Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Generative-transformational sketch of Portuguese syntax : a computer model Machado-Holsti, Mina Estrela 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A1 M32_8.pdf [ 17.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093216.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093216-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093216-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093216-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093216-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093216-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093216-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093216-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093216.ris

Full Text

A GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL SKETCH OF PORTUGUESE SYNTAX: A COMPUTER MODEL by MINA ESTRELA MACHADO-HOLSTI B.A., Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1969 M.A., Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1971  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n t h e Department of Linguistics  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  D. W. Reed, N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y F. B. A g a r d , C o r n e l l  University  R. J . Gregg, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J a n u a r y , 1974  In presenting this thesis in partial•fulfiIment  of the requirements for  an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available  for reference and study.  I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for  scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or  by his representatives. of  It  is understood that copying or publication  this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my  written permission.  Mina  Department of  UnguistJCS  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  Date  January  1974  E. M a c h a d o - H o l s t i  ABSTRACT  T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n p r e s e n t s a grammar f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the p r i n c i p a l s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s o f P o r t u g u e s e i n t h e g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t i c framework o f g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t h e o r y . The grammar i s a d e v i c e which d e f i n e s t h e s e m a n t i c a l l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e deep s t r u c t u r e and t h e g r a p h e m i c a l l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e f o r a s e t o f P o r t u g u e s e s e n t e n c e s . When a human b e i n g h e a r s an u t t e r a n c e , he uses h i s knowledge t o u n d e r s t a n d i t .  This requires  n o t o n l y grammar b u t a l s o h i s knowledge o f words, t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e s e n t e n c e , and most i m p o r t a n t , h i s knowledge o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r . To w r i t e a computer program w h i c h u n d e r s t a n d s n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e , we need t o u n d e r s t a n d what l a n g u a g e i s and what i t d o e s .  Language  can  be a p p r o a c h e d as a s e t o f m a t h e m a t i c a l r u l e s and s y m b o l s , o r as a s y s t e m i n t e n d e d t o communicate  i d e a s . Language can a l s o be viewed as a p r o c e s s  o f t r a n s f o r m i n g a s t r u c t u r e o f c o n c e p t s i n t h e mind o f t h e s p e a k e r i n t o a s t r i n g o f sounds o r w r i t t e n s y m b o l s , and back i n t o c o n c e p t s i n t h e mind o f t h e h e a r e r o r r e a d e r .  In o r d e r t o t a l k a b o u t c o n c e p t s we must  u n d e r s t a n d the i m p o r t a n c e o f mental models.  T h e r e i s , o f c o u r s e , no  way o f a c t u a l l y o b s e r v i n g t h e i n t e r n a l w o r k i n g s o f a p e r s o n ' s mind. The p r o c e s s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s e n t e n c e has t o combine grammar and r e a s o n i n g i n a c l o s e l y i n t e r r e l a t e d manner.  A computer model i s n o t  a d e t a i l e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y o f how a p e r s o n i n t e r p r e t s a l a n g u a g e , ii  iii b u t the p r e s e n t s t u d y r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e may i n f a c t be a h i g h l e v e l o f i s o m o r p h i s m between the t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e , the computer grammar and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s l a n g u a g e . The f i r s t p a r t o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n p r e s e n t s a r e v i e w o f the c u r r e n t s t a t e o f l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y and a p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar as a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  preliminary.  This survey i s  n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r to e x p l a i n the a d o p t i o n o f c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h w i l l s e r v e as a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r my P o r t u g u e s e grammar. examination  The  o f t h i s body o f t h e o r y a l s o j u s t i f i e s the a d o p t i o n o r r e -  j e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s t h a t u n d e r l i e my c o n c e p t i o n o f a f o r m a l i z e d model o f l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n .  In p r e s e n t i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e  formal model o f a grammar and the g e n e r a t i o n o f i t s s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s I examine t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f d i f f e r e n t g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  systems.  The f o r m a l model, b a s e d on many a s p e c t s o f l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y , i s a p r i o r i b u t t e s t a b l e a g a i n s t e m p i r i c a l phenomena.  I t has the f e a t u r e s o f a  m e t a l i n g u i s t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l i n g u i s t i c e l e m e n t s and c l a s s e s , w i t h a mathematical, and o p e r a t i o n s .  l o g i c a l and l i n g u i s t i c n o t a t i o n a l s y s t e m o f o p e r a t o r s This generative-transformational  model i s  i n t h a t i t s f o r m a l p o s t u l a t e s and o p e r a t i o n s i n c l u d e B o o l e a n  non-exclusive classi-  f i c a t i o n , i n the s e n s e t h a t i t s symbols a r e e l e c t i v e . The c o m p u t e r model c o n s i s t s o f a grammar f o r m a t and f o r d e r i v i n g sentences.  algorithm  The f e a t u r e s o f t h e model and the s y s t e m i n c l u d e  a f o r m a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s y n t a x o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar, a p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e scheme, a f o r m a t f o r the l e x i c o n and l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n a l g o r i t h m , and a l a n g u a g e f o r s p e c i f y i n g the t r a f f i c r u l e s o f the grammar.  iv The model p r e s e n t e d  i n the t h e s i s has been shown to have t h e  c a p a c i t y to g e n e r a t e g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e s . phenomena i n n o n - d e v i a n t e x p r e s s i o n s description.  I t i s also able to p r e d i c t  and t o a s c r i b e t o them a s t r u c t u r a l  The f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f the s y n t a c t i c r u l e s o f t h i s model  has been t e s t e d and v e r i f i e d w i t h t h e h e l p o f an a d a p t a t i o n man's c o m p u t e r program.  of J. Fried-  To Kai J . Holsti because of a promise  v  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  I am most g r a t e f u l t o Mary Moran Nanson, f o r m e r l y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , f o r h e r e n d l e s s hours o f work and c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n i m p l e m e n t i n g my grammar on t h e computer program.  I am a l s o i n d e b t e d  t o Dr. Yves Ch. M o r i n , a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M o n t r e a l , f o r t h e e n l i g h t e n i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s on t h e f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f my grammar and i t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n on t h e computer. I s h o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my t h a n k s t o P r o f e s s o r Gary D. P r i d e a u x , at the U n i v e r i s t y o f A l b e r t a , f o r reading this d i s s e r t a t i o n a t various s t a g e s and making many h e l p f u l comments; and t o P r o f e s s o r D. W. Reed, a t t h e N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y and P r o f e s s o r F. B. A g a r d , a t C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , f o r t h e i r c r i t i c a l assessment o f t h e f i n a l manuscript. F i n a l l y , I want t o thank H e a t h e r T r o c h e f o r t y p i n g a v e r y d i f f i c u l t m a n u s c r i p t w i t h e f f i c i e n c y and good humour.  vi  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  . . .  i i  . .  vi  INTRODUCTION  xvi  CHAPTER 1 - GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR  I.  INTRODUCTION  1  ORIGINS OF GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY  1  A. G e n e r a t i v e Grammar  1  1. Grammar and T h e o r y  2  2. R e c u r s i v e n e s s and C r e a t i v i t y  .  3. G r a m m a t i c a l i t y and A c c e p t a b i l i t y  5  4. S i m p l i c i t y  5  B. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar  6  1. H a r r i s ' T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  ...  2. Chomsky's T r a n s f o r m a t i o n C. Chomsky and t h e H i s t o r y o f L i n g u i s t i c s 1. S t r u c t u r a l i s m  6 7 8 8  D. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G e n e r a t i v e S c h o o l 1. S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s Model (1957) II.  4  CONTROVERSY OVER CHOMSKY'S THEORY  A. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l P r o b l e m s  10 10 12 13  vii  vi i i Page 1. I n d u c t i o n - D e d u c t i o n  13  2. I n t u i t i o n  14  3. H o c k e t t ' s C r i t i c i s m s  15  4. An i l l - d e f i n e d s y s t e m  16  B. P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i e s  Remarks  18  1. G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y  ' . . 20  C. Autonomous S y n t a x : s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s  20  D. P r o b l e m s o f t h e S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s Model  22  E. Saumjan's A p p l i c a t i o n a l G e n e r a t i v e Model F. C r i t i c i s m o f I n a d e q u a t e Grammars  .  24  ...  26  I I I . AN INTEGRATED THEORY  28  A. The Development o f t h e T h e o r y  28  1. The N o t i o n o f " T h e o r y "  29  2. " L e v e l s o f S u c c e s s "  30  3. Competence and P e r f o r m a n c e  .........  B. F u r t h e r Development o f t h e T h e o r y • • • . • 1. The S e m a n t i c Component C. The I n t e g r a t e d T h e o r y . . . . .  31 .......  32  .......  36  ......  40  ........  42  D. A s p e c t s o f t h e T h e o r y o f S y n t a x (1965) 1. The N o t i o n o f G r a m m a t i c a l i t y  30  2. An I l l u s t r a t i v e Fragment o f t h e Base Component  43  a) S o l u t i o n I  44  b) S o l u t i o n I I  45  c) S o l u t i o n I I I  46  3. The R e l a t i o n between Components a) "Grammatical T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s " b) The L e x i c o n  47 ....  48 49  ix Page CHAPTER 2 - "POST-ASPECTS"DEVELOPMENTS INTRODUCTION I.  .....  RECENT INNOVATIONS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY A. P r i n c i p a l Developments  51  ••  ••  51  1. The T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l C y c l e  52  2. The N o t i o n o f C o n s t r a i n t  54  B. G e n e r a t i v e S e m a n t i c s  56  1. W e i n r e i c h ' s T h e o r y  56  2. G r u b e r ' s t h e o r y 3. McCawley's  .....  Theory  63  C. The L e x i c a l i s t H y p o t h e s i s  .  D. I n t e r p r e t a t i v e S e m a n t i c s 1. Chomsky's P o s i t i o n  ........ ..  2. K a t z ' s P o s i t i o n  67 69 69  ............  3. F i l l m o r e ' s P o s i t i o n  71 72  E. Case Grammar T h e o r y F. Montague's  59 60  4. L a k o f f ' s T h e o r y  II.  51  T h e o r y o f Grammar  SEMANTICS  A. An Overview o f S e m a n t i c s  .............  74  .......  79  ........  80  .......  80  1. Word Meaning  82  2. The L e x i c o n and t h e Grammar  84  3. Language and L o g i c  87  4. Language i n C o n t e x t B. C u r r e n t C o n t r o v e r s i e s  .  88 89  X  Page CHAPTER 3 - CRITICISM OF SOME GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES INTRODUCTION I.  .....  THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY  ..  A. Dichotomy: S y n t a x / S e m a n t i c s  93 93 93  1. The S t r u c t u r e o f t h e " S i g n i f i e d " .  94  2. The S t r u c t u r e o f the " S i g n i f i c a t i o n " . . . . . . . . .  101  3. Formal Rules  103  4. P r e d i c a t i o n Rules  105  5. S u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n Rules  .....  B. T h e o r e t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s and N o t i o n s  .  107 I l l  1. Language as a Formal S y s t e m  112  2. The P r i n c i p l e o f I n t u i t i o n  112  3. The N o t i o n o f C r e a t i v i t y  112  4. The N o t i o n o f G r a m m a t i c a l i t y  .......  5. The N o t i o n o f S i m p l i c i t y C. The P o s t - A s p e c t s 1. P e r l m u t t e r ' s  Notion of Constraints  120 ...........  Deep C o n s t r a i n t s  131 ...........  140  ...  141  ......  142 145  D. G e n e r a t i v e and I n t e r p r e t a t i v e S e m a n t i c s 1. S y n t a c t i c and S y n t a c t i c - S e m a n t i c 2. L o g i c and S e m a n t i c S t r u c t u r e s  121 123  2. R o s s ' s C o n s t r a i n t s 3. P e r l m u t t e r ' s S u r f a c e C o n s t r a i n t s  116  Features  .  xi Page CHAPTER 4 - PORTUGUESE SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES INTRODUCTION I.  NOTATION AND BASE-RULES  149 .  ............  A. N o t a t i o n  149  1. S t r u c t u r a l D e s c r i p t i o n  150  2. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l O p e r a t i o n s  ....  150  3. C o n d i t i o n s on t h e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l O p e r a t i o n s . . . . .  152  B. The B a s e - R u l e s  II.  149  153  1. Rule 1  156  2. Rule 2  157  3. R u l e 3  159  SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF "SIGN"  ....  ......  A. The S i g n  162 162  1. H y p o t h e s i s  ..........  163  ..........  163  ..........  179  ..............  184  ........  185  b) E - I n s e r t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . .  187  c) A d j e c t i v i z a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n . . . . .  188  B. C o n t e x t u a l F e a t u r e s  .  C. C a t e g o r i a l F e a t u r e s 1. C a t e g o r i a l F e a t u r e |+ a d j | a) P a s s i v e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  2. C a t e g o r i a l F e a t u r e |+ noun|  192  a) N o m i n a l i z a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  193  b) P r e p o s i t i o n I n s e r t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  200  c) N o m i n a l i z a t i o n I n s e r t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  201  xii Page D. I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e s  201  1. I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e |+ aux|  202  a) A u x i l i a r y T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  202  2. I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e |+ comp|  204  a) S u b j e c t R a i s i n g T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  • . • 205  b) Embedded S u b j e c t D e l e t i o n I T r a n s f o r m a t i o n . . . .  207  c) Embedded S u b j e c t D e l e t i o n I I T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  209  ...  3. I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e | + i n f |  210  a) I n f i n i t i v i z a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  ...  211  b) I n f i n i t i v i z a t i o n o f S u b j e c t P r o p o s i t i o n T r a n s f o r mation c) Q u e - I n s e r t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n 4. I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e |+ d e t |  ...  211  ...  212  .  a) A d j e c t i v i z a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  .....  E. R e f e r e n t i a l F e a t u r e s  214  a) I n t e r r o g a t i v e I T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  .  b) I n c o r p o r a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  216  .........  217  ......  2. R e f e r e n t i a l F e a t u r e | + imp|  b) I m p e r a t i v e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  215  ...  d) I n t e r r o g a t i v e D e l e t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  a) S u b j u n c t i v i z a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  213 214  1. R e f e r e n t i a l F e a t u r e |+ i n t g |  c) I n t e r r o g a t i v e I I T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  213  220 221  .... .  221 222  3. R e f e r e n t i a l F e a t u r e |+ neg|  223  a) N e g a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  224  b) I n c o r p o r a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  225  xi i i Pa^e 4. R e f e r e n t i a l F e a t u r e |+ f o c u s |  225  a) F o c a l i z a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  226  5. R e f e r e n t i a l F e a t u r e |+ t o p i c ]  226  a) T o p i c a l i z a t i o n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  226  6. Redundancy Rules  227  a) Tense and A s p e c t  227  b) The D e t e r m i n e r  230  F. O t h e r I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e s  ......  232  CHAPTER 5 - THE TRANSFORMATIONAL COMPONENT  I.  INTRODUCTION  236  THE TRANSFORMATIONAL CYCLE  236  A. P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . . . . .  ......  236  1. Lees and K l i m a  237  2. Ross  239  3. L a n g a c k e r  .....  4. L a k o f f 5. A d v e r b i a l i z a t i o n  241 243  ..  6. P o r t u g u e s e P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n B. R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n  ....... ..  246 252 258  1. R e f l e x i v e - P a s s i v e s  259  2. I m p e r s o n a l s  259  3. A u t o m a t i c R e f l e x i v e s  261  xiv Page C. R e l a t i v i z a t i o n  263  1. A n t e p o s i t i o n o f |+ qu|  272  2. The G e n i t i v e  277  D. EQUI-NP D e l e t i o n II.  279  THE ORDERING OF THE TRANSFORMATION CYCLE  A. R e c u r s i v e n e s s  283 .....  284  B. The O r d e r i n g o f C y c l i c R u l e s  287  C. P o s t - C y c l i c T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  288  1. The C l i t i c Pronouns  ......  I I I . COORDINATION  288 291  1. G a p p i n g T r a n s f o r m a t i o n 2. R e c i p r o c a t i o n  302 .....  3. Gerundi v i z a t i on  308 309  CHAPTER 6 - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PORTUGUESE GRAMMAR ON THE COMPUTER  I.  