scholarly journals A Brief Account of the Base Component of Transformational Generative Grammar

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed M. S. Alduais
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Base Component ◽  
Recent Modification

Purpose: To briefly introduce base component of transformational generative grammar (TGG). Method: The study is mainly descriptive where previous and related studies are reviewed and presented to reach a view about the base component of TGG. Results: Base component serves as input to two basic elements of language which are semantic rules and deep structure. Semantic rules give semantic representation. Deep structure leads to transformational rules or transformations which again lead to surface structure. Conclusions: Base component has been introduced and modified in different stages under standard theory (ST) and then it has been modified to extended standard theory (EST). Later on and as a recent modification of this theory, it has been introduced in terms of what is known in nowadays as revised extended standard theory (REST).

Generative Grammar (GG)

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-304
Author(s):  
Karim Nazari Bagha
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Semantic Component ◽  
Structure Surface ◽  
Phonetic Representation ◽  
Phonological Rules

This article consists of eight parts: introduction, the organization of a Generative Grammar, operation of the system of base rules, deep structure, surface structure and transformational rules, standard theory, extended standard theory, revised extended standard theory, and minimalism. According to Chomsky, the grammar of a language establishes a relationship between sound and meaning, i.e., between phonetic representation and semantic representation. To discover this grammar is the primary goal of linguistics. One of Chomsky's attempts to accomplish this goal is the standard theory grammar, which has been outlined in the article. We note that the grammar consists of three distinct components: the syntactic component, which consists of a Lexicon and two types of syntactic rules, the Base and the Transformational, the phonological component which consists of phonological rules, and the semantic component, which consists of Semantic rules.

scholarly journals Levels of Representation and Semantic Interpretation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-15
Author(s):  
Howard Lasnik
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Semantic Interpretation ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Important Concern ◽  
Sentence Form ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Syntactic Derivation ◽  
Anaphoric Relations

The nature of the relationship between sentence form and meaning has been an important concern in generative grammar from the inception of the program. Chomsky (1955) raised the question of whether transformations preserve meaning. The suggested answer was negative at that time, and the locus of interpretation was the T-marker, the entire derivational history. In the standard theory of Chomsky (1965), it was proposed, based on work of Katz, Fodor, and Postal, that Deep Structure, a level newly proposed in that work, is the locus of semantic interpretation, though it was acknowledged that quantifiers raise certain difficulties. Those difficulties, along with similar ones involving anaphoric relations, led to the Extended Standard Theory, where Deep and Surface Structure jointly input interpretation, and soon, with the advent of traces, Surface Structure alone. In subsequent models within the GB framework, the derived syntactic level of LF becomes the sole locus of interpretation. Finally, in more recent Minimalist Chomskyan work, there is argued to be no one level of LF; rather, semantic interpretation is interspersed among cyclic steps of the syntactic derivation, reminiscent of the LSLT proposal, though more restricted, and very similar to proposals of Jackendoff and Lasnik in the 1970's. I will try to sort through the motivations for these changes, focusing especially on the problem of quantifier interpretation.

scholarly journals Transformational Linguistics and the Implication Towards Second Language Learning

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Noor Khasanah
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Surface Structure ◽  
Second Language Learning ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Mental Representations ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Teaching English ◽  
The World ◽  
Universal Pattern

The essence of Chomsky’s approach to language is the claim that there are linguistic universals in domain of syntax. He felt confident to show that syntax can be defined for any given language. For Chomsky, the nature of such mental representations is largely innate, so if a grammatical theory has explanatory adequacy it must be able to explain the various grammatical nuances of the languages of the world as relatively minor variations in the universal pattern of human language. In teaching English as L2, therefore knowing syntax and grammar of the language is important. Transformational Generative Grammar gives adequate elaboration in understanding them. Thus, the learners are expected to be able to avoid such ambiguity in interpreting the deep structure of a sentence since ambiguity will lead other people as the listeners or hearers of the speakers to misinterpret either consciously or unconsciously. Keywords: Surface Structure;   Deep Structure;  Constituent;  Transformation 

