Chomsky's Generative Transformational Grammar and its
Implications on Language Teaching
Adel DJERIBIAI
Hama Lakhdar Eloued University
Abstract:
The relationship between language and mind has had a considerable interest
and research among psychologists and language specialists alike. This
relation is often regarded as being intricate due to the nature of language
itself and the difficulty of studying the mind as a subject matter. The present
contribution attempts to highlight and explain the interrelationship between
human language and the mind on the basis of Noam Chomsky's works
(namely, 1957,1968) focusing on generative linguistics and innateness. In this
respect, this paper sheds light on the implications of Chomsky's cognitive
views of language on the teaching / learning of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL). It also suggests some pedagogical implications so as to
alleviate, if not, eradicate some of the problems encountered by the
pedagogical couple (the language teacher and the learner).
Key words: Language, mind, innateness, EFL. Generative linguistics, Noam
Chomsky
1-Introduction
Undoubtedly, Chomsky's contribution to the world of linguistics is one of the most
important achievements of the twentieth century. The era known as the Chomskyan
ear is referred to the period beginning shortly after the publication of the
revolutionary book "Syntactic Structures" (1957) in which Chomsky developed a
syntactic theory aiming at the specification of the grammatical rules underlying the
construction of sentences of the language.
The aim of this paper is twofold; first it traces back the Chomskyan revolution
beginning by a brief discussion of the main tenets of the revolution and then
discussing some pedagogical implications of Chomsky's theories on language
teaching. Chomsky has accounted for the three models in Syntactic Structures; the
Finite State Grammar, Phrase Structure Grammar (PSG) and Transformational
Generative Grammar (TGG) discussing the amendments incorporated into "Aspects
of the Theory of Syntax" (1965), i.e. what has become to be known as The Standard
Theory.
2-A Brief Account of Syntactic Structures (1957)
The publication of Syntactic structures has made a revolution in linguistics.
Chomsky developed a theory known as Transformational Generative Grammar
213
(TGG) because of its aim of constructing a device that would generate all and only the
sentences of the language; " the grammar of L will thus be a device that generates all
the grammatical sequences of L and none of the ungrammatical ones " (Chomsky,
1957:13).
Moreover, Chomsky changed the subject matter of linguistics arguing that instead
of the appropriate subject matter of linguistics being a randomly or arbitrarily selected
set of sentences, the proper object of study was the speaker's underlying knowledge of
the language; his linguistics competence that enables him to produce and understand
sentences he has never heard before.
The Chomskyan revolution can be summarised in the following chart:
Structuralism Generative Grammar
Subject Matter Corpus of utterances Speaker's knowledge of
how to produce and
understand sentences, his
linguistic competence
Goal Classification of the Specification of the
elements of the corpus grammatical rules
underlying the
construction of sentences
Methods Discovery procedures Evaluation procedures
(John R. Searl, Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics, June 29, 1972).
In Syntactic Structures (1957), Chomsky proposed three models for the structure
of the language; the Finite Markov Process, Phrase Structure Model, which is based
on immediate constituent analysis and Transformational Generative Grammar TGG.
All in all, the aim of the linguistic theory expounded by Chomsky in Syntactic
Structures was essentially to describe syntax, that is, to specify the grammatical rules
underlying the construction of sentences.
The TGG model has two major components and a minor component:
Phrase Structure; which contains a set of rules (PS-rules). These rules generate
the underlying strings
Transformational Structure; which contains a set of transformational rules (T-
Rules) that convert the underlying strings into derived strings and later into
surface structure. These rules add, delete or change the order of formatives in
the terminal string produced by the PS-rules. Some of the transformational are
obligatory, and others are optional.
Morphophonemic Rules are in a way "spelling notes" which represent the
surface structure of the sentence.
214
Chomsky added: "When transformational analysis is properly formulated we find
that it is essentially more powerful than the description in terms of phrase structure"
(Chomsky, 1957:47).
3-Amendments of Aspects of the Theory of Syntax
3-1-Important Dichotomies
3-1-1-Competence /Performance
In aspects (1965) Chomsky distinguished between competence and performance
and asserted that generative grammars theories of linguistic competence.
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-
listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who
knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such
grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations,
distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual
performance. (Chomsky, 1965:3)
So, Chomsky has characterised a generative grammar of language as an explicit
description of the 'ideal speaker-hearer's intrinsic competence'. A person's linguistic
competence is his tacit knowledge of his language in how to produce and understand
an indefinite number of utterances never heard before. However, performance is
considered to be the physical representation, usually in utterances of any type of the
human competence which refers to how someone uses language. Chomsky considered
performance as faulty representation of competence because of psychological
restrictions such as memory lapses and limitations, distractions, changes of directions
halfway through sentence, hesitation and so on. Performance, in a way, accounts for
the failures language users have when transposing their competence into actual
linguistic production.
It is important to note that Chomsky made a distinction between grammaticality
and acceptability. The latter is a concept that belongs to the study of performance
whereas the former belongs to the study of competence.