INTRODUCTION  312  THE COMPUTER MODEL  312  1. N o t a t i o n s  313  2. P h r a s e - S t r u c t u r e  316  3. L e x i c o n  319  1) C a t e g o r y 2) I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e s  319 319  XV  Page 3) C o n t e x t u a l F e a t u r e s  320  4) Rules  321  5) E n t r i e s  . . . .• .  4. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 5. C o n c l u s i o n  322 .......  323  •  325  BIBLIOGRAPHY  327  APPENDIX A  347  APPENDIX B  .  363  INTRODUCTION T h i s s t u d y p r e s e n t s a grammar f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the main s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s o f P o r t u g u e s e i n t h e g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t i c frame o f generative-transformational theory. The work has t h r e e i n t e r r e l a t e d p u r p o s e s . o f the c u r r e n t s t a t e o f l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y .  I s t a r t with a review  The s u r v e y i s n e c e s s a r y  i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n why I a d o p t c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s t h a t w i l l s e r v e as the t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r my P o r t u g u e s e grammar.  The  examination  o f t h i s body o f t h e o r y a l s o j u s t i f i e s , more g e n e r a l l y , t h e a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s t h a t u n d e r l i e my c o n c e p t i o n o f a f o r m a l i z e d model o f l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n . I want, s e c o n d , t o p r e s e n t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e f o r m a l model o f a grammar and t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f i t s s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s . My formal model, based on t h e s e a s p e c t s o f l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y , i s a p r i o r i , b u t t e s t a b l e a g a i n s t e m p i r i c a l phenomena.  I t has t h e common f e a t u r e s o f a  m e t a l i n g u i s t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l i n g u i s t i c elements and c l a s s e s , w i t h a m a t h e m a t i c a l , l o g i c a l and l i n g u i s t i c n o t a t i o n a l s y s t e m o f o p e r a t o r s and o p e r a t i o n s .  My g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l model i s n o n - e x c l u s i v e  i n t h a t i t s f o r m a l p o s t u l a t e s and o p e r a t i o n s i n c l u d e B o o l e a n  classifi-  c a t i o n , i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t s symbols a r e e l e c t i v e . The model p r e s e n t e d i n the t h e s i s has been shown to have the c a p a c i t y t o g e n e r a t e sentences.  I t i s a l s o a b l e t o p r e d i c t phenomena i n n o n - d e v i a n t  and t o a s c r i b e t o them a s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n . xvi  grammatical expressions  xvi i F i n a l l y , I implement my grammar model t o a computer p r o g r a m i n o r d e r t o t e s t and v e r i f y the f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f i t s s y n t a c t i c r u l e s . T h e c o m p u t e r model adopted i s the c o m p u t e r s y s t e m f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar d e v i s e d by J . Friedman.  T h i s computer model c o n s i s t s o f a grammar f o r m a t  and a l g o r i t h m f o r d e r i v i n g s e n t e n c e s .  The f e a t u r e s o f the model and the  s y s t e m i n c l u d e a formal d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s y n t a x o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar, a p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e scheme, a f o r m a t f o r the l e x i c o n and l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n a l g o r i t h m , and a language f o r s p e c i f y i n g the t r a f f i c r u l e s o f the grammar. completed  A d a p t a t i o n o f my grammar t o the computer p r o g r a m was  a t the S t a t i s t i c a l C e n t r e o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  Columbia.  The p r o g r a m was s u c c e s s f u l l y run on the IBM 360/67 o f the U n i v e r s i t y ' s Computing C e n t r e . I t i s n o t my i n t e n t i o n t o r e v i e w p r e v i o u s grammars o f  Portuguese  b e c a u s e they are m o s t l y w r i t t e n i n a t r a d i t i o n a l t h e o r e t i c a l framework. My u l t i m a t e aim i s t o w r i t e a p e d a g o g i c a l grammar o f P o r t u g u e s e . F o r t h a t p u r p o s e , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i s n e c e s s a r y as b a c k g r o u n d r e s e a r c h . Portuguese  d a t a a r e drawn from my own n a t i v e s p e a k e r ' s  o f the s t a n d a r d d i a l e c t o f L i s b o n . t o the 1973  The s p e l l i n g o f P o r t u g u e s e  t r e a t i s e o f Aoademta Luso Brasileira  de  competence i s according  Letvas.  T h i s s t u d y i s o r g a n i z e d i n the f o l l o w i n g manner.  The f i r s t  two  c h a p t e r s , as a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r e l i m i n a r y , d e a l w i t h a s p e c t s o f t h e t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar.  They p r e s e n t an i n t e r -  p r e t a t i v e s u r v e y o f the t h e o r y o f g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar from i t s o r i g i n s t o the p r e s e n t . C h a p t e r t h r e e s e t s out the reasons g o v e r n i n g the c h o i c e o f d e s c r i p t i v e methods, and examines the p r o p e r t i e s o f d i f f e r e n t g e n e r a t i v e -  xviii transformational systems.  This procedure  i s a necessary  preliminary  t o p o s t u l a t i n g the f o r m a l i t i e s o f t h e model w h i c h w i l l be used i n cons t r u c t i n g my P o r t u g u e s e grammar. Chapter four concerns  the model.  I t b e g i n s w i t h an  o f the n o t a t i o n s y s t e m w h i c h w i l l be used i n the model.  explanation  The d i s c u s s i o n  w i l l a l s o p r o v i d e p r e c i s i o n i n the f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f the s y n t a c t i c description.  The c h a p t e r , f i n a l l y , d e s c r i b e s and comments on t h e base  r u l e s and t h e s y n t a c t i c p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h compose t h e l e x i c a l s t r u c t u r e . C h a p t e r f i v e t r e a t s the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l component. the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and the c y c l i c o r d e r . f o r m a t i o n a l component c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y o f a s e t o f  It discusses The t r a n s -  transformations,  b u t i t a l s o c o n t a i n s t r a f f i c r u l e s t h a t s p e c i f y the o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e transformations are applied.  The c y c l e i s used t o group  transformations  i n t o o r d e r e d s e t s and t o a p p l y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n d i v i d u a l l y , by s e t , once, or repeatedly. C h a p t e r s i x d i s c u s s e s t h e a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e P o r t u g u e s e grammar t o the computer program.  I t e x p l a i n s the n o t a t i o n , w h i c h i s a s y s t e m  d e s c r i b e d i n a f o r m a l m e t a l a n g u a g e , and p r e s e n t s the m o d i f i e d and f i n a l i z e d form o f the P o r t u g u e s e grammar commenting on the i n n o v a t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l approach.  I t d e s c r i b e s the f o l l o w i n g p a r t s o f t h e grammar: p h r a s e -  s t r u c t u r e , l e x i c o n , and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .  The c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n o f the  grammar i s p r e s e n t e d i n A p p e n d i x A. T h i s grammar i s a d e v i c e w h i c h d e f i n e s the s e m a n t i c a l l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e deep s t r u c t u r e s and the g r a p h e m i c a l l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e f o r a set of Portuguese sentences.  When a human b e i n g  reads  xix o r s e e s a s e n t e n c e , he uses knowledge t o u n d e r s t a n d i t .  This includes  n o t o n l y grammar, b u t a l s o h i s knowledge o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r .  To  w r i t e a computer program w h i c h u n d e r s t a n d s n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e , we need t o u n d e r s t a n d what l a n g u a g e i s and what i t does.  Language can be a p p r o a c h e d  as a s e t o f m a t h e m a t i c a l r u l e s and s y m b o l s , o r as a s y s t e m i n t e n d e d t o communicate  i d e a s . The p r o c e s s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s e n t e n c e has t o combine  grammar and r e a s o n i n g i n a h i g h l y i n t e r r e l a t e d manner.  A computer  model  i s n o t a d e t a i l e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y o f how a p e r s o n i n t e r p r e t s a l a n g u a g e , b u t my work r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e may i n f a c t be a h i g h l e v e l o f i s o m o r p h i s m between t h e o r y , t h e computer grammar, and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s 1anguage.  CHAPTER 1 GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR INTRODUCTION The f i r s t c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t h e o r y o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - g e n e r a t i v e grammar.  The most i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s o f  the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l school a r e presented c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y .  I.  ORIGINS OF GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY T h i s s e c t i o n examines t h e l i n g u i s t i c p r i n c i p l e s , n o t i o n s , c o n -  c e p t s and some o f t h e weaknesses  o f generative-transformational theory  from i t s b e g i n n i n g s up t o 1965.  A.  G e n e r a t i v e Grammar The n o t i o n o f g e n e r a t i v e grammar i s based on t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l  a n a l o g y o f l a n g u a g e and f o r m a l s y s t e m .  The c o n c e p t o f f o r m a l  system  can be t r a c e d t o A r i s t o t l e ' s l o g i c , t o E u c l i d ' s a x i o m a t i c t h e o r y and to L e i b n i z ' s idea o f formal operations i n c a l c u l u s . Boole's d i s c o v e r i e s and works e s t a b l i s h e d an i n d e p e n d e n t domain f o r f o r m a l systems the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f " l o g i c " o r "mathematical  symbolic l o g i c . "  under These  f o r m a l systems have been used f o r t h e a x i o m a t i z a t i o n o f t h e o r i e s i n 1  2 s e v e r a l s c i e n c e s , and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s has h e l p e d a v o i d t h e i m p r e c i s i o n u s u a l l y found i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f a l a n g u a g e . Carnap (1934) was t h e f i r s t t o remark t h a t t h e g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e o f a formal system i s s i m i l a r to t h a t o f a "language":  "L'ensemble de s i g n e s "  c o r r e s p o n d s t o the words, the "theorems" c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e w e l l - f o r m e d s e n t e n c e s o f a l a n g u a g e , and t h e "axioms" c o r r e s p o n d to t h e f o r m a t i o n and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s o f t h e grammar ( C a r n a p , 1 9 3 4 ) H a r r i s (1951: 372-3) was t h e f i r s t l i n g u i s t t o a t t e m p t to w r i t e a grammar o f a n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e i n terms o f a f o r m a l s y s t e m .  Chomsky n e x t d e v e l o p e d t o a v e r y  high degree the n o t i o n of formalism i n a l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n . n o t i o n o f " g e n e r a t i o n " was borrowed from metamathematics l i n g u i s t i c s i n the m a t h e m a t i c a l s e n s e .  The  and was used i n  Carnap and B a r - H i l l e l t h e n s o u g h t  i n f o r m a l i z a t i o n an answer t o t h e p r o b l e m s o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f s y n t a x , w h i l e Chomsky (1951) i n s i s t e d on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l e x i s t e n c e o f an i n f i n i t y o f f o r m a l s y s t e m s , each o f w h i c h was c a p a b l e o f g e n e r a t i n g c o r r e c t s e n tences.  He a l s o a r g u e d t h a t f o r m a l i z a t i o n does n o t s o l v e any o f t h e  problems o f s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s .  Chomsky s o u g h t a f o r m a l c h a r a c t e r i -  zation of generative rules. 1 . Grammar and T h e o r y The a n a l o g y between f o r m a l s y s t e m and l a n g u a g e l e d Chomsky t o h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f a l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y , i n w h i c h t h e grammar o f t h e l a n guage i s a l s o t h e t h e o r y o f t h e l a n g u a g e .  A grammar i n t h i s c a s e i s l i k e  a f o r m a l s y s t e m , c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e a x i o m a t i z a t i o n o f a t h e o r y , w i t h axioms, d e d u c t i o n r u l e s and theorems.  I f t h e grammar i s formed on t h e a n a l o g y  o f i t s axioms and t h e r u l e s o f t h a t l a n g u a g e , i t i s a n a l o g o u s to t h e T  Carnap, however, has used t h e terms " f o r m a t i o n " and " t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e s " i n a d i f f e r e n t s e n s e o f t h e 1970s grammarians.  3  t h e o r y o f t h a t same l a n g u a g e .  Chomsky was thus a t t e m p t i n g t o d e v e l o p  a " t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e s " o r a " l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y " which w o u l d be a " u n i v e r s a l t h e o r y o f grammar." Chomsky s u g g e s t e d a f o r m a l t h e o r y t o have t h r e e p a r t s :  a) a d i s c o v e r y p r o c e d u r e f o r grammars, b) a d e c i s i o n p r o c e d u r e f o r grammars, and c) an e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e f o r grammars. discovery procedure a)  Corpus  b)  decision procedure Grammar • Yes Corpus No  Grammar  }  evaluation procedure c)  GI  GI  G2  G2  Corpus This diagram represents: A t h e o r y c o n c e i v e d as a machine w i t h a c o r p u s as i t s i n p u t and a grammar as i t s o u t p u t ; hence a t h e o r y t h a t p r o v i d e s a d i s c o v e r y p r o c e d u r e i s a d e v i c e w i t h a grammar and a c o r p u s as i t s i n p u t s , and the answers " y e s " o r "no" as i t s o u t p u t s , as the grammar i s o r i s n o t t h e c o r r e c t one; hence, i t represents a theory that provides a d e c i s i o n procedure f o r grammars. (1957:52)  4  Chomsky has argued t h a t (a) and(b) a r e too h i g h as r e a s o n a b l e g o a l s . He o p t s f o r ( c ) and emphasizes  the d e v e l o p m e n t  o f an e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e  f o r grammars, r e a l i z i n g t h a t t h i s i s the most a c c e s s i b l e g o a l . method o f a c h i e v i n g t h i s i s t h r o u g h  The b e s t  "formalism."  2. R e c u r s i v e n e s s and C r e a t i v i t y The f u n c t i o n o f a f o r m a l s y s t e m as a g e n e r a t i v e s y s t e m i s t o enumerate i t s theorems.  I f we r e v e r s e t h e p r o c e s s , c o n s i d e r i n g the  theorems as the c o r p u s , o r as e n t r y s y m b o l s , we may t r y t o c o n s t r u c t a m e c h a n i c a l p r o c e s s which i s a b l e t o c a l c u l a t e t h e d e d u c t i o n r u l e s and the axioms o f the s y s t e m .  The ensemble o f r u l e s i s c a l l e d an a l g o r i t h m .  The f a c t t h a t the e n s e m b l e o f r u l e s has an i n f i n i t e number o f o u t p u t s does n o t a l t e r t h e p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e s y s t e m w h i c h i s a b l e t o d e f i n e t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h i s o u t p u t by t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l n o t i o n o f r e cursiveness.  Chomsky makes the a n a l o g y between t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l  notion  o f r e c u r s i v e f u n c t i o n s and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f n a t u r a l l a n guages.  The f a c t t h a t each i n d i v i d u a l i s a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d an i n f i n i t e  number o f s e n t e n c e s e x p r e s s e d i n h i s n a t i v e l a n g u a g e and w h i c h he h e a r s f o r the f i r s t t i m e , l e a d s Chomsky t o d e f i n e as " c r e a t i v i t y " o r " t h e c r e a t i v e a s p e c t " o f the l a n g u a g e t h e i n t e r n a l i z e d r e c u r s i v e f u n c t i o n s t h a t the s p e a k e r has l e a r n e d (Chomsky, 1957). e v e r p r o c e s s e s an i n f i n i t e number o f s e n t e n c e s . a b i l i t y t o p r o c e s s new  sentences.  B u t i n f a c t no s p e a k e r R a t h e r , he has the  5 3. Grammaticality and Acceptability Chomsky (1956:52) says that each speaker has a guided intuition about the comprehension and production of a sentence. The degree of accepabi1ity of that sentence corresponds to its degree of grammaticality. From the formal properties of a sentence and the speaker's intuitive validation of that sentence results the notion of grammaticality. This notion exists separately from the meaning of the sentence. Grammatical autonomy excludes the notion of meaning in this theory. This does not mean that Chomsky excludes the importance of semantics in a linguistic description.  He does forsee the development of the theory formulated  on a restricted but independent base, viz the syntactic component, a development which will allow for a further expansion, in the form of the semantic component. Grammaticality is a matter of "competence," while "acceptability" is a matter of "performance."  The two are quite dis-  tinct, thus for Chomsky grammaticality determines performance.  4. Simplicity Chomsky uses grammatical "theory" as a "theory of language" that presents a double system, one intercalated to the other, keeping the interpretation of all the terms of the metalanguage used in the description of the same language. The notion of "simplicity" is based on the notion of "elegance" in a formal system or in a mathematical demonstration.  Economy is applied to the form and number of rules,  and to the degree of condensation of rules which meet the adequacy c r i terion of predictability. basis.  The simplest grammar is chosen on an empirical  The principle of "simplicity" corresponds to Hjelmslev's  6 c o n c e p t i o n (1943-1968:33) t h a t grammar i s the t h e o r y o f a l a n g u a g e , o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the l a n g u a g e , w h i c h i s p a r t o f a l i n g u i s t i c metatheory.  Grammar as a t h e o r y o r model has many p o s s i b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s .  The c r i t e r i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y w i l l h e l p c h o o s e the most e l e g a n t m o d e l . The c h o i c e i s e m p i r i c a l and i s used u n i q u e l y to compare grammars and not as an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e o f a u n i v e r s a l v a l u e .  