Modern Greek clitic pronouns and the ‘surface structure constraints’ hypothesis

1977 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene P. Warburton
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Modern Greek ◽  
Output Constraints ◽  
Article Surface ◽  
Object Pronouns

In his (1970) article ‘Surface structure constraints in syntax’ Perimutter has argued that the restrictions on the combination of the weak atonic forms of the object pronouns in Spanish and restrictions on their order cannot be accounted for naturally either in the deep structure, by constraints on the phrase structure rules, or by constraints on the rules which introduce these pronouns.1 He concludes that a transformational generative grammar must be supplemented by positive output constraints which act as a filter accepting only sequences which match the filter and rejecting the rest as ungrammatical.

Analisis Wacana Surat Filemon

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hendi
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Pivot Point ◽  
Structure Unit

Perkembangan studi linguistik di dalam penafsiran teks kitab suci memang masih lambat dan dalam tahap perkembangan. Tulisan ini adalah suatu penelitian untuk mengembangkan studi linguistik di dalam penafsiran teks kitab suci di Indonesia. Penulis memilih studi linguistik dengan pendekatan analisis wacana. Model analisis wacana yang digunakan adalah analisis colon yang diperkenalkan oleh Johanes P. Louw. Sampel teks yang digunakan adalah surat Filemon. Hasil penelitian ini akan mendapatkan struktur dan tema surat Filemon. Pendekatan analisis wacana menekankan semantik. Arti atau makna di dalam teks melampaui kata, frasa, dan kalimat (struktur mikro teks) sehingga fokus analisis sampai kepada keseluruhan wacana (struktur makro teks). Struktur makro teks melingkupi arti dari struktur mikro teks. Seorang penulis menulis teks mulai dari ide wacana yang kemudian secara sadar membangun ide tersebut dari struktur mikro teks yang dipilihnya. Dalam analisis colon, struktur makro teks yang terpenting adalah paragraf yang merupakan satu unit semantis yang dibangun dari beberapa kelompok colon (cluster) dan atau colons. Arti kata, frasa, klausa, dan kalimat tidak lepas dari isi semantis paragraf yang mewadahinya. Sementara, penafsir-penafsir lain lebih memprioritaskan penafsiran struktur mikro teks daripada makro teks. Wacana dianalisis mulai dari paragraf sampai frasa dan kata (top down). Unit semantis dalam bentuk kata, frasa, dan klausa akan dianalisis dengan kategori semantis, pengelompokkan kata (grouping of words atau immediate constituents), dan transformasi struktur luar (surface structure) ke dalam struktur dalam (deep structure). Unit semantis dalam bentuk paragraf akan dianalisis dengan metode analisis colon. Di dalam analisis colon, ada beberapa langkah yang akan diuraikan yaitu pertama, membuat struktur colon (syntactic structure) dari setiap paragraf dan terjemahan literal. Pengelompokkan kata akan terlihat di dalam struktur colon. Kedua, mencari isi semantis dari setiap colon atau kelompok (cluster) dengan menganalisis kata, frasa, dan colon. Ketiga, mencari hubungan semantis di antara colon atau kelompok di dalam satu paragraf yang sama. Keempat, menentukan tema atau ide utama (the pivot point) dari setiap paragraf. Berdasarkan analisis colon, ide utama atau tema surat ini adalah permohonan Rasul Paulus kepada Filemon untuk mengembalikan atau menerima kembali Onesimus sebagai saudara di dalam Kristus. Tema wacana ini menentukan struktur makro dan mikro teks ditulis oleh Rasul Paulus. Rasul Paulus mulai menulis dengan pembukaan yaitu sapaan dan salam kepada Filemon dan seluruh jemaatnya. Kemudian, Rasul Paulus menuliskan dasar permohonannya yaitu iman dan kasih Filemon yang selama ini sudah didengar olehnya. Lalu, Rasul Paulus menuliskan permohonannya bahwa Filemon bisa menerima kembali Onesimus. Terakhir, Rasul Paulus menuliskan penutup yaitu salam dan doa berkat kepada seluruh jemaat. Implikasi pastoral atau teologis yang bisa dipelajari adalah cara iman dan kasih diterapkan secara nyata di dalam persekutuan dan kehidupan seperti pengampunan dan rekonsiliasi relasi dengan orang lain yang sudah berbuat dosa. Pengalaman jatuh ke dalam dosa dan dipulihkan oleh Allah adalah pengalaman yang tidak mungkin dipisahkan dalam hidup ini. Oleh karena itu, persekutuan sesama orang percaya menjadi wadah atau alat anugerah bagi setiap orang percaya menghadapi berbagai godaan dosa. Secara khusus, penulis mengucap terima kasih kepada para mahasiswa STT Soteria Purwokerto terutama mereka yang sudah mengikuti kelas Studi dan Exegesis Perjanjian Baru. Mereka adalah orang (pembaca) pertama yang bersama penulis menggumuli teks ini selama 1 semester. Penulis juga mengucap terima kasih kepada isteri, Rina Mansyur, dan puteri, Filipe File Cendekia atas dukungan yang tiada taranya. Terakhir, penulis mengucapkan terima kasih kepada penerbitan Leutikaprio yang sudah bersedia mengedit dan menerbitkan buku ini.

