In the previous article we have dealt with syntactic knowledge, pragmatic knowledge etc, briefly. In the present article we will discuss the linguistic theory proposed by Noam Chomsky and the various components such as competence and generative grammar, phrase-structure grammar, transformational grammar, semantic and pragmatics in detail. These aspects are essential in understanding out language, communication and are underlying processes in comprehension.
THE ROLE OF SYNTACTIC KNOWLEDGE
The word 'Syntactic' is a derivative of syntax. As you know syntax is the arrangement of words within sentences; It deals with the rules governing the structure of the sentences from words and phrases.
The knowledge dealing with the syntax is syntactic knowledge. In recent years the principles underlying syntax have been extended to include how information can be transformed from one form to another.
Research is the discipline of linguistics, the study of language, has clarified the nature of syntactic knowledge and has influenced the direction of psychological research into comprehension.
A variety of syntactic rules are proposed by various linguists, as well as a variety of kinds of syntactic rules. In the present lesson we will discuss the linguistic theory proposed by Noam Chomsky one of the well-known linguist.
COMPETENCE AND GENERATIVE GRAMMAR
Noam Chomsky was impressed by the fact that language speakers know much more than they can ever reveal in words. In particular, people can produce and understand a virtually infinite number of utterances in their native language. Although we are bombarded by repetitive clinches and idioms, most of the sentences we speak and hear are novel. If you were to observe carefully what you read, say, and hear for an entire day, you would find that few sentences are repeated; most have probably never been said before in identical words.
Due to the fact that we can speak and understand an infinite number of sentences, we are said to exhibit linguistic creativity. The capacity for linguistic creativity is very important. It allows us to communicate about novel events, thereby helping us to adapt to diverse and changing environments.
Our know ledge of language is more than our use of language. As Chomsky proposed our knowledge or linguistic competence is greater than what can actually be revealed in our linguistic performance, that is, in speaking, writing or comprehending sentences.
Chomsky proposed that a theory of linguistic competence should consist of a generative grammar, a set of rules for generating an infinite number of grammatical sentences. Thus our linguistic competence includes finite number of rules that can generate all the well-formed sentences of a language.
Chomsky's theory of competence centered around syntactic rules for combining words to form grammatical sentences. Some important aspects of syntax are illustrated by considering phrase-structure grammar.
PHRASE-STRUCTURE GRAMMAR
The phrase structure of a sentence consists of the hierarchical relations among its constituent phrases, such as noun phrases, verb phrases and prepositional phrases. A phrase is a group of grammatically related words that function as a single part of speech.
As shown in figure-25.a phrase-structure grammar consists of a set of rules, and the arrow in each rule indicates that the symbol on the left can be rewritten as the symbols on the right.
Fig. 25.a A simple phrase structure grammar and the constituent structure of one of the sentences that it can generate.
For example Rule 1 stipulates that sentence may be rewritten as a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP). Rule 2 specifies that the element NP can be rewritten as an article (Art), an adjective (Adj) and a noun (N). The brackets around the Adj element indicate that it is optional.
The lower portion of figure 25.a shows dramatically how the rules may be used to derive or generate an acceptable English sentence, ' The angry man hit the dangerous person'.
The above rules could be used to generate a number of other sentences. But the list of rules would have to be expanded considerably in order to generate an impressive variety of English sentences.
The rules listed in figure-25.a are called phrase structure rules, which always r~write one element as one or more different elements. By applying the appropriate rules, we derive or generate a grammatical sentence. Equally important, we describe the internal structure of the sentence, also called its constituent structure. The tree diagram in figure 25.a shows the constituent structure of one sentence.
Phrase-structure grammars can also account for some of our intuitions regarding ambiguity. For example, we know that sentence 1 has two different meanings, as restated in 2 and 3.
1. They are cutting boards.
2. Those boards are for cutting.
3. Those people are cutting boards.
The ambiguity arises because sentence 1 has two different internal structures shown in figure 25.b.
Fig. 25.b Two different constituent structure of they are cutting boards, an ambiguous sentence.
A phrase structure grammar allows the linguist to determine whether a string of words is a sentence. If it can be diagrammed; following all the rules, then the words constitute a sentence. It certainly provides the means for identifying the parts of speech. People implicitly know or store in memory a representation based on phrase structure.
Phrase-structure grammars, despite their advantages, were thought not to provide a comprehensive theory of syntax. There are many linguistic intuitions that cannot be explained by phrase-structure grammars. Accordingly, Chomsky ( 1957, 1965) proposed a more comprehensive and powerful model of syntax called transformational grammar.
TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR
Chomsky proposed that sentences have two levels of structure: surface structure and deep structure. The surface structure corresponds to the constituent structure described in phrase-structure grammar. The deep structure consists of the underlying grammatical relations that determine the meaning of the sentence. The deep structure helps in capturing the intended meaning of the ambiguous sentence.
Consider the following sentences.
a) The professor is easy to understand.
b) The professor is anxious to understand,
The meaning of these sentences depends upon which word is the subject and which is the object. This information is provided by the deep structure, not by the surface structure. The deep structure of sentence (a) is shown in the Figure 25.c.
Fig. 25.c Simplified deep structure for the sentence 'The professor is easy to understand'.
A transformational grammar can assign sentences to different deep structures even though the sentence has only one surface structure.
Sentences can also_have similar deep-structures despite different surface structures. This implies that deep structures can be transformed and manipulated in various ways to form surface structures. This occurs by transformation rules. Transformation rules cannot be described in detail here, but a few general properties will be noted. Transformation rules rewrite strings of elements and perform powerful operations such as adding, deleting and rearranging constituents.