The " s i m p l i c i t y "  c o n c e p t i s most v a l u a b l e when c o m p a r i n g grammars and does n o t c a r r y o t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n s as i n o t h e r domains (Chomsky 1970:4).  A l s o , Chomsky  equates " s i m p l i c i t y " with capturing l i n g u i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s : i . e . the " i n t u i t i o n s " o f n a t i v e s p e a k e r s . measure i s s u p p o s e d t o have e m p i r i c a l  B.  Transformational  T h u s , the e v a l u a t i o n  content.  Grammar  The n o t i o n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n came d i r e c t l y from H a r r i s ' o f d i s t r i b u t i o n (1952).  concept  Lyons (1968) p o i n t s o u t the main d i f f e r e n c e s  between the c o n c e p t s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n H a r r i s and Chomsky. 1. H a r r i s '  Transformation  H a r r i s , one o f the most i m p o r t a n t l i n g u i s t s o f the A m e r i c a n s t r u c t u r a l i s t s c h o o l , developed  a l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s c e n t r e d on the  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of elements according to t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s . In S t r u c t u r a l L i n g u i s t i c s (1951) we a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h H a r r i s ' s y s t e m . 2 Though n o t y e t w e l l d e f i n e d by H a r r i s , t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n emerges as 2  A l t h o u g h I r e c o g n i z e H a r r i s t o be t h e o r g i n a t o r o f the w h o l e n o t i o n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and h i s more r e c e n t n o t i o n s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  7  an o p e r a t i o n w h i c h p r o d u c e s a s t r u c t u r a l change w h i l e k e e p i n g i t s grammatical function.  The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f H a r r i s  1  transformation  are the following: 1) I t i s a b i - d i r e c t i o n a l and s y m m e t r i c r e l a t i o n ; 2) I t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e r e l a t i o n between t h e n u c l e u s and the o t h e r e l e m e n t s o f t h e s e n t e n c e ; 3) I t does n o t change t h e meaning: 4) A l l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 5) T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  2. Chomsky's  are optional;  can apply to parts o f sentences.  Transformation  Chomsky, who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h o f S t r u c t u r a l L i n g u i s t i c s ( H a r r i s : 1951), saw t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f H a r r i s ' s y s t e m , and h i s own r e s e a r c h on d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s l e a d l a t e r t o t h e p r e c i s e n o t i o n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . Chomsky's m a j o r o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e c o n c e p t o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w h i c h he borrowed f r o m H a r r i s , i s t h e i m p o r t a n c e he gave t o i t i n a formal system.  Chomsky i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e f o r m a l p r o p e r t i e s o f  the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ,  and i n f o r m a l i z i n g i t , he d e f i n e s and i n t e r p r e t s i t  i n a d i f f e r e n t way: 1) The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  i s integrated i n t o a generative system. I t  works from axiom t o t h e o r e m ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e o r d e r o f t h e o p e r a t i o n s i s linear.  One s t r u c t u r e s u b s t i t u t e s f o r a n o t h e r ; a member o f t h e e q u a t i o n  i s a d e r i v a t i o n o f a n o t h e r member.  as o p e r a t o r s e x p o s e d i n The M a t h e m a t i c a l S t r u c t u r e o f Language ( 1 9 6 8 ) , i t i s n o t my i n t e n t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y t o d i s c u s s H a r r i s ' work.  8 2) Chomsky o r d e r s h i s s t r u c t u r e s i n the f o r m a l s y s t e m , intermediate or non-terminal tions will  allowing  s t r u c t u r e s to which o b l i g a t o r y transforma-  apply.  3) Some o f the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a r e o b l i g a t o r y and o t h e r s a r e optional. 4) " S e n t e n c e "  i s e s t a b l i s h e d as a maximal u n i t o f a n a l y s i s , i . e .  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammars a r e s e n t e n c e  grammars.  5) The f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s s i m i l a r to the c o n c e p t used i n l o g i c by Carnap (1934:28)  "A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e f o r m u l a t e s  the c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h d e r i v e one s e n t e n c e from  another."  6) Chomsky bases the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n c o n c e p t on the c r e a t i v e p r o p e r t y o f the grammar o f a n a t u r a l  C.  language.  Chomsky and the H i s t o r y o f L i n g u i s t i c s In an a t t e m p t to c o n s t r u c t h i s t h e o r y , Chomsky uses t h e k i n d o f l o g i c  t h a t i s s i m i l a r t o metamathematics o r m e t a l o g i c , w h i l e B a r - H i 11 e l , C a r n a p , and o t h e r s , use m a t h e m a t i c a l - l o g i c a l c o n c e p t s i n l i n g u i s t i c s . proposes  He a l s o  the e x i s t e n c e o f a " c a r t e s i a n l i n g u i s t i c s " d e f i n e d i n terms o f  an " i n n a t e " p h i l o s o p h y t a k e n from D e s c a r t e s .  The n o t i o n s o f "deep s t r u c -  t u r e " and " s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e " a r e borrowed from the " P o r t R o y a l " gramm a r i a n s , and the n o t i o n o f c r e a t i v i t y o f l a n g u a g e i s borrowed from Humboldt.  1. S t r u c t u r a l i s m Chomsky d e t a c h e s h i m s e l f from s t r u c t u r a l i s m and opposes the North A m e r i c a n n e o - B l o o m f i e l d i a n s , g l o s s e m a t i c s , the P r a g u e s c h o o l and  9 i t s d i v e r s e outgrowths,  the f u n c t i o n a l s c h o o l o f M a r t i n e t , and the F i r t h i a n  s c h o o l and i t s d e v e l o p e r s .  To be s u r e , Chomsky has taken some i d e a s and  c o n c e p t s from each o f t h e s e l i n g u i s t i c s c h o o l s , b u t as remarked by  Hockett  (1968:36): Chomsky has been c o n s t r u c t i n g an e l a b o r a t e and c o h e r e n t t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e w h i c h d i f f e r s s t a r t i n g l y from any p r o p o s e d by l i n g u i s t s o r p h i l o l o g i s t s , o r by p s y c h o l o g i s t s o r p h i l o s o p h e r s , d u r i n g the l a s t hundred y e a r s o r more. By moving away from the r e s t o f us a t a w i d e a n g l e , Chomsky has a c h i e v e d a d i f ferent perspective . . . In b r i e f , Chomsky has c r e a t e d a whole new l i n g u i s t i c s c h o o l .  He  has  i n i t i a t e d a new p e r i o d i n the h i s t o r y o f l i n g u i s t i c s , as F e r d i n a n d  de  S a u s s u r e s e p a r a t e d h i m s e l f from the neo-grammarians and c r e a t e d what became u l t i m a t e l y the s t r u c t u r a l i s t s c h o o l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , Chomsky has c o n f i r m e d h i s i n d e b t e d n e s s t u r a l i s m (1970:57),  to s t r u c -  and t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n s r e v e a l e d i n h i s r e s e a r c h  p l a c e him i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e n e o - B l o o m f i e l d i a n A m e r i c a n s c h o o l . The s i m i l a r i t i e s between Chomsky's p r i n c i p l e s and t h o s e o f t h e B l o o m f i e l d i a n s have the f o l l o w i n g i n common [ H o c k e t t 1) The c o n c e p t i o n o f l a n g u a g e as a " r i g i d "  neo-  (1968:31-2)]:  system;  2) The n o t i o n o f a grammar based on the c o n c e p t i o n o f " d i s t r i b u t i o n a l segmentation"  from the p h o n o l o g i c a l m o d e l ;  3) The i d e a t h a t grammar and s e m a n t i c s s h o u l d be  separated.  These p r i n c i p l e s a r e a t t h e r o o t o f Chomsky's l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y .  In  terms o f t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s he i s a n e o - B l o o m f i e l d i a n and i s opposed t o the F i r t h i a n s , who a r e o r i e n t e d to s i t u a t i o n a l contextual!" z a t i on, and to the f u n c t i o n a l i s t s who f o c u s on l a n g u a g e as a c o m m u n i c a t i o n  system.  However, Chomsky d e v e l o p s a r a d i c a l change o f m e t h o d o l o g y b e c a u s e he  10 t r e a t s l i n g u i s t i c s n o t as an a n a l y t i c a l , e m p i r i c a l and taxonomic s c i e n c e , ' b u t as a f o r m a l d e d u c t i v e and e x p e r i m e n t a l s c i e n c e .  One o f Chomsky's  main g o a l s i n c o n s t r u c t i n g h i s t h e o r y i s t o d e m o n s t r a t e o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t methods.  the l i m i t a t i o n s  S t r u c t u r a l grammars were u n a b l e to a c c o u n t  f o r a l l t h e s e n t e n c e s o f a l a n g u a g e and t o p r o v i d e them w i t h a c o r r e c t s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n , and, f u r t h e r , ambiguous s e n t e n c e s c o u l d not be c l a r i f i e d i n an adequate manner.  D.  T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i ve S c h o o l The p r i n c i p l e s o f a new l i n g u i s t i c s c h o o l were o u t l i n e d i n t h e  preceding paragraphs.  These p r i n c i p l e s allow a double purpose:  the  a x i o m a t i z a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n o f grammars and t h e n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a model.  1. S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s Model (1957) S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s , a condensed  r e v i e w v e r s i o n o f some p a r t s  o f Chomsky's d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , exposes t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f a new l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y . 1) The c r e a t i v e a s p e c t o f a l a n g u a g e needs a r e c u r s i v e p r o c e s s , which i s c o n c e i v e d as an a t t r i b u t e o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . 2) The c o n c e p t o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y must be r e a l i z e d a t f o u r l e v e l s : a) t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l e v e l , b) t h e s y n t a c t i c l e v e l , c) the m o r p h o l o g i c a l  level,  d) the p h o n e t i c l e v e l .  11 3) The c o n c e p t o f s i m p l i c i t y needs a f o r m a l n o t a t i o n , to r e a l i z e a l l the r u l e s o f t h e grammar, w h i c h a r e o f two  types:  a) P h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s : 1. F o r m a t i o n -  xAy > xZy where A i s a unique and n o n - n u l l e l e m e n t and Z i s a s e r i e s o f elements components o f A o r a s e t o f members o f t h e c l a s s A.  b) T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s : 1.Singular -  This type of transformation i s a p p l i e d d i r e c t l y t o the k e r n e l and i t i m p l i e s one o f the f o u r o p e r a t i o n s :  adjunction, ellipse,  s u b s t i t u t i o n and p e r m u t a t i o n .  These operations  may be s y m b o l i z e d as f o l l o w s : x, + x  ?  + x  + x.  *• x l + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 (adjunction)  J  x l + x2 + x3 (ellipse) ->  x l + x2 + x3 + x5 (substitution)  • x l + x3 + x4 + x2 (permutation) T h e s e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a r e o b l i g a t o r y o r o p t i o n a l and a r e ordered. 2. G e n e r a l i z e d - T h e s e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s group two k e r n e l s i n t o one s e n t e n c e : w i l l r e s u l t one  from two s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s sentence.  The n o t a t i o n used i n a g e n e r a t i v e grammar i s as f o l l o w s : — (x)  >•  rewri te optional  12  0  zero  #  word boundary  element  e i t h e r one e l e m e n t x or y The s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n has t h e form o f a r e p r e s e n t e d by l a b e l l e d b r a c k e t s .  The nodes o f t h e p h r a s e -  marker correspond t o the l a b e l l e d b r a c k e t s . presents t h i s general  x2 Ti Tn Zi Zn  The grammar  form:  E: s e n t e n c e xl  phrase-marker,  . ..  Axiom  Phrase-structure Formation Transformational structure Morphophonemics  and Transformation Rules  I I . CONTROVERSY OVER CHOMSKY'S THEORY The comments p r e s e n t e d h e r e w i l l f o c u s on f i v e m a j o r t o p i c s . F i r s t , some m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems and some p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c o b j e c tions are discussed.  Then, t h e r e f o l l o w s a d i s c u s s i o n on t h e s t a t u s o f  autonomous s y n t a x and i t s r e l a t i o n t o s e m a n t i c s .  And f i n a l l y some t e c h -  n i c a l problems o f t h e 1957 m o d e l , and c r i t i c i s m s o f i n a d e q u a t e grammars are presented here.  13 A.  M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Problems Some l i n g u i s t s have q u e s t i o n e d t h e s c i e n t i f i c v a l i d i t y o f Chom-  sky's t h e o r i e s .  V o e g e l i n (1958:229-31)  asks how Chomsky has worked o u t  h i s t h e o r y on a b a s i s o f t h e f a c t s o f l a n g u a g e .  H a l l i d a y (1962) q u e s t i o n s  the r o l e o f i n t u i t i o n i n h i s r e s e a r c h . Dixon ( 1 9 6 3 : 1 . 1 - 3 . 3 ) , who has d e f i n e d " s c i e n c e " as "a n o t i o n w h i c h r e c o g n i z e s s t r u c t u r e s f r o m o b s e r v a t i o n s , " cannot accept s e r i o u s l y a theory which c r e a t e s f a c t s from arbitrary structures.  The F r e n c h f u n c t i o n a l i s t M a r t i n e t ( 1 9 6 8 : x i i )  remarks: En f a c e de c o n s t r u c t i o n s q u i ne s ' a p p u i e n t s u r aucune o b s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e du comportement l i n g u i s t i q u e d e s s u j e t s p a r l a n t s , q u i s e f o n d e n t s u r d e s a p r i o r i qu'on ne c h e r c h e m§me pas a j u s t i f i e r ... and F r a n p o i s  (1968:176)  . . . l a l i n g u i s t i q u e p e u t e t r e a u s s i e x p e r i m e n t a l que d e s c r i p t i v e . En r e v a n c h e , e l l e ne p e u t e t r e n i d e d u c t i v e au sens ou l ' e s t l a l o g i q u e , n i f o n d e e s u r 1 ' i n t r o s p e c t i o n . T h e s e c r i t i c i s m s a r e b a s e d on an " e m p i r i c a l " p o i n t o f view and a r e d i r e c ted t o a fundamental " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " a s p e c t o f Chomsky's  methodology,  namely t h e p r o b l e m o f i n d u c t i v e v e r s u s d e d u c t i v e p r o c e d u r e s i n t h e c o n struction of a science.  1. I n d u c t i o n - D e d u c t i o n Chomsky h a s p r e s e n t e d c o n v i n c i n g arguments showing t h e weakness and t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t s ' m e t h o d o l o g y , which i n c l u d e t h e i r i n a b i l i t y t o a c c o u n t f o r l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s p r o d u c e d by  14  transformations,  t h e l a c k o f e x p l i c i t n e s s , w h i c h would a c c o u n t f o r t h e  c r e a t i v e a s p e c t o f l a n g u a g e , and t h e l a c k o f f o r m a l i z a t i o n , s i m p l i c i t y and e x h a u s t i v e n e s s  i n t h e model.  Some s t r u c t u r a l i s t s r e a c t i n a h o s t i l e way a g a i n s t t h e demons t r a t i o n o f t h e inadequacy o f t h e i r methodology. demonstration  They i n t e r p r e t t h i s  as an a t t a c k on t h e i n d u c t i v e method as s u c h , and have  r e a c t e d by a t t a c k i n g Chomsky's d e d u c t i v e method. Once t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y  i s s t a t e d , i t must be s a i d f u r t h e r  t h a t Chomsky has n o t e x p l i c i t l y t r i e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f the i n d u c t i v e method.  The s t r u c t u r a l i s t s have n o t t r i e d , as remarked  by P o s t a l ( 1 9 6 4 a ) , t o r e f u t e t h e p r o o f s o f t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f t h e i r m e t h o d o l o g y on t h e l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l . Some o f Chomsky's f o l l o w e r s have f a l l e n i n t o the s t r u c t u r a l i s t s ' trap i n the process o f the i n a d e q u a c y o f t h e i n d u c t i v e method. e x i s t e n c e o f some n o n d e f i n e d  demonstrating  R e c o u r s e t o t h e f a c t s and t h e  axioms a r e p r e s e n t b o t h i n Chomsky's a p p r o a c h  and t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t s ' a p p r o a c h .  In my o p i n i o n , a c o m p a r i s o n o f b o t h  a p p r o a c h e s on t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l l e v e l g i v e s Chomsky a s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n on t h e l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l .  2.  Intuition Chomsky's c r i t i c s d e m o n s t r a t e a c e r t a i n m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g  some a s p e c t s o f h i s t h e o r y .  about  H a l l i d a y p o i n t s o u t t h a t Chomsky (1962:2-11)  uses t h e t e r m " i n t u i t i o n " i n f o u r d i f f e r e n t ways.  I n t u i t i o n i s thus  interpreted as: a) t h e knowledge o f t h e l i s t e n e r w h i c h e n a b l e s h i m t o r e c o g n i z e a given s t r u c t u r e belonging t o a given language;  15 b) t h e s p e a k e r ' s knowledge o f t h e grammar, e n a b l i n g him t o r e c o g n i z e the s t r u c t u r e s o f sentences a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s ; c ) a m e t h o d o l o g y which f o r m a l i z e s s t r u c t u r e s i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f a t h e o r y o f the ensemble o f the  language;  d) axioms o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a  language.  Chomsky's p o s i t i o n i s t h a t i n t u i t i o n means t h e a x i o m a t i z a t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r e s o f a language. and f o r m a l s y s t e m .  A x i o m a t i z a t i o n i s an a n a l o g y between  language  The v e r i f i c a t i o n o f the e x a c t n e s s o f t h i s a n a l o g y  c o n s i s t s i n the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e  between t h e n o t i o n o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y and  the f o r m a l n o t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y .  The n o t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y i s  p o s s e s s e d by the t h e o r e t i c i a n h i m s e l f , which i s a f a c t o r o f h i s i n t u i t i v e knowledge o f h i s l a n g u a g e . The e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s e i n t u i t i v e n o t i o n s i s a h y p o t h e s i s t h a t can be a c c e p t e d o r r e j e c t e d .  