scholarly journals Sinkretisme dalam Tradisi Bucu Kendhit di Desa Sidokumpul Kabupaten Tuban

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-61
Author(s):  
Siti Inzali Listiadah ◽  
Sucipto Hadi Purnomo
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Surface Structure ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
Social Functions ◽  
Structure Approach ◽  
Structure Surface ◽  
Community Trust ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

ABSTRAK   Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan struktur luar dan struktur dalam tradisi Bucu Kendhit serta untuk mendeskripsikan perwujudan sinkretisme dalam tradisi Bucu Kendhit di Desa Sidokumpul, Kecamatan Bangilan, Kabupaten Tuban. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan struktural dengan metode kualitatif deskriptif. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah teknik observasi, wawancara dan dokumentasi. hasil penelitian ini adalah Hasil penelitian ini adalah (1) Tradisi Bucu Kendhit memiliki dua struktur yaitu struktur luar (surface structure) dan struktur dalam (deep structure). Struktur luar (surface structure) meliputi: a) Pra upacara dan komponen penyusun; b) Proses pelaksanaan dan c) Ubarampe. Sedangkan struktur dalam (deep structure) meliputi : a) Kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap Tradisi Bucu Kendhit. b) Adanya fungsi Tradisi Bucu Kendhit yang teridiri dari fungsi sosial dan fungsi religi. c) Makna filosofi Tradisi Bucu Kendhit yang terdiri dari makna kebendaan, makna perilaku, dan makna ucapan atau ujaran. (2) Tradisi Bucu Kendhit di Desa Sidokumpul, Kecamatan Bangilan, Kabupaten Tuban memiliki tradisi slametan sebagai perwujudan sinkretisme yang mengandung tiga unsur yaitu: unsur Hindu, unsur Jawa, dan unsur Islam. Kata Kunci: Sinkretisme, Struktur, Tradisi Bucu Kendhit   ABSTRACT   This research is aim to describe the surface structure and deep structure the tradition of Bucu Kendhit, and to describe the manifestation of syncretism in the tradition of Bucu Kendhit in Sidokumpul Village, Bangilan District, Tuban Regency. The approach used in this research is structure approach with descriptive qualitative method. Data collection techniques used were observation, interview and documentation techniques. The results of this study are: (1) The tradition of Bucu Kendhit has two structures namely the surface structure and the deep structure. The outer structure (surface structure) includes: a) Pre-ceremony and its components; b) The implementation process and c) Ubarampe. While the deep structure includes: a) Community trust in the Tradition of Bucu Kendhit. b) The function of the Bucu Kendhit Tradition which consists of social functions and religious functions. c) The meaning of the tradition of Bucu Kendhit's tradition which consists of material meaning, behavioral meaning, and the meaning of speech or utterance. (2) The tradition of Bucu Kendhit in Sidokumpul Village, Bangilan District, Tuban Regency has a slametan tradition as an embodiment of syncretism which contains three elements, namely: Hinduism, Javanese elements, and Islamic elements.   Keyword: Sinkretisme, Struktur, Tradisi Bucu Kendhit.

