Generative Grammar and Linguistic Competence

1981 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Daniel E. Gulstad ◽  
Peter H. Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Competence

Generative Grammar and Linguistic Competence.

1980 ◽  
Vol 30 (118) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
David E. Cooper ◽  
P. H. Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Competence

scholarly journals : Generative Grammar and Linguistic Competence . P. H. Matthews.

1981 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-212
Author(s):  
H. Stephen Straight
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Competence

On phonotactically motivated rules

1974 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan H. Sommerstein
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Competence ◽  
Consonant Clusters ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Main Thesis ◽  
Phonological Rules

The main thesis of this paper is that the grammars of natural languages contain an exhaustive set of conditions on the output of the phonological rules – in fact, a surface phonotactics. I shall show that, contrary to what is usually assumed in generative phonology, a surface phonotactics is not redundant in a generative grammar if the grammar is indeed intended as ‘a theory of linguistic competence’ (Chomsky, 1965: 3), and that if any set of rules in the phonological section of the grammar is redundant it is the morphophonotactic rules, better known as morpheme structure conditions. I shall propose a format for the statement of rules (including so-called ‘conspiracies’) which are ‘motivated’ by the phonotactics in the sense of Matthews (1972: 219–220). Finally, I shall present a set of phonotactic rules for consonant clusters in Latin, and show how the statement of certain rules of Latin phonology can be simplified by taking their phonotactic motivation into account.

scholarly journals Why is Generative Grammar Recursive?

Erkenntnis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fintan Mallory
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Competence ◽  
Adequate Account ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Finite Representation ◽  
The Real ◽  
Generative Linguistics ◽  
Infinite Sets

AbstractA familiar argument goes as follows: natural languages have infinitely many sentences, finite representation of infinite sets requires recursion; therefore any adequate account of linguistic competence will require some kind of recursive device. The first part of this paper argues that this argument is not convincing. The second part argues that it was not the original reason recursive devices were introduced into generative linguistics. The real basis for the use of recursive devices stems from a deeper philosophical concern; a grammar that functions merely as a metalanguage would not be explanatorily adequate as it would merely push the problem of explaining linguistic competence back to another level. The paper traces this concern from Zellig Harris and Chomsky’s early work in generative linguistics and presents some implications.

Linguistic Competence in Aphasia

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
Leonard L. LaPointe
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Linguistic Competence ◽  
Careful Study ◽  
Feral Children ◽  
Performance Factors ◽  
Performance Loss ◽  
Linguistic Rules ◽  
Communication Goals ◽  
Aphasia Treatment ◽  
And Performance

Abstract Loss of implicit linguistic competence assumes a loss of linguistic rules, necessary linguistic computations, or representations. In aphasia, the inherent neurological damage is frequently assumed by some to be a loss of implicit linguistic competence that has damaged or wiped out neural centers or pathways that are necessary for maintenance of the language rules and representations needed to communicate. Not everyone agrees with this view of language use in aphasia. The measurement of implicit language competence, although apparently necessary and satisfying for theoretic linguistics, is complexly interwoven with performance factors. Transience, stimulability, and variability in aphasia language use provide evidence for an access deficit model that supports performance loss. Advances in understanding linguistic competence and performance may be informed by careful study of bilingual language acquisition and loss, the language of savants, the language of feral children, and advances in neuroimaging. Social models of aphasia treatment, coupled with an access deficit view of aphasia, can salve our restless minds and allow pursuit of maximum interactive communication goals even without a comfortable explanation of implicit linguistic competence in aphasia.

Current trends in the study of nominalization

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Gianina Iordăchioaia ◽  
Elena Soare
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Linguistic Research ◽  
Semantic Complexity ◽  
Oxford University Press

Nominalization has been at the forefront of linguistic research since the early days of generative grammar (Lees 1960, Vendler 1968, Lakoff 1970). The theoretical debate as to how a theory of grammar should be envisaged in order to capture the morphosyntactic and semantic complexity of nominalization, initiated by Chomsky’s (1970) Remarks on nominalization, is just as lively today, after five decades during which both the empirical scope and the methodology of linguistic research have seen enormous progress. We are delighted to be able to mark this occasion through our collection, next to the anniversary volume Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks, edited by Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, soon to appear with Oxford University Press.

Transformational Generative Grammar: A Survey

1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony R. Stevens
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document