I f the hypothesis i s r e j e c t e d , then the  h y p o t h e s i s o f language as a w e l l - d e f i n e d s y s t e m has t o be r e j e c t e d as well.  3. H o c k e t t ' s C r i t i c i s m s H o c k e t t i s t h e o n l y l i n g u i s t who has a n a l y s e d Chomsky's t h e o r i e s and c o n c l u d e d t h a t l a n g u a g e was an i l l - d e f i n e d  system.  In The S t a t e o f t h e A r t ( 1 9 6 8 ) , H o c k e t t s y n t h e s i z e s h i s c r i t i c i s m s o f Chomsky's t h e o r i e s and p l a c e s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t h e o r y and h i s p o i n t o f view i n t h e c o n t e x t o f g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t i c s i n N o r t h A m e r i c a . summary o f H o c k e t t ' s arguments i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e .  A brief  16 4. An 1 1 1 - d e f i n e d  System  H o c k e t t as a d i s c i p l e o f B l o o m f i e l d f o l l o w s the l a t t e r ' s i n c o n s i d e r i n g l i n g u i s t i c s as an autonomous s c i e n c e .  Hockett  path  applies  the r i g o u r o f the phoneme p r i n c i p l e t o the o t h e r l i n g u i s t i c d o m a i n s , s u c h as morphology and s y n t a x .  T h i s d i r e c t i o n c r e a t e d the l i n g u i s t i c  movement known as " d i s t r i b u t i o n a l s c h o o l " w i t h i t s d i v e r s e s u b d i v i s i o n s , b a s e d on t h r e e i m p o r t a n t  principles:  a) Language i s a r i g i d s y s t e m ; b) The model f o r a grammar must have t h e f o r m o f " i t e m - a n d a r r a n g e m e n t " , t h i s form o f a n a l y s i s i s - c a l l e d "immediate 3  constituents"; c) S e m a t i c s and grammar a r e i n d e p e n d e n t o f each o t h e r . Hockett's  c r i t i c i s m s f o c u s on the f i r s t p r i n c i p l e o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n a l  s c h o o l w h i c h a c c e p t s l a n g u a g e as a w e l l - d e f i n e d s y s t e m .  He comments:  A w e l l - d e f i n e d s y s t e m i s any s y s t e m ( p h y s i c a l , c o n c e p t u a l , m a t h e m a t i c a l ) t h a t can be c o m p l e t e l y and e x a c t l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d e t e r m i n i s t i c f u n c t i o n s ... By a d e t e r m i n i s t i c ( o r w e l l - d e f i n e d ) f u n c t i o n we s h a l l mean any f u n c t i o n subsumed by the s t a t e d frame o f r e f e r e n c e ; t h a t i s , any f u n c t i o n comp u t a b l e i n any o f the s e v e r a l p r e c i s e s e n s e s o f t h a t t e r m d e v e l o p e d i n the t h e o r y , but a l s o any f u n c t i o n t h a t i s s p e c i f i e d with s u f f i c i e n t e x p l i c i t n e s s that i t s noncomputability can be p r o v e d w i t h i n t h e t h e o r y . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s , any s y s t e m s u b j e c t t o a c o n s t a n t c h a n g e , s u c h as a p h y s i c a l s y s t e m o r a l a n g u a g e s y s t e m , b e l o n g s t o the  category  " I t e m - a n d - a r r a n g e m e n t " i s a B l o o m f i e l d i a n t e r m used i n oppos i t i o n t o the t e r m " i t e m - a n d - p r o c e s s " ( P i k e , 1 9 6 7 : 5 4 5 - 5 6 4 ) .  17 of i l l - d e f i n e d systems.  H o c k e t t p o i n t s o u t t h a t Chomsky's m i s t a k e was  to c o n s i d e r l a n g u a g e as a w e l l - d e f i n e d s y s t e m .  T h e r e f o r e Chomsky's  a t t e m p t t o c o n s t r u c t an a l g o r i t h m i s i n e f f e c t u a l . The weakness o f H o c k e t t ' s argument a p p e a r s i n h i s a t t e m p t t o r e v e r s e the p r i n c i p l e s o f modern l i n g u i s t i c s and s u b s t i t u t e f o r them t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f the  Neogrammarians.  S a u s s u r e (1966:117) d e f i n e s s y n c h r o n y as "un e t a t de l a n g u e , " and c l a i m s t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f s y n c h r o n y "ne p e u t pas e t r e q u ' a p p r o x i m a t i v e " ( i b i d : 143) b e c a u s e a l l t h e s y n c h r o n i c systems " s o n t a p e r ^ u s p a r une conscience c o l l e c t i v e " (ibid:140).  Language i s a s o c i a l a b s t r a c t i o n  phenomenon b u t i t i s t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e s y s t e m , f o r b o t h S a u s s u r e and Chomsky. I f H o c k e t t does n o t a c c e p t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between a s y s t e m o f t h i n g s and a s y s t e m o f i d e a s , he c a n n o t a c c e p t S a u s s u r e ' s d i s t i n c t i o n H o c k e t t thus r e f u s e s t o acknowledge t h e e x i s t e n c e o f l a n g u a g e .  The  f a c t t h a t l a n g u a g e i s a c h a n g i n g l i n g u i s t i c phenomenon, a c c o r d i n g to H o c k e t t , p r o v e s t h a t l a n g u a g e i s a p h y s i c a l s y s t e m , and t h e r e f o r e i t is ill-defined.  T h i s c o n c e p t i o n was a l r e a d y f o r m u l a t e d by S a u s s u r e  with respect to p a r o l e , " l a parole f a i t evoluer l a langue " ( i b i d : 3 7 ) ^ In t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e H o c k e t t i s wrong t o c o n s i d e r l a n g u a g e as a s o l e l y spatio-temporal  system, instead o f accepting Saussure's opposition langue/  p a r o l e a t t h e s o c i a l l e v e l , o r Chomsky's o p p o s i t i o n  competence/performance,  at the psychological l e v e l . C h o m s k y and H a l l e (1968:249-289) and K i p a r s k y (1968) have f o r m u l a t e d a p o s s i b l e mode o f i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h i s n o t i o n i n a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l theory. 4  18 B.  P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Remarks We w i l l c i t e some remarks made a f t e r S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s on  the l i n k between the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l model o f l i n g u i s t i c i n t u i t i o n , and the p r o b l e m o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f grammar.  Halliday  (1962-1964) p o i n t s out t h a t Chomsky's s c h o o l t a k e s a s i n g l e d i r e c t i o n and cannot a c c o u n t f o r a c t u a l mental p r o c e s s e s . sentences  The mind  generates  as a " t r a n s m i t t e r " but a l s o a n a l y s e s them as a " r e c e i v e r . "  Uhlenbeck (1963:1-18) and Dixon (1963) a r g u e t h a t the o p e r a t i o n s needed by a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar must c o r r e s p o n d operations.  to real psychological  The p s y c h o l o g i s t s o f the B e h a v i o r a l i s t S c h o o l see Chomsky's  t h e o r i e s as based on an i n n a t e c o n c e p t i o n o f l a n g u a g e . theories e x i s t independently t o t h e domain o f p s y c h o l o g y .  Transformational  o f the i n n a t e n e s s h y p o t h e s i s , w h i c h  belongs  H a l l i d a y and U h l e n b e c k have o b j e c t e d t o  Chomsky's t h e o r y on t h e grounds t h a t i t s aim i s t o r e p r o d u c e t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l o p e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d by s e n t e n c e f o r m a t i o n i n a l a n g u a g e . B u t t h e aim o f Chomsky's model i s t o d e v e l o p a s y m b o l i c mechanism to represent language, not to e x p l a i n language.  Chomsky does n o t t r y  t o d e s c r i b e how the s e n t e n c e s S l . . . . S n a r e c o n s t r u c t e d . determine, tences.  r a t h e r , t h e b e s t s y m b o l i c way f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s e n In S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s he p o i n t s o u t t h a t a s y s t e m o f r u l e s  i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to account f o r a l i n g u i s t i c system. free rules: ZXW  XI  >- ZYW,  A system of context-  • Y l , or a system of c o n t e x t - s e n s i t i v e r u l e s : i s incomplete.  We need t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  f o r a more e f f i c i e n t a c c o u n t o f grammatical claim.  He wants t o  complexity.  system  T h i s i s Chomsky's  H i s o b j e c t i v e n e v e r has been t o p r o d u c e a grammar w h i c h  accounts  19 f o r the mental p r o c e s s e s t h a t p r o d u c e t h e s e n t e n c e s .  The p s y c h o l i n -  g u i s t i c o b j e c t i o n s t o Chomsky may be important,, b u t Chomsky c a n n o t c r i t i c i z e d f o r f a i l i n g t o do what he n e v e r i n t e n d e d t o do.  In  be  Aspects  (1965:139-140) Chomsky s t a t e s h i s p o s i t i o n : Such a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e form o f the s y n t a c t i c component may seem s t r a n g e i f one c o n s i d e r s the g e n e r a t i v e r u l e s as a model f o r t h e a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e by a s p e a k e r . Thus i t seems a b s u r d t o s u p p o s e t h a t t h e s p e a k e r f i r s t forms a g e n e r a l i z e d P h r a s e - m a r k e r by base r u l e s and then t e s t s i t f o r w e l l - f o r m e d n e s s by a p p l y i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s t o see i f i t g i v e s , f i n a l l y , a w e l l - f o r m e d s e n t e n c e . But t h i s a b s u r d i t y i s s i m p l y a c o r o l l a r y o f t h e d e e p e r a b s u r d i t y o f r e g a r d i n g the s y s t e m o f g e n e r a t i v e r u l e s as a p o i n t - b y - p o i n t model f o r the a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e by a s p e a k e r . C o n s i d e r the s i m p l e r c a s e o f a p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e grammar w i t h no t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ( f o r example, the grammar o f a programming l a n g u a g e , o r e l e m e n t a r y a r i t h m e t i c , o r some s m a l l p a r t o f E n g l i s h t h a t m i g h t be d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s e t e r m s ) . I t w o u l d c l e a r l y be a b s u r d t o s u p p o s e t h a t the " s p e a k e r " o f such a l a n g u a g e , i n f o r m u l a t i n g an " u t t e r a n c e , " f i r s t s e l e c t s the m a j o r c a t e g o r i e s , then the c a t e g o r i e s i n t o w h i c h t h e s e a r e a n a l y z e d , and so f o r t h , f i n a l l y , a t the end o f the p r o c e s s , s e l e c t i n g t h e words o r symbols t h a t he i s g o i n g t o use ( d e c i d i n g what he i s g o i n g t o t a l k a b o u t ) . To t h i n k o f a g e n e r a t i v e grammar i n t h e s e terms i s t o take i t t o be a model o f p e r f o r m a n c e r a t h e r than a model o f c o m p e t e n c e , thus t o t a l l y misconceiving i t s nature. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n s h o u l d h e l p c l e a r up any c o n f u s i o n among n o n - t r a n s f o r mational  linguists.  However, Chomsky has a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t any p e r f o r -  mance model w o u l d have t o i n c o r p o r a t e a g e n e r a t i v e grammar as an e s s e n t i a l component.  How then would the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s be i n t e r p r e t e d ?  T h e r e i s no easy answer t o s u c h a q u e s t i o n and Chomsky's q u o t e s h e d s no l i g h t on the p r o b l e m o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f grammar.  20  1. G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y Chomsky's " i n n a t e " h y p o t h e s i s t i c i s m by P i a g e t i n Le S t r u c t u r a l i s m e  has a l s o been the c e n t r e o f c r i (1968).  Chomsky had s u g g e s t e d  the o r i g i n o f l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s i n human b e i n g s c o u l d be by s o c i a l a c t i v i t y f o r m a t i o n , o r by h e r e d i t y .  that  explained,  Piaget interprets this  as a s y s t e m o f " a u t o - r u l e s " o r the i n t e r n a l - e q u i l i b r i u m o f s t r u c t u r e s , . . . l e s s t r u c t u r e s humaines ne p a r t e n t pas de r i e n e t s i t o u t e s t r u c t u r e e s t l e r e s u l t a t d'une g e n d s e , i l f a u t re'solument a d m e t t r e , au vu des f a i t s , qu'une genese c o n s t i t u e t o u j o u r s l e p a s s a g e d'une s t r u c t u r e p l u s s i m p l e a une s t r u c t u r e p l u s complexe . . . (1968:54) I t w o u l d seem t h a t l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s a r e n o t i n n a t e ; the o n l y  innate  c h a r a c t e r s a r e t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l ones w h i c h p r o d u c e l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s ; as P i a g e t (1968:76) s a y s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o . . . r e n d r e i n u t i l e 1 ' h y p o t h e s e de I ' i n n e i s t e t o u t en c o n s e r v a n t 1'ensemble du s y s t e m e e x p l i c a t i f de Chomsky . . . w h i c h means t h a t the i n n a t e h y p o t h e s i s , the t y p o l o g y o f u n i v e r a l s h y p o t h e s i s , and even t h e f o r m o f t h e m o d e l , a r e b a s i c c o n c e p t s  i n Chomsky's  theory.  C.  Autonomous S y n t a x : s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s A m a j o r c r i t i c i s m o f Chomsky's t h e o r y i s t h a t s y n t a x  autonomous w i t h i n the s y s t e m .  remains  The F i r t h i a n s c h o o l p r o p o s e s b i n d i n g  s y n t a x w i t h the c o n t e x t , the s i t u a t i o n , and w i t h the meaning o f t h e u t t e r a n c e , where each s e n t e n c e must be i n t e r p r e t e d by a l l t h e e x t r a linguistic facts.  But B l o o m f i e l d (1933) o b j e c t e d t o t h i s a p p r o a c h  21 because i t presupposes a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f a l l p o s s i b l e c o n t e x t s o f situations.  Chomsky p r o p o s e s a more modest t a s k ; f i r s t , a s y n t a c t i c  t h e o r y , f o l l o w e d by a s e m a n t i c t h e o r y .  In S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s he c e n -  t r e s t h e autonomy o f s y n t a x on the n o t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y . The v a l i d i t y o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y has been e x t e n s i v e l y d e b a t e d by l i n g u i s t s .  Some  l i n g u i s t s t r i e d t o e s t a b l i s h the o p p o s i t e view, namely t h a t o f no s y n t a x without semantics.  H i l l ( 1 9 6 1 ) , p a r t i c u l a r l y , makes up t e s t s w h i c h  w o u l d f o r c e t h e i n f o r m a n t t o say " y e s " o r "no" t o Chomsky's s e n t e n c e s , to v e r i f y a l l t h e s e n t e n c e s w h i c h Chomsky u s e s , and comes up w i t h d i f ferent c r i t e r i a  f o r t h e g r a m m a t i c a l , s e m i - g r a m m a t i c a l and  non-grammatical  s e n t e n c e s , w h i c h makes him c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y i s t o t a l l y a r b i t r a r y and s u b j e c t i v e . syntax with semantics.  H i l l seems u n a b l e t o a c c e p t a  But t h e s e t e s t s a r e n o t o f a s c i e n t i f i c n a t u r e ,  and f o r c e t h e i n f o r m a n t s t o use s e m a n t i c s .  J a k o b s o n (1963) t r i e s a l s o  to p o i n t o u t a c e r t a i n d e g r e e o f u n g r a m m a t i c a l l y i n Chomsky's s e n t e n c e s . In t h e s e s e n t e n c e s Chomsky h i m s e l f had a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d t h e c o n c e p t of d e g r e e s o f g r a m m a t i c a l n e s s , and had even e s t a b l i s h e d a h i e r a r c h y o f grammaticality.  Dixon (1963) c r i t i c i z e s t h e c o n c e p t o f " g r a m m a t i c a l  i n t u i t i o n " o f t h e s p e a k e r w h i c h r e f l e c t s h i s c u l t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t and i s p a r t o f h i s f o r m a l s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n . Chomsky's p r o p o s a l on t h e i n dependence and autonomy o f s y n t a x has a r o u s e d a s e r i e s o f o b j e c t i o n s , b e c a u s e l i n g u i s t s i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s as a r e f u s a l t o t r e a t t h e v a r i o u s problems i n s e m a n t i c s , o r n o t t o t r e a t s e m a n t i c s a t a l l . H a l l i d a y , D i x o n , L y o n s , U h l e n b e c k , and o t h e r s have a l s o c r i t i c i z e d Chomsky's o m i s s i o n o f t h e t r e a t m e n t o f " l e x i s " 5  5  in his theory.  " L e x i s " i s a t e r m f r o m t h e F i r t h i a n s c h o o l which c o v e r s a l l t h e a s p e c t s o f t h e i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e l e x i c a l e l e m e n t s ; i t i s used i n o p p o s i t i o n t o 'grammatical u n i t . '  22  Y e t , t h e l a c k o f s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t o f s e m a n t i c s does n o t e x c l u d e semant i c s from h i s theory.  In S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s , he mentions a t s e v e r a l  p o i n t s t h e need t o d e v e l o p a s e m a n t i c t h e o r y i n which s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s would p l a y t h e main r o l e ( L e e s , 1957:393).  K a t z and F o d o r (1963) f o l l o w  up S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s and t r y t o d e v e l o p a s e m a n t i c t h e o r y .  D.  Problems o f t h e S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s  Model  The t e c h n i q u e o f a n a l y s i s i s based on t h e c o n c e p t s o f t r a d i t i o n a l grammar and on A r i s t o t e l i a n l o g i c .  Chomsky chooses an a n a l y s i s o f t y p e  (a) b e c a u s e he c a n l a b e l t h e nodes w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c l a s s e s o f t h e noun-phrase (NP) and t h e v e r b p h r a s e ( V P ) , b u t n o t an a n a l y s i s o f t y p e (b) ( U h l e n b e c k , 1963).  Chomsky, however, does n o t use t h e l a b e l s NP_  and VP_ t r a d i t i o n a l l y , i .e. VP^ e q u a l s p r e d i c a t e i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar. a) 0 Manuel oompra oasas.  (Manuel buys  houses.)  \  0 Manuel oompra oasas.  a)  S  NP  Det  VP  N  V  NP  Det  N  Lyons (1958-1966) has s u g g e s t e d an improvement o v e r A r i s t o t e l i a n l o g i as a b a s i s f o r deep s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s w h i c h w o u l d be t o f o r m a l i z e the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s on the s t r u c t u r e o f p r e d i c a t e c a l c u l u s , and would p r o d u c e a s y n t a c t i c grammar as f o l l o w s : a) A g r a p h i c  representation:  S  • F (X, Y)  F  -* V  X  • NP  Y  v  N  b) A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n :  F+ X+ Y  >- X + F + Y  S  V  NP  s  NP  compra Manuel cas as  NP  V  NP  Manuel eompva casas  T h i s a p p r o a c h has been t a k e n up by s e v e r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s and has p r o v i d e d t h e bases f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e v e r s i o n s o f l i n g u i s t i c approaches:  24 1) The g e n e r a t i v e grammar o f Saumjan 2) The case grammar o f F i l l m o r e 3) The g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s A b r i e f examination  E.  (1965);  (1968);  o f McCawley  (1968).  