To illustrate the features of transformation rules, consider the sentence 'The playful cat broke the vase'. The deep structure that underlies this sentence includes two noun phrases and a verb.
A similar deep structure underlies the passive version of the sentence, "the vase was broken by the playful cat". The surface differences in the sentences occur because the deep structures are operated on by different transformation rules.
Chomsky showed that the theory of transformational grammar can generate an infinite number of grammatical sentences, there by accounting for linguistic creativity.
Most importantly Chomsky showed that his transformational grammar applies to many different languages, not just to English.
He showed that the sentences of all natural languages have both a deep and a surface structures, that all languages have transformation rules, and that the transformation rules of all languages perform the same operations, for example, deleting and rearranging elements.
Thus Chomsky argued that there are universal properties of human language that reflect the innate knowledge of the human mind. Overall, the theory of transformational grammar had much greater power, generality, and promise than its competitors had.
SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS
Sentences can have both literal meaning and intended meaning. The literal meaning is what the sentence asserts. The intended meaning is what the speaker intends to convey. For example the sentence " It's sweltering in here" asserts that it is very hot. But if a friend uttered this sentence upon entering your home, you would probably interpret it as a polite, indirect request to turn on a fan.
Semantics refers to the study of meaning in a language. A semanticist would be concerned with how words express meaning. Pragmatics refers to the study of how people acquire and use language in the social context. Pragmatists believe that knowledge is validated by its usefulness.
In order to understand a sentence fully, one must apprehend both the literal and intended meaning of the sentence. We infer the intended meaning of sentences by using our pragmatic knowledge, our knowledge of how to communicate effectively, and we infer literal meaning by using our semantic knowledge.
The Role of Semantic Constraints
Language users know implicitly that there are many constraints on how words may be combined to form legal, semantically acceptable sentences. For example consider the following sentences.
a) The infant was 80 years old.
b) The chair raced up the stairs
Both the above sentences are contradictory and improper.
Our knowledge of semantic constraints is important. People can analyze meaning and take advantage of semantic constraints at all points while comprehending a sentence. As a result, comprehension at any point in a sentence can be influenced by the prior semantic constraints, and this probably increases our speed of reading.
Resolving ambiguity
Linguistic ambiguities arise in many every day situations, thereby impeding effective communications. Suppose you are driving a car and you ask the passenger "Do we turn left here?" and the passenger says "'Right". The word right is ambiguous because it could I ' mean either that you should tum right or that left is the correct direction. This is an example of a lexical ambiguity since the ambiguity concerns the meaning of a particular word. . .,...,-· A second kind of all ambiguity concerns entire sentences. For example assume a novice cook had just prepared a meal for a group and was setting the food on the table. A jesting member of the group, impressed by the large quantity of food, says in a serious tone, " I doubt there's enough to go around here." Here the statement could have been intended ,.-· either as a joke or as a reprimand. The literal meaning of the statement was clear enough, but the intended meaning ambiguous. Accordingly the sentence is an example of pragmatic ambiguity.
In our daily interactions with others, potentially ambiguous statements occur often, but we seldom notice the ambiguities, because people might access only the contextually appropriate meaning of a potentially ambiguous word or sentence. Another possibility is that people momentarily access both meanings of an ambiguous word and then select the appropriate meaning by using the contextual information that is available. This is called as multiple access hypothesis and proposes that accessing the different meanings and choosing one occur without conscious attention.
Integration, inference and the given new contract
In the process of comprehension readers and listeners must also determine how the sentences relate to on another to form a coherent message or theme. In other words, the listener must integrate the information from different but topically related sentences. When the listener does not integrate information across sentences in the appropriate manner, they fail to understand the gist of what was said.
Argument repetition:
Repeating concepts probably facilitates comprehension by decreasing the number of new concepts that must be integrated into memory. If concepts are repeated in separate sentences, it is relatively easy to integrate the information from. the sentences.
These effects of structural factors arise from the listener's use of pragmatic knowledge, as is shown by this example :
'The angry gardener chased the playful dogs off this plot. Waving a large stick and yelling loudly, he pursued them down to the end of the street.' In comprehending the above passage we integrate the information from the two sentences.
The given -new contract:
In order to communicate effectively speakers must somehow make contact with the information that the listener already knows. That already known or old information is called given information. Speakers must also present new information in a manner that allow the listener to recognize that the information is new. These rules of communication are known as the given new contract. Given new strategy.
Recent research has clarified that listeners use their pragmatic know ledge of the given-new contract to integrate information from different sentences. This procedure is called as given-new strategy.
Bridging inferences:
Listeners also form bridging assumptions to help make the passage comprehensible. Bridging assumptions are inferred antecedent propositions that the listener can use in integrating the information from the two sentences.
SUMMARY
The study of syntactic knowledge was stimulated by Chomsky's linguistic theory, the theory of transformational grammar, which concerns linguistic knowledge or competence, not performance. Chomsky proposed that linguistic knowledge consists largely of rules that can generate an infinite number of grammatical sentences. In his view, syntactic knowledge consists of phrase-structure rules and transformation rules. The phrase -structure rules produce the deep structure of a sentence, which specifies important grammatical information. The transformation rules transform the deep structure into a surface structure. Syntactic processing during comprehension is also important. Evidence has supported the view that listeners decompose sentences into major syntactic clauses. Knowledge of semantic constraints is essential in interpreting ambiguous words. In order to comprehend a sentence, listeners must determine not only its literal meaning but also its intended meaning. This knowledge is known as pragmatic knowledge. Using the given -new strategy, the listener searches ·memory for a proposition containing the: given information and then adds the new information to the memory representation. When the reader is unable to find in memory a proposition that contains the given information, he or she makes an inference that bridges the given and the new information.