3-1-2-Deep /Surface Structure
Chomsky developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of
representation; a deep structure and a surface structure. The deep structure represented
the semantic relations of a sentence and was mapped onto the surface structure (which
follows the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. The
surface structure refers to the mental representation of a linguistic expression derived
from deep structure by transformational rules.
Chomsky believed that there would be considerable similarities between languages‘
deep structures, and that these structures would reveal properties common to all
languages, which were concealed by their surface structures. This has come to be
215
known as Universal Grammar (UG) that is explained through the theory of principles
and parameters
4-Modifications in Chomsky‟s Grammar
Chomsky‘s system of transformational grammar was substantially modified in
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965). Perhaps the most important modification was
the incorporation, within the system, of a semantic component, in addition to the
syntactic component and phonological component (replacing the morphophonemic
component of Syntactic Structures). The rules of the syntactic component generate the
sentences of the language and assign to each not one but two structural analyses: a
deep structure analysis, as represented by the underlying phrase marker, and a surface
structure analysis, as represented by the final derived phrase marker. The underlying
phrase marker is assigned by the rules of the base; the derived phrase marker is
assigned by the transformational rules. The meaning of the sentence is derived from
the deep structure by means of the rules of semantic interpretation; the phonetic
realisation of the sentence is derived from its surface structure by means of the rules of
the phonological component. The grammar (―grammar‖ is now to be understood as
covering semantics and phonology, as well as syntax) is thus an integrated system of
rules for relating the pronunciation of a sentence to its meaning. The syntax, and more
particularly the base, is at the heart of the system, as it were, it is the base component
that generates the infinite class of structures underlying the well-formed sentences of a
language. These structures are then given a semantic and phonetic ―interpretation‖ by
the other components. These modifications came to be known as the Standard Theory.
5-The Standard Theory:
The theory was developed by Chomsky in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)
who pointed out
This system of rules can be analysed into the three major components of
generative grammar, the syntactic, phonological, and semantic
component. The syntactic component specifies an infinite set of abstract
formal objects, each of which incorporates all information relevant to a
single interpretation of a particular sentence […..] .The phonological
component of a grammar determines the phonetic form of a sentence
generated by the syntactic rules […..] . The semantic component
determines the semantic interpretation of a sentence.
(Chomsky, 1965:16)
Put it like that, the complete grammar of a language must have three parts, a
syntactical component that generates and describes the internal structure of the infinite
number of sentences of the language, a phonological component that describes the
sound structure of the sentences generated by the syntactical component, and a
semantic component that describes the meaning structure of the sentences. The heart
of the grammar is the syntax, the phonology and the semantics are purely
―interpretive‖; ―Both the phonological and semantic component are therefore purely
interpretive‖ (ibid: 16).
216
Furthermore, the base component consists of two parts; a set of categorical rules
and a lexicon. Taken together, they fulfil a similar function to that fulfilled by phrase
structure rules of the earlier system. But there are many differences of detail. Among
the most important is that the lexicon lists, in principle, all the vocabulary words in the
language and associated with each of all the syntactic, semantic, and phonological
information is represented in terms of what are called features. For example, the entry
for ―boy‖ might say that it has the syntactic feature: [+Noun], [+Count], [+Common],
[+Animate], and [+human]. The categorical rules generate a set of phrase markers that
have in them, as it were, a number of ―slots‖ to be filled with items from the lexicon.
With each such ―slot‖ there is associated a set of features that define the kind of item
that can fill the ―slot‖. If a phrase marker is generated with a ―slot‖ for the head of a
noun phrase specified as requiring an animate noun (i.e. , a noun having the feature
[+Animate] ), the item ―boy‖ would be recognised as being compatible with this
specification and could be inserted in the ―slot‖ by the rule of lexical substitution.
Similarly, it could be inserted in ―slots‖ specified as requiring a common noun, a
human noun, or a countable noun, but it would be excluded from positions that require
an abstract noun (e.g. sincerity) or an uncountable noun (e.g. water). By drawing upon
the syntactic information coded in feature notation in the lexicon, the categorical rules
might permit such sentences as ―the boy died‖ while excluding (and thereby defining
as ungrammatical) such non sentences as ―the boy elapsed‖.
The role of the phonological component of a generative grammar is to assign a
phonetic ―interpretation‖ to the strings of words generated by the syntactic component.
These strings of words are represented in a phonological notation and have been
provided with a surface structure analysis by the transformational rules. The
phonological elements out of which the word forms are composed are segments
consisting of what are referred to technically as distinctive features. For example, the
word ―man‖, represented phonologically, is composed of three segments: the first
consists of the features [+vocalic], [+front], [+open], etc; and the third of the features
[+consonantal], [+alveolar], [+nasal], etc.
6-Theory of Knowledge: Generative Grammar and Cognitive Theory
Most of Chomsky‘s works concerning the nature of knowledge pertain specifically
to the construction and use of language. The theory of Generative Grammar, though
constantly developing, stands as a microcosm of his views on the human mind‘s
methods of taking in and storing information. Whereas much of it is primarily
applicable to the field of language, there is more than enough here to illustrate his core
ideas about education and the formation of human thought and knowledge.