o f Saumjan's t h e o r y i s p r e s e n t e d  Saumjan's A p p l i c a t i o n a l G e n e r a t i v e  here.  Model  The most s e r i o u s a d a p t a t i o n o f Chomsky's model i s t h e one  pre-  s e n t e d by Saumjan, w i t h i t s m o d i f i c a t i o n s : 1. The goal o f a g e n e r a t i v e grammar i s n o t t o g e n e r a t e t h e c o r r e c t sentences  o f a language, but to generate the " i d e a l s t r u c t u r e s "  o f an " i d e a l l a n g u a g e , " o f a s o - c a l l e d "genotype l a n g u a g e . " l a t i o n o f the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e the o b j e c t s o f a g e n o t y p e a "phenotype  The formu-  r u l e s w o u l d a l l o w the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  of  language i n t o objects of a natural language,  language."  2. The l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f a grammar would f o l l o w the s t r u c t u r e o f the s y s t e m s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an u n i q u e b i n a r y o p e r a t i o n , c a l l e d an "application."  T h u s , t h i s model t a k e s the name:  " A p p l i c a t i o n a l Genera-  t i ve model." 3. The a p p l i c a t i o n i s d e f i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t e r m s : " I f X i s an o b j e c t and Y i s an o b j e c t , then XY i s an o b j e c t . "  In the f o r m u l a t i o n o f my grammatical model I have a c c e p t e d Saumjan's c o n c e p t i o n o f deep s t r u c t u r e and o r i g i n a l l y wanted t o use a deep s t r u c t u r e s i m i l a r t o p r e d i c a t e c a l c u l u s , but f o r p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n s I have r e c o g n i z e d , i n deep s t r u c t u r e , the t r a d i t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s o f s u b j e c t and p r e d i c a t e . My c o n c e p t i o n o f deep s t r u c t u r e i s a compromise between the A r i s t o t e l i a n l o g i c and p r e d i c a t e c a l c u l u s .  25 4. Saumjan's model c o n s i s t s o f f o u r g e n e r a t o r s : a) The f i r s t i s an a b s t r a c t g e n e r a t o r , which g e n e r a t e s a b s t r a c t e l e m e n t s , t h e "semions" o r e l e m e n t a r y s e m i o t i c u n i t s , f o r m i n g " b u n d l e s " and " e p i s e m i o n s " o f s e m i o t i c t y p e t o which b e l o n g the " b u n d l e s o f semions."  In a phenotype  l a n g u a g e the b u n d l e o f semions  corresponds  t o c a t e g o r i e s (noun, v e r b , e t c . ) which a r e t h e e l e m e n t s o f any o p e r a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e y a r e the " o p e r a t o r s " ; t h e " e p i s e m i o n s " a r e c l a s s e s o f c o n s t i t u e n t s (noun-phrase, verb-phrase, e t c . ) .  The b u n d l e s o f semions  a r e g e n e r a t e d by axioms a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r o p e r a t i o n s : 1) i t e r a t i o n , 2) r e d u c t i o n , 3) c o n v e r s i o n , 4) c o n n e c t i o n . The a b s t r a c t s t r u c t u r e s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d a t two l e v e l s : 1) G e n e r a t o r o f words, 2) G e n e r a t o r o f s e n t e n c e s . The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t o r g e n e r a t e s a t the s e n t e n c e l e v e l a l l t h e s y n t a c t i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s which can e x i s t f o r a g i v e n s e m i o t i c s t r u c ture.  Thus a t the l e v e l o f a phenotype  l a n g u a g e we can o b t a i n a s e -  quence s u c h as " m o u n t a i n - h i g h " and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s y i e l d s t r i n g s l i k e " t h e h i g h mountain" and " t h e h e i g h t o f t h e m o u n t a i n . " z a t i o n s o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s between a  The f o r m a l i -  genotype l a n g u a g e and t h o s e  o f a n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e w i l l be r u l e s o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e which w i l l p r o v i d e a theory of the typology o f languages.  Saumjan's t h e o r y o f u n i v e r s a l s  r e q u i r e s the f o r m a l i z a t i o n which he p r o p o s e s . v  The main d i f f e r e n c e s v  between Saumjan's s y s t e m and Chomsky's a r e t h a t Saumjan p r o p o s e s : 1) A more a b s t r a c t l e v e l o f deep s t r u c t u r e ; 2) A d i f f e r e n c e between morphology and s y n t a x . The o n l y o b j e c t i o n t o Saumjan's t h e o r y o f u n i v e r s a l s i s t h a t i t  26 p r e s u p p o s e s an a n a l y s i s o f Chomsky's t y p e . p o s s i b l e t o compare the phenotype  l a n g u a g e w i t h the g e n o t y p e  i n o r d e r to i n f e r t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e r u l e s . conception  O t h e r w i s e i t w o u l d be  i s a u n i v e r s a l deep s t r u c t u r e .  im-  language  Saumjan's deep s t r u c t u r e I t i s not i d e n t i f i e d w i t h  any l a n g u a g e i n p a r t i c u l a r , nor w i t h any group o f l a n g u a g e s /  F.  C r i t i c i s m o f I n a d e q u a t e Grammars One o f t h e aims o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s has been t o j u s t i f y t h e i r  contention that other grammatical t h e o r i e s are inadequate.  Chomsky i n  S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s has proven the i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f f i n i t e s t a t e models and immediate c o n s t i t u e n t grammars.  For t h i s , he has used f o r m a l  criteria,  s u c h t h a t a model w i t h f i n i t e s t a t e s c a n n o t g e n e r a t e c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s , w h i c h a r e f r e q u e n t i n n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s , such as d i s c o n t i n u o u s " o r . . . o r , " " i f . . . t h e n , " and o t h e r s .  An IC grammar c a n n o t a c c o u n t  f o r these s t r u c t u r e s e i t h e r , except very c l u m s i l y . s i m p l i c i t y o f the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t h e s e grammars.  Postal continues  elements,  The c r i t e r i o n o f  model makes e v i d e n t the f a i l u r e o f Chomsky's l i n e o f r e s e a r c h .  In C o n s t i -  t u e n t S t r u c t u r e (1964a) P o s t a l p o i n t s out e i g h t f a i l u r e s o f an IC  theore-  t i c a l grammar:  In a d a p t i n g Saumjan's m o d i f i c a t i o n o f Chomsky's model t o the s y n t a c t i c d e s c r i p t i o n o f P o r t u g u e s e , I use p r e d i c a t e c a l c u l u s t o p o s t u l a t e a q u a s i - u n i v e r s a l deep s t r u c t u r e , a l e v e l o f deep s t r u c t u r e w h i c h i s r e l e v a n t t o more than one p a r t i c u l a r l a n g u a g e o r group o f l a n g u a g e s .  27 1) An IC grammar o f t e n g i v e s an i n c o r r e c t s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e ; as f o r example, W e l l s t r e a t m e n t  of coordination  (1947).  2) The s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e o f t e n r e q u i r e s a s e r i e s o f s y n t a c t i c i n d i c e s , and the IC grammar i s o n l y a b l e t o p r o v i d e The c l a s s i c a l example o f d i s c o n t i n u o u s and 'to p i c k the p a r c e l  one.  e l e m e n t s i s 'to p i c k up t h e p a r c e l '  up.'  3) An IC grammar i n e f f i c i e n t l y meets the s i m p l i c i t y c r i t e r i o n ; f o r example, i t f a i l s to t r e a t e f f i c i e n t l y the phenomenon o f a g r e e m e n t . 4) IC grammars do n o t a c c o u n t f o r the n o t i o n o f  'grammaticality.'  5) An IC grammar does not a c c o u n t f o r the s t r u c t u r a l between s e n t e n c e s ,  relatedness  s u c h as a c t i v e - p a s s i v e , d e c l a r a t i v e and i n t e r r o g a t i v e ,  affirmative-negative. 6) An IC grammar does n o t c o n s t r u c t the s t r u c t u r e o f the  sentence.  L o n g a c r e (1964) and Breud (1968) have t r i e d t o do t h i s , b u t end up i n systems f a r removed f r o m the r e q u i r e d l e v e l . 7) The s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s i n IC grammars do not to the c r i t e r i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y o f the t h e o r y . always the most s i m p l e  correspond  (The d e s c r i p t i o n i s n o t  one.)  8) The c r o s s - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t r e a t m e n t  o f the g r a m m a t i c a l  categories  i s too complex.  P o s t a l does n o t p r e s e n t any s o l u t i o n i n a  t i o n a l grammar.  T h i s q u e s t i o n g i v e s r i s e t o v a r i o u s d i f f e r e n t models  i n the frame o f the Chomskyan  transforma-  theory.  An IC grammar p r e s e n t i n g o n l y r u l e s o f the f o r m X  > Y cannot account  f o r the g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s o f some l a n g u a g e s .  Any u n i v e r s a l l i n g u i s -  t i c t h e o r y must a c c o u n t f o r the c o m p l e x i t i e s o f any n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e ,  28 and must t h e r e f o r e have more p o w e r f u l r u l e s than t h o s e i n d e p e n d e n t o f context.  P o s t a l uses a u n i f o r m p r o c e d u r e t o show the i n a d e q u a c y o f a  v a r i e t y o f t y p e s o f grammar i n two f o r m a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n s : a) A f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f a grammar g i v e s o n l y r u l e s o f t h e f o r m XAY  • XZY  where A i s a u n i q u e and non-nul s y m b o l , X, Y, Z a r e sequences o f s y m b o l s , Z i s n o n - n u l , A f Z.  T h e i r permutations are e x c l u s i v e .  b) N a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s have some s t r u c t u r e s which c a n n o t be t r e a t e d by t h i s t y p e o f r u l e , and thus c a n n o t be d e s c r i b e d by s u c h a grammar. U s i n g t h e s e d e m o n s t r a t i o n s , P o s t a l and o t h e r s ( P o s t a l 1964a-64b, 66a, 6 6 b ) , Gross ( 1 9 6 2 ) , Chomsky (1955, 56, 57-1969, 1964), Gaifman  (1965),  Robinson ( 1 9 6 8 ) , have p o i n t e d o u t t h e f a i l u r e o f the grammars o f B l o c h ( 1 9 4 6 ) , W e l l s ( 1 9 4 7 ) , H a r r i s (1945, 46-51, 57, 6 2 ) , H o c k e t t (1954, 55, 58, 6 1 ) , P i k e ( 1 9 6 4 ) , B a r - H i l l e l (1953, 60a, 6 0 b ) , O e t t i n g e r ( 1 9 6 1 ) , Rhodes ( 1 9 5 9 ) , H a l l i d a y ( 1 9 6 1 ) , T e s n i e r e ( 1 9 5 9 ) , M a r t i n e t (1960) and Lamb ( 1 9 6 2 ) .  I I I . AN INTEGRATED THEORY A.  The Development o f the T h e o r y D u r i n g the p e r i o d t h a t f o l l o w s S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s ( 1 9 5 7 ) ,  up t o A s p e c t s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , t h e r e a r e two k i n d s o f d e v e l o p m e n t s :  precision  on the t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , and an e x p a n s i o n o f the domain o f the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the t h e o r y which l e a d s t o the c o n c r e t i z a t i o n o f t h e s e m a n t i c component and t o a r e v i s i o n o f the m o d e l .  29 1. The N o t i o n o f "Theory" In S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y " l i m i t e d t h e l i n g u i s t i c t a s k t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f grammars. theory i s f o r m a l i z e d f o r the f i r s t time.  Grammatical  Chomsky p r e s e n t s t h i s f o r -  m a l i z e d t h e o r y and s p e c i f i e s t h e c r i t e r i a f o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a grammar. In t h e a r t i c l e "On t h e N o t i o n 'Rule o f Grammar"  1  (1961:82), he s t a t e s  that: . . the a) b) c)  . t h e t h e o r y o f grammar s h o u l d meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f f o l l o w i n g k i n d . I t s h o u l d make a v a i l a b l e : a c l a s s o f p o s s i b l e grammars G l , G2 . . . , a c l a s s o f p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c e s S I , S2 . . . , a f u n c t i o n f such t h a t f ( i , j ) i s t h e s e t o f s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e s e n t e n c e S j t h a t a r e p r o v i d e d by t h e grammar G j , d) a f u n c t i o n m ( i ) w h i c h e v a l u a t e s G j , e) a f u n c t i o n g such t h a t g ( i , n) i s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f a f i n i t e automaton t h a t t a k e s s e n t e n c e s o f ( b ) as i n p u t and g i v e s s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s a s s i g n e d t o t h e s e s e n t e n c e s by Gj ( i . e . v a r i o u s , perhaps a l l members o f f ( i , j ) ) as o u t p u t , where n i s a p a r a m e t e r d e t e r m i n i n g the c a p a c i t y o f t h e automaton.  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f "grammatical  theory" prescribes the d i r e c t i o n s o f  research i n l i n g u i s t i c s : a) I t i m p l i e s an e x a c t t h e o r y o f t h e n o t i o n o f r u l e s i n a grammar, leading to formal l i n g u i s t i c research. b) I t i m p l i e s t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a g e n e r a l i z e d p h o n e t i c a l p h a b e t j w h i c h we can f i n d i n t h e d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e t h e o r y o f J a k o b s o n . c) I t i m p l i e s t h e n o t i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y i n l i n g u i s t i c s . d) I t i m p l i e s t h e n o t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y . e) I t i m p l i e s a grammatical  theory, independent o f the a c q u i s i t i o n  models o r p e r c e p t i o n models o f l a n g u a g e , t h a t w i l l t a k e t h e f o r m o f an algorithm.  30 2. " L e v e l s o f S u c c e s s " Chomsky c a l l s t h e f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l s " l e v e l s o f s u c c e s s " i n t h e g e n e r a l framework, an i d e a l p a r a l l e l t o t h e n o t i o n o f " l e v e l s o f adequate grammars."  In the t h e o r e t i c a l frame i t i s p o s s i b l e  to p o s t u l a t e d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s f o r an adequate d e s c r i p t i o n . The l e v e l s o f adequacy i n p h o n o l o g y , s y n t a x , s e m a n t i c s , a r e d e s c r i b e d i n C u r r e n t I s s u e s i n L i n g u i s t i c s Theory ( 1 9 6 4 : 2 8 - 5 0 ) .  Chomsky c o n s i d e r s as a p r i n -  c i p a l a t t r i b u t e f o r a grammar an adequate t h e o r y o f grammatical i t y . The b e s t grammar w i l l a l s o always be t h e most " s i m p l e . " z a t i o n o f t h e s e " l e v e l s o f s u c c e s s " f o r a grammatical  The f o r m a l i -  d e s c r i p t i o n suggests  three areas of l i n g u i s t i c research w i t h i n the general theory:  grammatical  r u l e s , t h e p h o n e t i c a l p h a b e t , and the a l g o r i t h m .  These are a l s o the  three v a r i a b l e s i n a general l i n g u i s t i c theory.  The t h r e e c o n s t a n t s  i n t h i s t h e o r y a r e : grammatical i t y , s i m p l i c i t y , and c r e a t i v i t y , the l a t t e r being a universal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of natural  3. Competence and  languages.  Performance  The d i s t i n c t i o n c o m p e t e n c e / p e r f o r m a n c e i s a n o t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n which i s a r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f S a u s s u r e ' s d i s t i n c t i o n (Chomsky, 1964:52).  langue/parole  The d i f f e r e n t t e r m i n o l o g y i s e x p l a i n e d by t h e f a c t  t h a t i n a d o p t i n g a S a u s s u r i a n p r i n c i p l e , Chomsky does n o t f o l l o w t h e methodology o f S a u s s u r e ( i b i d : 5 9 - 6 0 ; 1 9 6 4 : 4 ) .  T h e r e i s , however, a  d i f f e r e n c e between Chomsky's and S a u s s u r e ' s n o t i o n which goes beyond a simple d i f f e r e n c e i n terminology. the o p p o s i t i o n l a n g u e / p a r o l e .  T h e r e i s an i m p l i c i t dichotomy  in  F o r S a u s s u r e " l a n g u e " has a d o u b l e f u n c t i o n ;  i t i s the s y s t e m o f any i n d i v i d u a l and a l s o t h e s o c i a l norm. i s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e a l i z a t i o n o f h i s " l a n g u e . "  And " p a r o l e "  Chomsky's n o t i o n o f  31 competence/performance  comprises three f u n c t i o n s :  system/norm/parole.  The competence o f t h e s p e a k e r - h e a r e r c a n , i d e a l l y be exp r e s s e d as a s y s t e m o f r u l e s t h a t r e l a t e s i g n a l s t o semant i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e s e s i g n a l s . The p r o b l e m f o r the grammarian i s t o d i s c o v e r t h i s s y s t e m o f r u l e s ; t h e problem f o r l i n g u i s t i c theory i s to d i s c o v e r general propert i e s o f any s y s t e m o f r u l e s t h a t may s e r v e as t h e b a s i s f o r a human l a n g u a g e , t h a t i s , t o e l a b o r a t e i n d e t a i l what we may c a l l , i n t r a d i t i o n a l t e r m s , t h e g e n e r a l f o r m o f l a n g u a g e t h a t u n d e r l i e s each p a r t i c u l a r r e a l i z a t i o n , each p a r t i c u l a r natural language. Performance p r o v i d e s evidence f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f competence. A t t h e same t i m e , a p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t i n compet e n c e . A t t h e same t i m e , a p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t i n competence e n t a i l s no d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e f a c t s o f p e r f o r m a n c e and t h e p r o b l e m o f e x p l a i n i n g t h e s e f a c t s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o s e e how p e r f o r m a n c e can be s e r i o u s l y s t u d i e d e x c e p t on t h e b a s i s o f an e x p l i c i t t h e o r y o f t h e competence t h a t u n d e r l i e s i t , and, i n f a c t , c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e unders t a n d i n g o f p e r f o r m a n c e have l a r g e l y been b y - p r o d u c t s o f t h e s t u d y o f grammars t h a t r e p r e s e n t competence. (Chomsky, 1966:10) The r e a l d i f f e r e n c e , however, between de S a u s s u r e and Chomsky i s t h a t de S a u s s u r e s a y s e x p l i c i t l y t h a t l a n g u e i s t h e s y s t e m o f any i n d i v i d u a l and a l s o t h e s o c i a l norm ( w h i c h i s m a n i f e s t l y i m p o s s i b l e ) and Chomsky n e v e r t a l k s a b o u t e i t h e r b u t a b o u t t h e s y s t e m o f an i d e a l i z e d s p e a k e r - h e a r e r , which i s not h e l p f u l i n s t u d y i n g the system o f a real i n d i v i d u a l or real s o c i a l norms.  B.  F u r t h e r Development o f t h e T h e o r y The m a j o r d e v e l o p m e n t i n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t h e o r y (1964) i s t o  i n c o r p o r a t e t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l and t h e s e m a n t i c components w i t h i n a l i n guistic description.  T h e s e two components were b r i e f l y m e n t i o n e d i n  S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s , but not s p e c i f i e d .  