scholarly journals THE AMBIGUITY OF ENGLISH ADVERTISEMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Dian Anik Cahyani ◽  
Aang Fatikhul Islam
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
Data Sources

This is a qualitative research on applied linguistic which is conducted to find applied semantic theory about ambiguity, a condition where an utterance has two or more interpretations. The writers uses Kreidler’s theory which classifies ambiguities into three kinds; lexical, referential, and syntactic which is devided into two types; surface structure and deep structure. The discussion includes kinds of ambiguity that are found and their interpretations. The data sources is English advertisement and the data is English advertisement utterances in banners, posters, and billboards. The writers collects the datas by taking in a picture, sellecting, and presenting. The next is analysis and conclusion. There are 33 datas that are found, they are twelve banners, eleven posters, and ten billboards. From banners, there are three lexical, no referential, six surface structure, and three deep structure ambiguities. From posters, there is no lexical, one referential, four surface structure, and six deep structure ambiguities. From billboards, there are two lexical, two referential, four surface structure, and two deep structure ambiguities. Generally, the ambiguities are dominated by surface and deep structure ambiguity.

Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar

1966 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. K. Halliday
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Structural Approach ◽  
Technical Term ◽  
Abstract Representation ◽  
Relational Approach ◽  
Linear Sequence ◽  
Language Pattern ◽  
Linear Configuration ◽  
Relational Aspect

In the representation of syntagmatic relations in language, we may distinguish between a linear sequence of classes, such as ‘adjective followed by noun’, and a non-linear configuration of functions, such as ‘modifier-head relation’ or simply ‘modification’. Both of these have been referred to as ‘structure’, although this term has also been extended to cover paradigmatic as well as syntagmatic relations. For Hjelmslev, for whom ‘structure’ was not a technical term (see e.g. 1961: 74 (=1943: 67)), ‘the structural approach to language … [is] conceived as a purely relational approach to the language pattern’ (1948: quoted in Firth, 1951: 220); among others who have emphasized the relational aspect of such studies are Firth (1957: 17 ff., 1951: 227–8; cf. Robins, 1953; Palmer, 1964a), Tesnière (cf. Robins, 1961: 81 ff.) and Pike(cf. Longacre, 1964: 16). Chomsky's (1964: 32) distinction, using Hockett's terms, between ‘surface structure’ and ‘deep structure’, ‘structure’ here going beyond syntagmatic relations, is extremely valuable and widely accepted: the surface structure of a sentence is defined as ‘a proper bracketing of the linear, temporally given sequence of elements, with the paired brackets labelled by category names’, while the deep structure, which is ‘in general not identical with its surface structure’, is ‘a much more abstract representation of grammatical relations and syntactic organization’.

Comprehending surface and deep structure subjects: children's understanding of implied vs. explicitly stated nouns

1983 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedy White
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Surface Object

ABSTRACTPrevious research indicates young children are likely to interpret the surface-structure subject of a sentence as the deep subject regardless of syntax, e.g. John is chosen as subject of both John is easy to please and John is eager to please. However, with one-noun sentences, the task required both recognizing a difference between the sentences and inferring an implied noun. Thus an inability to make an inference might be responsible for the children's consistency in choosing the surface subject. Two experiments compared kindergarteners' interpretations of one- and two-noun sentences. With two-noun sentences (i.e. John is easy for Jim to please), which explicitly stated the surface object, consistency in choosing the surface subject decreased.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document