Human thought has been formed through centuries of man‘s
consciousness, by perception and meanings that relate us to nature. The
smallest living entity, be it a molecule or a particle, is at the same time
present in the structure of the earth and all its inhabitants, whether human
or manifesting themselves in the multiplicity of other forms of life.
(Chomsky, 1986:xi)
217
In its core, Chomsky‘s theory of Generative Grammar is a way of describing the
way people learn to communicate. The heart of this theory is the idea that all human
language originates from a common source, an innate set of grammatical rules and
approaches that is hardwired into the human mind. This is a very naturalistic approach,
but one that has found ever increasing acceptance amongst experts in the field
(Chomsky, 1986).
The fundamental approach to knowledge is very similar to that used in Information
Processing Theory (IPT). According to Chomsky, in order for knowledge to be
retained, there must be previous knowledge already present for the new information to
be associated with. He typically refers to this process as ―building‖ on prior
knowledge, but it has obvious parallels with the ―networking‖ described by IPT.
Particularly in the process of taking in information initially, generative grammar has
direct parallels with the ideas put forward for information processing theory.
Furthermore, Chomsky (2000) claimed that it is the idea of innate and natural
grammar that really sticks. While there is little disagreement about this point that some
of the more fundamental functions of the human brain are transmitted as instincts. We
don‘t have to be taught to breathe, after all. The concept of an underlying mental
matrix that informs all of human language is a bit of a departure from more traditional
views on the origin of verbal communication.
This view is apparently naturalistic. Rather than the cultural development of spoken
language through generations of trial and error, this would imply that it has all been
merely a reconstruction of instincts that were already present. Each of every language
spoken today, then, would have a common root in the language center of the human
brain. The different forms that those languages then took could be attributed to
different opportunities and approaches to networking the new verbiage and syntax.
7-Implications for teaching: Discussion
In this section we endeavour to discuss the implications of Chomsky‘s works on
language teaching. It has been noted that before the 1970s grammar had a controlling
influence on language teaching. Approaches to grammar teaching and the design of
course books at the time reflected a view of language, language learning, and language
use. The goal of language teaching was to understand how sentences from lower-level
grammatical units such as phrases and clauses, and to practice using them as the basis
for written and spoken communication. Syllabuses were essentially grammar-based
and grammar was a primary focus of teaching techniques. Correct language use was
achieved through a drill and practice methodology and through controlled speaking
and writing exercises that sought to prevent or minimise opportunities for errors.
During the 1970s Chomsky‘s theories of language and his distinction between
competence and performance were beginning to have an impact on language teaching.
Especially with regard to his theory of transformational generative grammar with core
kernel sentences that were transformed through the operation of rules to produce more
complex sentences sought to capture the nature of speaker‘s linguistic competence. It
seemed to offer an exciting new approach to grammar teaching and for a while in the
early seventies was reflected in ESL textbooks.
218
Moreover, Chomsky emphasised the cognitive nature of language learning and the
fact that children appear to be born with abstract knowledge about the nature of
language, that is, knowledge of universal grammar which came to be known as
Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Exposure to language was sufficient to trigger
the acquisition processes and initiate the processes of hypothesis formation that were
evident in studies of language acquisition.
It is worth mentioning that a little of research has been carries out about the
implications of Chomsky‘s theories on language teaching and learning. Nevertheless,
his work had had a remarkable impact on education and pedagogy.
8- Conclusion
The present work discusses Chomsky‘s Generative Grammar and its development
and has shown that Chomsky‘s ideas, thoughts and theories are in constant state of
change and he himself admitted repeatedly that a change is a sine qua non condition
for the development of any linguistic investigation. The Standard Theory was
developed into the Extended Standard Theory that includes the X-Bar Syntax and
some constraints to the generative rules. By the 1990s, however, there had been further
developments in Chomskyan theory. Chomsky‘s theory of universal grammar had
been elaborated to include innate knowledge about the principles of language (i.e. that
languages usually have pronouns) and their parameters (i.e. that some languages allow
these to be dropped when they are in subject position), and this model was applied to
the study of both first and second language acquisition (Schmitt 2002).
Chomsky‘s works have received many critics claiming that he idealises the
language and overlooks real and pragmatic communication. The linguistics
competence has become communicative, pragmatic competence, etc.
All in all, Chomsky‘s position in the world of linguistics is unique and it is hardly
to find a book of linguistics overlooking his theories and ideas.
Bibliography
Allen, J.P.B and Van Burn, Paul (1971). Chomsky: Selected Reading. London: OPU
Chomsky, N (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton
Chomsky, N (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. USA: MITs
Chomsky, N (1986). Knowledge of language: Its Origin, Nature, and Use. Westport:
Greenwood
Chomsky, N (2000). Chomsky on Miseducation. Oxford
Huddleston, Rodney (1976). An Introduction to English Transformational Syntax.
Longman
Searle, R.John (1972). Chomsky‟s Revolution in Linguistics. The New York Review
219
of Books
Schmitt, N., ed. (2002). An introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
220