F i r s t , Chomsky c o n s i d e r e d  t h e s t u d y o f s e m a n t i c s t o be i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e s t u d y o f grammar, b u t he d i d n o t e x c l u d e a s e m a n t i c component from h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f a g e n e r a t i v e grammar.  He c o n s i d e r e d t h e mechanisms o f the s y n t a c t i c component  as b a s i c t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e d t h e p r e l i m i n a r y f o u n d dations f o r the development o f a general theory o f semantics.  32 K a t z and F o d o r (1963-1966) f o l l o w up Chomsky's r e s e a r c h on s y n tax.  They c o n s i d e r S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s as the b a c k g r o u n d f o r t h e i r  s k e t c h on a t h e o r y o f s e m a n t i c s ,  i n an a t t e m p t t o f o r m u l a t e the  component f o r the g e n e r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  1.  semantic  theory.  The S e m a n t i c Component K a t z and Fodor (1963-1964) p r e s e n t the t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s  i n t h e i r a r t i c l e , "The S t r u c t u r e o f a S e m a n t i c T h e o r y . " the f i r s t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o s e m a n t i c s framework.  i n the g e n e r a t i v e  T h i s work p r e s e n t s transformational  The a u t h o r s p r o p o s e t o i n t e g r a t e a s e m a n t i c t h e o r y i n t o a  g e n e r a t i v e grammar.  The r e s u l t i n g i n t e g r a t e d t h e o r y i n c o r p o r a t e s  the  p h i l o s o p h e r s ' a p p r o a c h , on one hand, and the p s y c h o l o g i s t s ' and  the  l i n g u i s t s ' , on the o t h e r , and attempts  semantics.  The u p p e r l i m i t o f s e m a n t i c s  to l o c a t e the l i m i t s of  i s the c o n t e x t o f s i t u a t i o n . T h i s d e t e r -  m i n a t i o n makes e x p l i c i t t h a t s e m a n t i c s  i s n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e change  o f meaning from s o u r c e s beyond t h e s e n t e n c e l e v e l i n a l i n g u i s t i c e n v i r o n ment, o r beyond the word i n a s i t u a t i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t .  This l i m i t a t i o n  has the p u r p o s e o f a v o i d i n g the p r o b l e m t h a t r i s e s from c o n n o t a t i o n r e f e r e n c e phenomena.  The l o w e r l i m i t o f s e m a n t i c s  and  i s grammar, as s t a t e d  i n the c o n t r o v e r s i a l s u b - t i t l e o f the a r t i c l e , " l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n minus grammar e q u a l s s e m a n t i c s . "  The s e m a n t i c component c o m p r i s e s  a  d i c t i o n a r y which provides several kinds of information: a) the grammatical  c a t e g o r i e s (noun, verb . . . ) ;  b) t h e s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s o r m a r k e r s ( i n p a r e n t h e s e s ) ; c) t h e d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s o r d i s t i n g u i s h e s ( i n b r a c k e t s ) ; d) the c o n t e x t u a l  features.  33  The famous example o f Katz and Fodor (ibid.:500) i s r e p r o d u c e d h e r e f o r convenience. Bachelor  Noun (Animal) [who has t h e f i r s t o r 1 owest academic degree]  (Male)  [who has never married]  (young)  [young k n i g h t s e r v i n g under the standard of another knight]  (Male)  (young)  [young f u r s e a l when w i t h o u t a mate d u r i n g t h e breeding time]  T h i s example does n o t show t h e c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s . They a r e added when a word has a s p e c i a l i z e d meaning i n a c e r t a i n c o n t e x t o f s e m a n t i c features.  One example i s h o n e s t , which i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t [+ f e m a l e ]  t a k e s t h e g e n e r a l meaning o f v i r t u o u s p l u s t h e s e n s e o f c h a s t e .  The  c h o i c e o f f e a t u r e s f r o m t h e d i c t i o n a r y i s o n l y one s t a g e f o r t h e meaning of the sentence.  The p r o b l e m i s how t o s e l e c t among t h e p o s s i b l e com-  b i n a t i o n s o f f e a t u r e s and how t o r e j e c t t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s w h i c h l a c k meaning.  To s o l v e t h i s p r o b l e m K a t z and F o d o r i n c l u d e i n t h e s e m a n t i c  component a s y s t e m o f two P r o j e c t i o n R u l e s .  Type one i n t e r p r e t s b a s i c  34 sentences.  Type two t r e a t s s e n t e n c e s embedded by t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s .  The q u e s t i o n now i s t o e s t a b l i s h i f t h e s e n t e n c e s r e s u l t i n g from t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s c a r r y the same meaning as b e f o r e the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , t h a t i s , w h e t h e r t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s p r e s e r v e meaning o r w h e t h e r t h e y add somet h i n g to the sentence.  The works o f Lees and K l i m a (1963) and t o a Q  c e r t a i n e x t e n t Chomsky (1957 ) ,  suggest that transformations are  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e r e c u r s i v e n e s s i n n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s , and a l s o f o r o t h e r phenomena, such as n e g a t i o n , i n t e r r o g a t i o n , and the l i k e .  Katz  and Fodor a r e f o r c e d t o admit t h a t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a f f e c t i n an  impor-  t a n t way the meaning o f the s e n t e n c e .  The P r o j e c t i o n - r u l e s o f  type-two  work on t h e t y p e - o n e , t o p r e s e r v e t h e meaning o f t r a n s f o r m e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s , w o r k i n g on the o u t p u t o f a s y n t a c t i c d e s c r i p t i o n ( K a t z and Fodor, 1964:506). Sentence VP  NPc PI  P2  P3  NPc PI  Nc P4  P5  °In Chomsky ( 1 9 5 7 ) , T - r u l e s d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e r v e meaning. But by 1965 he had adopted t h e K a t z and P o s t a l p o s i t i o n and h i s r u l e s then d i d p r e s e r v e meaning.  35 Where PI  P5 a r e s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s , t h e P r o j e c t i o n - r u l e s com-  b i n e t h e groups o f p o s s i b l e f e a t u r e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s y n t a c t i c s t r u c ture.  Then, i n t h e above example, PI + P2 and P4 + P5 become PI + (P4 +  P5) and P3 + (PI + (P4 + P5)) as t h e p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e s e n t e n c e o f t h e form (PI + P2) + (P3 + (PI + (P4 + P 5 ) ) ) . The o n l y s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s r e t a i n e d a r e t h o s e c o m b i n a t i o n s w h i c h do n o t show mutual e x c l u s i o n o f t h e k i n d m a l e / f e m a l e , c o n c r e t e / a b s t r a c t . A n o t h e r a s p e c t o f t h a t work i s t o e l a b o r a t e a s e m a n t i c "metat h e o r y , " w h i c h can be p l a c e d i n t h e framework o f Chomsky's l i n g u i s t i c theory.  The immediate g o a l s o f K a t z and F o d o r a r e t o d i s c o v e r t h e u n i -  v e r s a l s o f a s e m a n t i c t h e o r y , f o l l o w e d by some e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a w h i c h w i l l a l l o w us t o c h o o s e between two o r s e v e r a l t h e o r i e s o f meaning f o r n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s . K a t z and Fodor do n o t i n t e n d t o d e s c r i b e how t h e listener  u n d e r s t a n d s t h e meaning o f a g i v e n s e n t e n c e i n a g i v e n l a n g u a g e . The s h o r t c o m i n g s o f K a t z and F o d o r ' s work a r e w e l l known and  have e l i c i t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e c r i t i c i s m s , i n p a r t i c u l a r by B a r - H i l l e l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , and W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 6 6 ) .  K a t z and F o d o r ' s b a s i c m i s t a k e i s t h e i r i n s i s t a n c e  on c a l c u l a t i n g t h e meaning o f a s e m a n t i c u t t e r a n c e b a s e d on B o o l e a n conditions of analysability.  K a t z and F o d o r ' s s e m a n t i c t h e o r y p r e s u p p o s e s  the s y n t a c t i c component o f S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s , w h i c h i s i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e s e m a n t i c component, b u t w h i c h s u b o r d i n a t e s t h e s e m a n t i c s t o t h e syntax output. theory. an  Then t h e y t r y t o r e l a t e s y n t a c t i c t h e o r y t o s e m a n t i c  T h i s i s a l s o the goal o f K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) i n d e v e l o p i n g 9  "integrated theory of l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n . "  Chomsky s t a t e s t h a t  g A s i m i l a r c o r r e l a t i o n t a k e s p l a c e between s y n t a x and p h o n o l o g y ( H a l l e and Chomsky, 1968).  36 p r e v i o u s s e m a n t i c s c h o o l s have n o t t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t t h e i n f e r e n c e o f s y n t a x a t t h e l e v e l o f meaning and  have  c o v e r e d t o o l a r g e a domain,  t r y i n g t o a c c o u n t f o r a l l c o n t e x t s and a l l s i t u a t i o n s .  C.  The I n t e g r a t e d T h e o r y K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) make t h e f i r s t a t t e m p t i n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  grammar t h e o r y t o p r e s e n t a model w h i c h c o n s i d e r s t h e t h r e e t r a d i t i o n a l domains o f l i n g u i s t i c s , t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l , s y n t a c t i c and s e m a n t i c components.  T h i s model w i l l be t h e f o c u s f o r t h e c o m p a r i s o n  with post-1964 t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l developments.  The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  o f t h e model a r e : t h e s y n t a c t i c component s u p p l i e s f o r each s t r i n g one o r more s y n t a c t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s g i v e n by a p h r a s e - m a r k e r , t o w h i c h a r e a p p l i e d the transformation r u l e s .  The p h r a s e - m a r k e r , w h i c h i s p r o d u c e d  by t h e base r u l e s , c o n t a i n s g r a m m a t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s . a r e t h e morphemes o f t h e l a n g u a g e . tains transformation rules. phrase-markers.  Its terminal  symbols  The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l component c o n -  T h e s e w i l l p r o d u c e a s e r i e s o f new,  The t e r m i n a l symbols a r e the f o r m a t i v e s . ^  derived  Each t r a n s -  f o r m a t i o n i s a s e r i e s o f formal o p e r a t i o n s b e l o n g i n g t o one o f t h e f o u r c l a s s e s o f p r o c e s s e s : s u b s t i t u t i o n , e l l i p s e , a d j u n c t i o n , and p e r m u t a t i o n . The u n d e r l y i n g p h r a s e - m a r k e r s a r e f i n i t e i n number, b u t t h e d e r i v e d structures are i n f i n i t e .  T h i s means t h a t t h e r e c u r s i v e o r c r e a t i v e  p r i n c i p l e s o f natural languages are a s c r i b e d to the r o l e o f t r a n s f o r mations, i n p a r t i c u l a r to the g e n e r a l i z e d transformations.  The f u n c t i o n  ^ ° T h i s t e r m i s borrowed f r o m B o l i n g e r (1948) ( c f . Chomsky, 1964).  37 o f the g e n e r a l i z e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i s t o embed one p h r a s e - m a r k e r i n another. The s e m a n t i c component has an i n t e r p r e t a t i v e f u n c t i o n .  I t con-  t a i n s one d i c t i o n a r y and two t y p e s o f p r o j e c t i o n - r u l e s . The f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e p r o j e c t i o n r u l e s i s t o e l i m i n a t e a l l the i n c o m p a t i b l e combinations of features.  The f i r s t t y p e e l i m i n a t e s the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s o f  the u n d e r l y i n g p h r a s e - m a r k e r s ,  w h i l e the s e c o n d t r e a t s the p r o d u c t s  o f the g e n e r a l i z e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .  The p h o n o l o g i c a l component has  t h r e e groups o f r u l e s w h i c h a r e a p p l i e d t o the p h r a s e - m a r k e r , w h i c h i s the o u t p u t o f the s y n t a c t i c component, t o g i v e i t a p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a tion.  The e s s e n t i a l m o d i f i c a t i o n i n Katz and P o s t a l ' s model i s t o d i s -  c a r d the d i s t i n c t i o n between e l e m e n t a r y transformations.  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and g e n e r a l i z e d  The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s w h i c h a f f e c t the meaning o f t h e  s e n t e n c e such as the p a s s i v e , the n e g a t i v e , the i m p e r a t i v e , the i n t e r r o g a t i v e and embedded p h r a s e - m a r k e r s  prove that the g e n e r a t i v e t r a n s f o r -  mation o f t h e s e elements causes n e e d l e s s c o m p l i c a t i o n s .  A s i m p l e r grammar  w o u l d t r e a t them as language u n i v e r s a l s - t h e y would be e q u i v a l e n t t o grammatical  categories.  This i s a methodological d e c i s i o n which brings  out c e r t a i n i m p l i c a t i o n s : 1) The r e c u r s i v e n e s s o f the language i s no l o n g e r i n the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s ; t h e embeddings o f p h r a s e - m a r k e r s  a r e r e a l i z e d by  one o r s e v e r a l s y n t a c t i c r u l e s o f the f o l l o w i n g t y p e :  where # . . . . # a r e the b o u n d a r i e s o f the embedded s e n t e n c e .  38  The s e q u e n c e o f u n d e r l y i n g p h r a s e - m a r k e r s i s c o n s i d e r e d  infinite.  2) The T-marker n o t i o n d i s a p p e a r s ; a l l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  are con-  s i d e r e d s i n g u l a r l y and made up o f one o r s e v e r a l o p e r a t i o n s o f t i o n , e l l i p s e , s u b s t i t u t i o n or  adjunc-  permutation.  K a t z and P o s t a l c o n s i d e r e d t h e f i r s t p o s s i b i l i t y b u t  concluded  i n f a v o r o f the s e c o n d . W i t h a l l t h e s e m o d i f i c a t i o n s K a t z and P o s t a l ' s model p r e s e n t s t h i s  de-  f i n i t i v e schema ( i b i d : 161). D e s c r i p t i o n o f Language L S y n t a c t i c Component  Phonological  S y n t a c t i c Rules and L e x i con  ±  Phonological  Component rules  S e m a n t i c Component  The a d v a n t a g e o f t h i s model i s t h a t i t a l l o w s f o r the c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the n o t i o n o f l a n g u a g e u n i v e r s a l s .  K a t z and P o s t a l d i s t i n -  g u i s h between " f o r m a l u n i v e r s a l s , " o r t h e u n i v e r s a l s w h i c h d e c i d e the f o r m o f a grammar ( i . e . t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  r u l e s ) and " s u b s t a n t i v e  on uni-  v e r s a l s , " o r the u n i v e r s a l s w h i c h d e c i d e on the s u b s t a n c e o f a grammar ( i . e . the p h o n e t i c o r s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s and the t e r m i n a l c a t e g o r i e s  of  the s y n t a c t i c r u l e s : i n t e r r o g a t i o n , n e g a t i o n , wh, s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s ) . W i t h the i n t e g r a t e d t h e o r y , K a t z and P o s t a l s u g g e s t a r e f o r m u l a t i o n the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  subcomponent o f a grammar.  of  T h i s p r o p o s a l aims t o •  39  i n c o r p o r a t e i n t o the framework o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar a s e m a n t i c component which w i l l p r o v i d e a s e t o f r e a d i n g s f o r t h e s e n t e n c e s by the s y n t a c t i c component.  generated  They p r o p o s e t h a t the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l sub-  component s h o u l d not i n v o l v e any changes i n meaning.  In t h a t c a s e ,  the deep s t r u c t u r e and a l l t h e meaning c o n t e n t comes from t h e p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e r u l e s , and t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s s e r v e t o c o n v e r t the deep s t r u c t u r e i n t o the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e . In o r d e r t h a t the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l subcomponent not change meaning, however, two b a s i c changes a r e n e c e s s a r y . F i r s t , o p t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s must not a l t e r meaning o f the deep s t r u c ture.  S e c o n d , g e n e r a l i z e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s must be e l i m i n a t e d c o m p l e t e l y .  S i n c e such f o r m a t i o n s as q u e s t i o n s , i m p e r a t i v e s , and p a s s i v e s were e a r l i e r o b t a i n e d by t h e use o f o p t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and were meaning c h a n g i n g , t h e s e f o r m u l a t i o n s must be r e v i s e d . I f the e l i m i n a t i o n o f g e n e r a l i z e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i s r e a l i z e d , a n o t h e r change must o c c u r i n t h e p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e r u l e s . S i n c e one r e a s o n f o r h a v i n g g e n e r a l i z e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s was t o p r o v i d e f o r emb e d d i n g s which l e d t o r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , t h e r e c u r s i v e d e v i c e now  has  t o be i n s e r t e d i n the p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e t o g e n e r a t e such s t r u c t u r e s . Then, t h e o b l i g a t o r y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e s can use t h e r e c u r s i v e S t o p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y changes t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e embeddings.  The r e s u l -  t i n g o b l i g a t o r y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s are i n f a c t not too d i f f e r e n t i n form from the e a r l i e r g e n e r a l i z e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .  With t h e s e c h a n g e s ,  the  s e m a n t i c component t a k e s as i t s i n p u t the o u t p u t o f t h e p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e r u l e s . In t h i s way t h e r e i s no need f o r the s e m a n t i c component t o be c o n c e r n e d w i t h the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .  40 The s e m a n t i c component p r o p o s e d by K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) i s an e x t e n s i o n o f t h a t p r o p o s e d by Katz and F o d o r , i n "The S t r u c t u r e o f a Semantic Theory" (1963).  D.  A s p e c t s o f the T h e o r y o f S y n t a x  (1965)  The A s p e c t s model p r e s e n t s some t e r m i n o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s and s o l i d i f i e s t h e n o t i o n o f t h e b a s e ; i t d e f i n e s more c l e a r l y t h e l i m i t s o f p e r f o r m a n c e and competence. i s based on competence,  Chomsky c l a i m s t h a t h i s g e n e r a t i v e grammar  and a t t e m p t s t o c o r r e c t t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s o f t h e  t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e c u r s i v e p r i n c i p l e as t h e c r e a t i v e aspect of language.  