar.
(2) The second step is to abstract from particular grammars common, universal properties
that they all share: this is the study of Universal Grammar. (i.e. the search for
linguistic universals.)
Particular Grammar: What is a grammar of a particular language?
For Chomsky, the answer is that a grammar is a model of those linguistic abilities
of the native speaker of a language which enable him to speak and understand his lan-
guage
fluently. These linguistic abilities are the competence of the native speaker.
Thus, a grammar of a language is a model of the linguistic competence of the fluent
native speaker of the language. Competence (the fluent native speaker’s (innate)
knowledge
of his language) is contrasted by Chomsky with Performance (what people actually
say or understand by what someone else says on a given occasion).
Competence is ‘the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language’, while performance is
‘the actual use of language in concrete situations.’
Linguistics is primarily concerned with competence,
since a Theory of Competence will be a subpart of an eventual Theory of Performance:
that is, you have to understand what a native speaker knows about his language
before you can study the effects of performance errors(slips of the tongue) such as
tiredness, drunkenness, drugs, etc. on this knowledge.
4. Two types of competence: (i) pragmatic competence and (ii) grammatical compe-
tence.
(i) Pragmatic Competence: Pragmatics is concerned with the role played by
nonlinguistic information such as background knowledge and personal beliefs
in our use and interpretational of sentences.
For example, by Chomsky, suppose I have a friend who says to me ‘Today was a
disaster.’ If I know (by way of background information) that he was giving a special
lecture today, then on the basis of this background knowledge I infer that he
probably means that his lecture went down very badly.
-> It is the native speaker’s pragmatic competence which enables him to bring into
play nonlinguistic information in the interpretation of such sentences.
(ii) Grammatical Competence: It is concerned with native speakers’ grammatical knowl-
edge.
In a sentence ‘He thinks that John is wrong,’ English native speakers know that he
cannot be interpreted as referring to the same person as John.