The m e t a t h e o r y p r e s e n t e d i n A s p e c t s makes an ex-  p l i c i t f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f the f o l l o w i n g n o t i o n s : 1) t h e l e v e l o f a d e q u a t e grammars  (ibid:§4:18-27;  §6:30-37); 2) the u n i v e r s a l t h e o r y ( § 5 : 2 7 - 3 0 ) ; 3) t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f p r o c e d u r e s ( § 7 : 3 7 - 4 7 ) ; 4) t h e b e h a v i o n " s t / r a t i o n a l i s t a c q u i s i t i o n  models  (§8:47-59); 5) t h e s t r o n g / w e a k g e n e r a t i o n power ( § 9 : 6 0 - 6 2 ) . 11 T h i s work a l s o i n c l u d e s an i n n o v a t i o n : s u r f a c e / d e e p s t r u c t u r e s . These c o n c e p t s a r e u s e f u l i n the two l e v e l s which c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e model, b u t i n t h e o p i n i o n o f some c r i t i c s t h e two c o n c e p t s do n o t T h i s t e r m i n o l o g y i s borrowed f r o m H o c k e t t (1958) a c c o r d i n g t o Chomsky (1964:84).  41 p r o v i d e any t h e o r e t i c a l c h a n g e s .  The c o n c e p t s  o f deep and s u r f a c e s t r u c -  t u r e s do n o t a f f e c t the f u n c t i o n nor the p o s i t i o n o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e components o f the g e n e r a l model. a r e n o t c o n n e c t e d to any h y p o t h e s i s t o the a c t o f s p e e c h .  The two l e v e l s o f s t r u c t u r a l i z a t i o n of psychological processes  leading  Chomsky has i n s i s t e d on the " n e u t r a l " s t a t u s o f  h i s model i n r e g a r d t o the s p e a k e r and the l i s t e n e r . In p o s t u l a t i n g the s u r f a c e and deep l e v e l s o f s t r u c t u r e Chomsky f o r m u l a t e s r e l a t i n g t o the s t r u c t u r e .  a  hypothesis  The f u n c t i o n o f t h i s s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r s w i t h  the a s p e c t s o f l a n g u a g e t h a t i t has t o a c c o u n t f o r .  The A s p e c t s  model  presents four d i s t i n c t i v e notions: 1) R e c u r s i v e n e s s  - recursiveness  i s an e x c l u s i v e  property  o f the base r u l e s and i s d i s t i n c t f r o m the r u l e s w h i c h a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e deep s t r u c t u r e s ; 2) R u l e t y p e - the deep s t r u c t u r e r u l e s do not have any  trans-  formations; 3) S e m a n t i c s - the p r i n c i p l e t h a t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  do not  a f f e c t the meaning o f the s e n t e n c e c o n f i n e s s e m a n t i c s t o the deep s t r u c t u r e ; 4) L e x i c o n - s i n c e s e m a n t i c s i s c o n f i n e d t o the b a s e , t h e l e x i c o n must be i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e . In A s p e c t s o f the T h e o r y o f S y n t a x  Chomsky has a d o p t e d and  expanded t h e p r o p o s a l s o f K a t z and F o d o r ( 1 9 6 3 ) , and K a t z and P o s t a l (1964).  He f u r t h e r s u g g e s t s  the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f s y n t a c t i c d i s t i n c t i v e  f e a t u r e s , and p r o p o s e s t h a t the p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e component be by a base component w h i c h has two t y p e s o f r u l e s , the b r a n c h i n g  replaced and  42 the s u b c a t e g o r y z a t i o n r u l e s . PS r u l e s . grammatical  The b r a n c h i n g r u l e s a r e l i k e the e a r l i e r  The s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n r u l e s s e r v e t o r e w r i t e a l e x i c a l o r c a t e g o r y as a s e t o f f e a t u r e s by means o f the n o t i o n o f a  complex symbol ( C S ) .  When an e l e m e n t i s r e w r i t t e n as a CS i t i s a s s i g n e d  the s e t o f c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s w h i c h c o - o c c u r w i t h t h a t e l e m e n t u n d e r the dominance o f the i m m e d i a t e l y  p r e c e d i n g node.  W i t h the A s p e c t s model Chomsky a t t a c k s the c o m p l i c a t e d o f c r o s s - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , b u t does n o t s o l v e them.  problems  The f o r m u l a t i o n o f  t h i s model p r o v i d e s a much s h o r t e r s e t o f base r u l e s than the e a r l i e r PS r u l e s , s i n c e w i t h i n the new s y s t e m , the l e x i c o n i s a s p e a r a t e  part  o f the b a s e , r a t h e r than a s e t o f l o w - l e v e l p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e r u l e s . The l e x i c o n i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be an u n o r d e r e d c o n t a i n s p h o n o l o g i c a l , s y n t a c t i c , and s e m a n t i c  set of e n t r i e s .  Each e n t r y  features.  1. The N o t i o n o f Grammatical i t y The r e a l goal o f A s p e c t s i s the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the m o d a l i t i e s of grammaticality.  B a s e d on a f r a g m e n t o f a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  grammar  o f E n g l i s h , Chomsky wants t o g e n e r a l i z e c e r t a i n n o t i o n s w h i c h w o u l d b r i n g changes t o t h e u n i v e r s a l model.  A grammar such as the one  present  i n S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s , o r c o n s t r u c t e d a f t e r the Katz and P o s t a l m o d e l , would g e n e r a t e c o r r e c t s e n t e n c e s  ( 1 9 6 5 : 7 6 ) : " S i n c e r i t y may f r i g h t e n the  boy," but would a l s o g e n e r a t e i n c o r r e c t s e n t e n c e s admires the boy." o f the second  type.  such a s : " S i n c e r i t y  Y e t a grammar must a v o i d the g e n e r a t i o n o f  sentences  43  Chomsky p r o p o s e s two l e v e l s o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y b e s i d e s t h a t o f the c a t e g o r i e s a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e base r u l e s o f s y n t a c t i c s t r u c tures.  The f i r s t l e v e l o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y i s a l r e a d y w e l l d e f i n e d i n  t h e t r a d i t i o n a l grammars; Chomsky names i t t h e l e v e l o f " s u b c a t e g o r i e s , " i . e . , t h e s u b c l a s s e s o f nouns: a n i m a t e , c o u n t a b l e , a b s t r a c t , e t c . , and the v e r b s : t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e .  The second l e v e l o f grammati-  c a l i t y r e f e r s t o some p r e d i c a t e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e verbs r e q u i r i n g an argument t o b e l o n g t o a g i v e n s u b - c a t e g o r y , such as t h e v e r b s i n g which needs an animate s u b j e c t , and t h e verb i n v e n t which needs an i n a n i m a t e complement.  This restriction i s called "selectional."  Having d e f i n e d  t h e s e two l e v e l s o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y , Chomsky p r o p o s e s s e v e r a l ways t o i n c o r p o r a t e them i n t h e grammar.  He a l s o examines t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s  o f t h e t h r e e p r o p o s e d s o l u t i o n s , s h o w i n g t h e advantages  o f each one.  He thus opens up s e v e r a l ways t o p u r s u e r e s e a r c h , b u t a t t h e same time he has c r e a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n f u s i o n among l i n g u i s t s . the f o l l o w i n g fragment o f grammar  He p r e s e n t s  (Aspects:106-107):  2. An I l l u s t r a t i v e Fragment o f t h e Base Component 1)  S  • NPPredicate-Phrase  2)  Predicate-Phrase  CopulaPredicate ( (NP)(Prep-Phrase)  3)  4) 5)  >• AuxVP ( P l a c e ) (Time) (Prep-Phrase)  (Manner)  Predicate  Predicate Prep-Phrase  (Adjective ? * } ( l i k e ) Predicate-Nominal J — > D i r e c t i o n , Duration, P l a c e , Frequency, e t c .  44 6)  V  *- CS  7)  NP  8)  N  9)  [+ D e t  10)  [+ Count] —  11)  [+ N, +  12)  [+ A n i m a t e ]  13)  [- Count]  14)  + V]  where CS = a Complex  Symbol  >• ( D e t ) N ( S ' ) • CS ]  • [+ Count] [+_ A n i m a t e ] ]  > [+ A n i m a t e ] • [+ Human] • [+ a b s t r a c t ] ( D e t ) 3 , where a i s an N and  >• CS/aAux  3  15)  Adjective  16) 17)  Aux Det  18)  Article  i s an N  > CS/a >• Tense (M) ( A s p e c t ) *• ( P r e - A r t i c l e of) A r t i c l e ( p o s t - A r t i c l e ) • [+ D e f i n i t e ]  The l e x i c a l e n t r i e s a r e marked by a s e r i e s o f s u b c a t e g o r y f e a t u r e s , as f o l l o w s  (ibid:107):  S i n c e r i t y [+ N, + Det Boy  [+ N, + Det  F r i g h t e n [+ V, +  , - Count, A b s t r a c t , ...]  , + Count, + A n i m a t e , + Human, ...] NP, + [+ A b s t r a c t ] Aux  Det [+. A n i m a t e ] ,  + O b j e c t - d e l e t i o n , ...] May [+ M  ]  a) S o l u t i o n I ( A s p e c t s : 8 4 - 1 0 6 ) T h i s s o l u t i o n has t h e p u r p o s e o f i n t r o d u c i n g  subcategorization  and s e l e c t i o n a l r u l e s by means o f r e w r i t i n g t h e r u l e s o f t h e b a s e . The  45 base-rules will generate a sequence of elements, among which there will be CS, composed of bundles of subcategory features.  A lexical rule,  illustrated below, allows the insertion of lexical entries only where the features of the entry agree with those of the generated Complex Symbol.  If Q is a Complex Symbol of a preterminal string, and (D,C)  an entry in the lexicon, where C is not different from Q, then C may replace Q.  b) Solution II (Aspects:120-123) This hypothesis places the subcategory rules in the lexicon. The base component will be composed only of rules of categorization, whose function will be to determine the primary grammatical relations and to attribute to these grammatical relations a linear order.  Thus,  component will be completed by a complex lexicon, where each entry will be of the form: (D,CS), where D is a matrix of phonological features and CS, a complex symbol, i . e . , a sequence of semantic and syntactic features.  The syntactic features will be of two kinds:  1) Subcategorical rules, simplied by redundancy rules; 2) Selectional rules, expressed in terms of subcategorical or categorical contexts. A lexical entry such as boy will contain the feature [+ human], and implied by a redundancy rule -the following sequence of features: |[+ animate], + [count], + N|.  The lexical entry may by means of lexi-  cal rule replace a preterminal symbol |+ N|.  In this way, the entry  frighten will contain the features | [+ abstract] Aux implying |+ N| [+ animate].  Det [+ animate]j ,  This verb can only appear in the context  46 |+ N  Det + N|, where N's c o n t a i n s the f e a t u r e s [- a b s t r a c t ] and  [+  animate]- r e s p e c t i v e l y .  c) S o l u t i o n III (Aspects:156-160) In e x a m i n i n g the f o l l o w i n g  sentences:  1. " I t i s n o n s e n s e t o speak o f ( t h e r e i s no such a c t i v i t y as) frightening sincerity," 2. " S i n c e r i t y i s n o t the s o r t o f t h i n g t h a t can be f r i g h t e n e d , " 3. "One c a n ( n o t ) f r i g h t e n s i n c e r i t y , " Chomsky p r o p o s e s t o i n c o r p o r a t e the s e l e c t i o n a l r u l e s (which  contain  f e a t u r e s o f s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ) i n t o the s e m a n t i c component.  It is evi-  d e n t t h a t the p r e s e n c e o f s e m a n t i c e l e m e n t s such as " i t i s n o n s e n s e " a l l o w s one t o a c c e p t as grammatical j e c t e d by s o l u t i o n s I and I I .  some s e n t e n c e s w h i c h w o u l d be r e -  A c c o r d i n g t o Chomsky, i t i s t h e r e f o r e p o s s i -  b l e to allow f o r the generation of these s t r i n g s d i r e c t l y i n the s y n t a c t i c component, w h i c h i s n o t v e r y c o n v i n c i n g .  I b e l i e v e t h a t i t w o u l d be p o s s i b l e  t o keep t h e s e s e n t e n c e s , though they w o u l d have t o be marked as i n c o r r e c t a t the s e m a n t i c l e v e l . o f e v e r y grammatical  T h i s i s a s t r a n g e argument b e c a u s e the r e t e n t i o n  s e n t e n c e , even on the l e v e l o f the r u l e s o f sub-  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , adds an u n n e c e s s a r y  awkwardness to the grammar.  It  seems e v i d e n t t h a t the h y p o t h e s i s o f s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p r e s e n t s a f l u c t u a t i o n on the d e m a r c a t i o n  o f the l i m i t s between  semantics/syntax.  T h i s i m p r e c i s i o n o f l i m i t s i s a s e r i o u s weakness o f the t h e o r y . l e a v e s t h i s s o l u t i o n w i t h o u t t r e a t i n g i t any f u r t h e r .  Chomsky  47  3. The R e l a t i o n Between Components Chomsky seems t o a c c e p t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) that transformations  do n o t change t h e meaning o f s e n t e n c e s .  Combining  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s w i t h t h e one u n d e r l y i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e base i n s o l u t i o n I I , Chomsky p r o p o s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g m o d e l , w h i c h i s r e p r o d u c e d h e r e i n a g r a p h i c form ( A s p e c t s : 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 ) :  Categorical Component  Lexi con  Semanti c Component  Transformations  Phonological Component  The c a t e g o r i c a l subcomponent o f t h e base c o n s i s t s o f a s e q u e n c e o f c o n t e x t - f r e e r e w r i t i n g r u l e s . The f u n c t i o n of these rules i s , i n essence, t o d e f i n e a c e r t a i n system of grammatical r e l a t i o n s t h a t determine semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and t o s p e c i f y an a b s t r a c t u n d e r l y i n g o r d e r o f e l e m e n t s t h a t makes p o s s i b l e t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s . . . . The i n f i n i t e g e n e r a t i v e c a p a c i t y o f t h e grammar a r i s e s f r o m a p a r t i c u l a r formal p r o p e r t y o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i c a l r u l e s , namely t h a t they may i n t r o d u c e t h e i n i t i a l symbol S i n t o a l i n e o f a d e r i v a t i o n . In t h i s way the r e w r i t i n g r u l e s c a n , i n e f f e c t , i n s e r t base P h r a s e markers i n t o o t h e r P h r a s e - m a r k e r s , . . . T h e l e x i c o n c o n s i s t s o f an u n o r d e r e d s e t o f l e x i c a l e n t r i e s and c e r t a i n r e d u n d a n c y r u l e s . Each l e x i c a l e n t r y i s a s e t o f f e a t u r e s . . . . Some o f t h e s e a r e p h o n o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s , drawn from a p a r t i c u l a r u n i v e r s a l s e t o f phonological features ( t h e d i s t i n c t i v e - f e a t u r e s y s t e m ) . . . . Some o f t h e f e a t u r e s a r e s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s . T h e s e , t o o , a r e p r e s u m a b l y drawn from a u n i v e r s a l "alphabet." ... We c a l l a f e a t u r e "semant i c " i f i t i s n o t m e n t i o n e d i n any s y n t a c t i c r u l e , thus b e g g i n g the question o f whether semantics i s i n v o l v e d i n syntax. The r e d u n d a n c y r u l e s o f t h e l e x i c o n add and s p e c i f y f e a t u r e s w h e r e v e r t h i s c a n be p r e d i c t e d by g e n e r a l r u l e .  48 The s e m a n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i v e component may be c o n s t r u c t e d and c o n s i s t s o f P r o j e c t i o n - r u l e s o f t y p e I ( K a t z and P o s t a l , 1964).  These p r o j e c t i o n -  r u l e s g i v e t o the deep s t r u c t u r e a s e m a n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on the b a s i s o f the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s g i v e n t o the c o n s t i t u e n t e l e m e n t s .  The t r a n s -  f o r m a t i o n a l component c o n s i s t s o f a s e r i e s o f s i n g u l a r y  transformations,  where e a c h one i s d e f i n e d i n terms o f a s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n and a sequence of elementary  transformations.  The p h o n o l o g i c a l component i s  a l s o purely i n t e r p r e t a t i v e . I t c o n s i s t s of a s e r i e s of rules which are a p p l i e d c y c l i c a l l y t o the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e , b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e t e r m i n a l elements of the t r e e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  a) "Grammati c a l T r a n s f o r m a t i ons" In the t h i r d c h a p t e r o f A s p e c t s , Chomsky p r e s e n t s some s u g g e s t i o n s on the t h e o r y o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . mations are independent  His hypotheses o f t r a n s f o r -  o f the c h o i c e o f any s o l u t i o n f o r t h e base form.  Chomsky p r o p o s e s t o d e l e t e from the e l e m e n t a r y o f operations c a l l e d "permutations."  transformations  the c l a s s  He d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t any permu-  t a t i o n must be f o r m u l a t e d i n terms o f a d j u n c t i o n , e l l i p s e , o r s u b s t i tution.^  A second p r o p o s i t i o n d e t e r m i n e s  w h i c h seems t o be r e p r o d u c e d  t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f the e l l i p s e  i n the a b s e n c e o f d i f f e r e n c e s between f e a t u r e s  r a t h e r than i n the c a s e o f a b s o l u t e i d e n t i t y .  The most i m p o r t a n t  v a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i s the f u n c t i o n o f f i l t e r i n g 1?  inno-  processes  T h i s type o f m o d i f i c a t i o n emerges from the r e s e a r c h on t h e use o f t h e computer t o v e r i f y the v a l i d i t y o f the s y n t a c t i c r u l e s . T h i s r e s e a r c h has s o u g h t t o e s t a b l i s h a more r e a l i s t i c and s t a b l e n o t a t i o n than the one used i n t h e f i r s t works on t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t h e o r y ( Z w i c k y , 1965).  49  (though Chomsky s t a t e s t h a t t h i s n o t i o n had always been i m p l i c i t i n his theory, Aspects:139).  Any deep s t r u c u t r e c a n n o t be r e a l i z e d d i r e c t l y  i n s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e , but must undergo t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .  I f a phrase-  marker does n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o the s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f any t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , then t h e r e c a n n o t be any d e r i v a t i o n , and the s y s t e m i s t h e r e fore "blocked."  T h i s means t h a t the p r o d u c t s o f the grammar a r e o f  two k i n d s : 1) A s e r i e s o f w e l l formed s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s e n u m e r a t e d as grammatical  s e n t e n c e s o f the l a n g u a g e , and d e r i v e d by  simple transformations ( S y n t a c t i c Structures:57); 2) A s e r i e s o f s t e r i l e deep s t r u c t u r e s , w h i c h do not meet the s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f any  transformation.  The p r e s e n c e o f t h i s s e c o n d s e r i e s i s s u p e r f l u o u s and a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m i n the A s p e c t s model.  b) The  Lexicon  In "The S t r u c t u r e o f the L e x i c o n " (§2, S e c t i o n 4 : 1 6 4 - 1 9 2 ) , Chomsky p o i n t s out c e r t a i n i m p l i c a t i o n s i f we adopt s o l u t i o n I .  This  s o l u t i o n does n o t a f f e c t the g e n e r a l form o f the model d e s c r i b e d i n the preceding s e c t i o n  even though the a u t h o r does n o t m e n t i o n i t ,  but i t a l l o w s the use o f some r u l e s i n the l e x i c o n w h i c h r e d u c e number o f f e a t u r e s r e p r e s e n t e d f o r each l e x i c a l e n t r y .  the  These r u l e s  w o u l d have, t h e r e f o r e , the same f u n c t i o n as the r u l e s o f morphophonol o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e p r e s e n t e d by H a l l e (1959) f o r t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l component.  Chomsky, i n h i s s y s t e m , c a l l s them " p h o n o l o g i c a l r e d u n d a n c y  rules."  In the above s e c t i o n , Chomsky o u t l i n e s the e x i s t e n c e o f p a r a l l e l  50 r u l e s , c a l l e d " s y n t a c t i c redundancy r u l e s . "  They w o u l d a l l o w one t o  d i s t i n g u i s h between " p o s s i b l e l e x i c a l forms b u t n o n - e x i s t e n t " and "imp o s s i b l e l e x i c a l f o r m s . " They would a l s o have t h e g e n e r a l p u r p o s e o f r e d u c i n g t o a minimum the n e c e s s a r y d e s c r i p t i v e f e a t u r e s o f a l e x i c a l entry.  Chomsky does n o t e x p l a i n , however, how t h e s e r u l e s c o u l d be  i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a model w h i c h a d o p t s s o l u t i o n I I , w i t h a more complex lexicon. In t h i s c h a p t e r I have p r e s e n t e d t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e new g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c s c h o o l and an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e f u n d a mental p r i n c i p l e s and c o n c e p t s o f t h i s s c h o o l .  The d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t h e o r y w h i c h i s c r y s t a l i z e d i n Chomsky's A s p e c t o f t h e T h e o r y o f S y n t a x was a n a l y s e d i n o r d e r t o s e r v e as an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o my f o r m u l a t i o n , i n C h a p t e r 4, o f a d e s c r i p t i v e g r a m m a t i c a l model.  CHAPTER 2 "POST-ASPECTS" DEVELOPMENTS INTRODUCTION T h i s c h a p t e r , which f o c u s e s on the c o n c r e t i z a t i o n o f c e r t a i n p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t n o t i o n s d e v e l o p e d a f t e r Chomsky's A s p e c t s , i s o r g a n i z e d i n two main p a r t s : 1) the p o s t - A s p e c t s d e v e l o p m e n t s , in transformational theory.  and 2)  changes  The d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be i m p a r t i a l and ex-  p l i c i t even though some o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n s seem c o n t r a d i c t o r y . C r i t i c i s m s and p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e s e developments  w i l l be  r e v e a l e d i n C h a p t e r s 4 and 5 i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h my own grammar o f P o r tuguese.  T h i s s e c t i o n , however, does n o t d i s c u s s any i n d i v i d u a l grammars.  I.  RECENT INNOVATIONS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY  A.  P r i n c i p a l Developments The most r e m a r k a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e p o s t - A s p e c t s p e r i o d  o f l i n g u i s t i c s t u d y i s t h a t the Chomskyan s c h o o l i s no l o n g e r by i t s o r i g i n a t o r ' s t h i n k i n g .  dominated  During the f i f t e e n years a f t e r h i s f i r s t  c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e t h e o r y , Chomsky has p r e p a r e d a whole g e n e r a t i o n o f l i n g u i s t s and has i n f l u e n c e d a f a i r number o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s .  Since  t h e n , he seems t o have become i n t e r e s t e d i n o t h e r a s p e c t s o f l i n g u i s t i c s . The d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f h i s i n t e r e s t s i s r e f l e c t e d i n h i s p u b l i c a t i o n s . 51  52 It is understandable, therefore, that the development of his theory has brought the new linguists to the diverse results.  It should be  noted also that generative-transformational grammar theory is still a North American development.  Although Saumjam has given an important  place to the theory in Russia, it has had only a slow and limited expansion elsewhere outside this continent; for example, in England, Holland, East Germany, Romania and Japan. Except for these countries, Chomsky's theory has impressed philosophers and psychologists more than linguists. The following discussion explores some important notions in Chomsky's theory.  1. The Transformational Cycle The notion of cycle, developed in phonology and used successfully for the first time in an article by Chomsky, Halle and Lakoff (1956), illustrates the complex system of rules for stress and vowel reduction.  The principle of the transformational cycle consists of  ordering the rules and giving them a recursive mechanism by which they reapply again and again in a cyclic way, first to the minimal constituents of a structure, next to the upper elements of a given structure, i  and finally to the highest domain of processes affected by the rules. Chomsky suggested (1965) that the transformational rules of the syntactic component be organized in a cycle by analogy to the rules of the phonological component. The post-Aspects research centres on t h e  53 ordering of c y c l i c transformations.  L a k o f f and Ross (1966)  demonstrate  the n e c e s s i t y o f o r d e r i n g some r u l e s i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r s i n a c y c l e , and L a k o f f (1966a) s u g g e s t s the e x i s t e n c e o f : a) P r e - c y c l i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ; some t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s w h i c h must p r e c e d e the a p p l i c a t i o n o f o t h e r r u l e s . T h e s e can be a p p l i e d  independently.  b) C y c l i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ; t h e s e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s can o n l y be a p p l i e d i n o r d e r . c) P o s t - c y c l e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ; t h e s e are a p p l i e d  transformations  independently.  The i m p o r t a n c e o f the s e q u e n c e i n w h i c h the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s are a p p l i e d i s demonstrated  by F i l l m o r e (1962-1965) i n the s o l u t i o n  o f the p r o b l e m o f p r e p o s i t i o n a l v a r i a n t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i n d i r e c t complement E n g l i s h c o n s t r u c t i o n s w h i c h show d i f f e r e n t s y n t a c t i c p r o p rieties.  H e r e a r e two s t r u c t u r e s : 1) J o h n b o u g h t a book f o r me, 2) J o h n gave a book t o me.  T h e s e have a common v a r i a n t : /bought\ 3) John i i me a book. (gave  J  The f i r s t and second s e n t e n c e s have a s i m i l a r s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e , b u t o n l y (2) may become a p a s s i v e  sentence:  * 4) A book was b o u g h t  me,  5) A book was g i v e n  meJ  Vhis s e n t e n c e i s p a r t l y  grammatical.  54 F i l l m o r e s u g g e s t s the e x i s t e n c e o f two d i f f e r e n t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s t o g e n e r a t e the two forms o f (3) f r o m (1) and ( 2 ) , u s i n g the f i r s t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a f t e r the p a s s i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , and the second Then the model w i l l g e n e r a t e s e n t e n c e s  before.  ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) , ( 5 ) , but n o t ( 4 ) .  For E n g l i s h , s e v e r a l s e q u e n c e s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s have been  proposed  (Rosenbaum and Lochak, 1968; L a k o f f and Ross, UESP, 1969); f o r French (Langacker,  1966, and Q u e r i d o ,  1969).  2. The N o t i o n o f C o n s t r a i n t The n o t i o n o f c o n s t r a i n t i n g e n e r a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar comes f r o m t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f one o f Chomsky's t h e o r i e s , e x p l a i n e d by P o s t a l d u r i n g a c o u r s e i n s y n t a x a t MIT (1964-65).  In h i s i n t e r -  p r e t a t i o n the f i l t e r i n g o f the e x c e p t i o n s to the r u l e s i s c o n s i d e r e d a u s e l e s s c o m p l i c a t i o n i n the grammar.  Ungrammatical s e n t e n c e s  will  be g e n e r a t e d by the grammar due t o c e r t a i n i n e f f i c i e n c i e s o f the model. T h i s grammar must have a mechanism t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e i r r e g u l a r i t i e s g e n e r a t e d by the s y n t a c t i c r u l e s . The c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s u c h a mechanism i s d i s c u s s e d i n L a k o f f ' s d i s s e r t a t i o n , On the N a t u r e o f S y n t a c t i c I r r e g u l a r i t y (1965).  The i n g e n i o u s s y s t e m o f " m e t a r u l e s " p r o p o s e d by L a k o f f  has as i t s main aim t o p o i n t out some r e g u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e system o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s . T h e s e r e g u l a r i t i e s seem t o go beyond the t y p e o f g e n e r a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e . T h e r e a r e , however, two p o i n t s o f view on t h i s a s p e c t o f l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y . F i r s t , Chomsky i n h i s p a p e r a t the 9 t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Congress  (1962-1964:930), p r o p o s e s the "A o v e r A" p r i n c i p l e . T h i s p r i n c i p l e  55  c o n s i s t s i n a p h r a s e X o f c a t e g o r y A embedded w i t h i n a l a r g e r p h r a s e ZXW w h i c h i s a l s o o f c a t e g o r y A, then no r u l e s a p p l y i n g t o t h e c a t e g o r y A a p p l i e s t o X b u t o n l y t o ZXW.  The s e c o n d p o i n t o f v i e w , s t a t e d by  P o s t a l , claims that transformations elements.  should not include i n d i v i d u a l l e x i c a l  T h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s expanded by Ross (1967) i n h i s d o c t o r a l  t h e s i s , which i s a treatment in transformational formations."  rules.  o f c o n s t r a i n t s i n t h e usage o f v a r i a b l e s Ross r e s t r i c t s h i s s t u d y t o "movement t r a n s -  These transformations  i n s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e make a s y n t a c t i c  e l e m e n t t a k e t h e p l a c e i n t h e l i n e a r s e q u e n c e w h i c h w o u l d n o t have t h e same p l a c e i n deep s t r u c t u r e . a theory o f u n i v e r s a l s .  Ross's c o n c l u s i o n s a r e i n t e r e s t i n g f o r  He c l a s s i f i e s t h r e e types o f c o n s t r a i n t s , A,  B, C, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e v a r i a b l e s used i n t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  rules.  A) U n i v e r s a l C o n s t r a i n t s , w h i c h b e l o n g t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f any natural language.  T h e r e a r e two t y p e s o f u n i v e r s a l c o n s t r a i n t s :  1) C o n s t r a i n t s on t h e complex n o u n - p h r a s e , 2) C o n s t r a i n t s on t h e c o o r d i n a t e Ross c o n c l u d e s  structures.  t h a t i n t h e movement r u l e s o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s , t h e v a r i -  a b l e s must be c o n s t r a i n e d . several transformations  These c o n s t r a i n t s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f  and a r e i m p o r t a n t  generalizations o f the lan-  guage, and, p e r h a p s , o f a l l n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s . B) O b l i g a t o r y C o n s t r a i n t s - T h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s have an a p p l i c a t i o n i n some l a n g u a g e s o r l a n g u a g e g r o u p s .  The c o n s t r a i n t s need o b l i g a t o r y  conditions f o r a p p l i c a t i o n to languages.  Unlike the u n i v e r s a l con-  s t r a i n t s w h i c h a r e r e a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s , t h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s a r e more s p e c i f i c , and may l e a d t o f a l s e a n a l y s i s i n t h e b a s e - r u l e s .  56 C) Deep C o n s t r a i n t s - T h i s t y p e o f c o n s t r a i n t i s t a k e n up by P e r l m u t t e r ( 1 9 6 8 ) , and L a k o f f ( 1 9 6 8 ) , w i t h an a p p l i c a t i o n t o S p a n i s h by R i v e r o ( 1 9 7 0 ) .  P e r l m u t t e r expands t h i s t y p e o f c o n s t r a i n t w h i c h  w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r .  B.  Generative  Semantics  G e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s i s an outgrowth and p l a y s a c e n t r a l r o l e i n s y n t a x .  o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar  The g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s p o s i t i o n  i s , i n e s s e n c e , t h a t s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s c a n n o t be s e p a r a t e d from each o t h e r and t h a t the r o l e o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and d e r i v a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s i n g e n e r a l i s t o r e l a t e s e m a n t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s . The term " g e n e r a t i v e " s h o u l d be taken t o mean "complete and p r e c i s e " ( L a k o f f , 1969:77).  1. W e i n r e i c h ' s  Theory  The i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e s e m a n t i c t h e o r y o f K a t z and Fodor i n t o a g e n e r a t i v e t h e o r y o f l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t f o l l o w s up Chomsky's s y n t a c t i c t h e o r y c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f i r s t s e m a n t i c component, but i s n o t t h e f i r s t s e m a n t i c t h e o r y t o be f o r m a l i z e d i n t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e generative-transformational school.  A l r e a d y i n 1961, a t t h e  Congress  on Language U n i v e r s a l s , W e i n r e i c h (1961-1963) p r o p o s e d a t h e o r y o f semant i c s t h a t combines Chomsky's n o t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y w i t h a l o g i c a l  57 s y s t e m o f a n a l y s i s p r o p o s e d by R e i c h e n b a c h ( 1 9 4 8 ) .  The main p o i n t s o f  W e i n r e i c h ' s t h e o r y a r e as f o l l o w s : 1) The autonomy o f s y n t a x v s . s e m a n t i c s , 2) A l e x i c a l s e m a n t i c s and " c o m b i n a t o r y s e m a n t i c s , " 3) The d e s c r i p t i o n o f the l e x i c a l e l e m e n t by d i s t i n c t i v e features, 4) The l o g i c a l n a t u r e o f t h e s e m a n t i c c o m b i n a t i o n . W e i n r e i c h f o r m u l a t e s a c l a s s o f u n i v e r s a l s (1963:167) w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o m b i n a t i v e s e m a n t i c s and i t s r e l a t i o n s w i t h s y n t a x . In a l l l a n g u a g e s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s i g n s t a k e s the form o f e i t h e r l i n k i n g o r n e s t i n g , and a l l l a n g u a g e s use b o t h p a t t e r n s i n k e r n e l s e n t e n c e s . No f u r t h e r p a t t e r n s a r e i n t r o d u c e d by t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . W h i l e t h e number o f l e v e l s i s n o t t h e o r e t i c a l l y l i m i t e d , l i n k i n g on more t h a n t h r e e and n e s t i n g on more than f o u r i s v e r y r a r e . The m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f some p o i n t s i n W e i n r e i c h ' s t h e o r y and t h e c l a s h w i t h K a t z and Fodor's t h e o r y i n two i r r e c o n c i l a b l e p o i n t s o f view have c r e a t e d many p o l e m i c s .  T h e s e a r e based on W e i n r e i c h ' s (1966:402-405),  r e j e c t i o n o f a d i s t i n c t i o n between s e m a n t i c and s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s .  He  b a s e s t h i s d e c i s i o n on t h e f o l l o w i n g argument: ". . . a s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s t e p i s t a k e n i f f a i l u r e t o do so makes t h e grammar g e n e r a t e (a) i l l formed e x p r e s s i o n s o r (b) ambiguous s e n t e n c e s - t h e r e a s o n s o f s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n s y n t a x t u r n o u t t o be p r e c i s e l y t h e same f o r s e m a n t i c s " (1966:403).  W e i n r e i c h ' s argument q u e s t i o n s the n o t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y  i n t h e i m p l i c i t s e n s e o f t h e s o l u t i o n s I and II p r e s e n t e d i n A s p e c t s . He s h a r e s Q u i n e ' s p o i n t o f view (1953) w h i c h i s e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d by Chomsky, t h a t t h e grammarian s h o u l d o n l y be c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e two n o t i o n s  58 o f i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y and synonymy.  W e i n r e i c h chooses the c r i t e r i o n o f  s i m p l i c i t y i n t h e symmetry o f s e m a n t i c and s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s ("they c o r r e s p o n d i n form and m o t i v a t i o n " ) and p r o p o s e s a model f o r l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n which d i f f e r s f r o m t h e A s p e c t s ' model i n t h e f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s : 1) L e x i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by two s e t s o f f e a t u r e s ; one s e t o f s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s and one m a t r i x o f phonological features; 2) The b a s e s t r u c t u r e may be e x p l i c i t l y f o r m a l i z e d u s i n g a technique s i m i l a r to Reichenbach's p r e d i c a t e l o g i c ; 3) The need t o i n t e r r e l a t e s e m a n t i c r u l e s w i t h s y n t a c t i c r u l e s a t the l e v e l o f deep s t r u c t u r e , and t h e need t o recognize c e r t a i n semantic f e a t u r e s b e f o r e the l e x i c a l insertion; 4) A S e m a n t i c Component has two c o n s t i t u e n t s : a) A " c a l c u l a t o r , " w h i c h i s a more complex v e r s i o n o f t h e K a t z and Fodor p r o j e c t i o n r u l e s , b) An " e v a l u a t o r , " w h i c h g i v e s a q u a l i t a t i v e v a l u e t o the meaning o f t h e s e n t e n c e ( t h i s s y s t e m i s c l o s e t o L a k o f f s m e t a r u l e s s y s t e m , 1965). W e i n r e i c h ' s p o s i t i o n i s b a s e d on a s e m a n t i c c r i t e r i o n as opposed t o K a t z and F o d o r s p o s i t i o n which i s b a s e d on a p h o n o l o g i c a l c r i t e r i o n . 1  H i s c o n c e p t o f " l e x i c a l i t e m " i s one f o r each s e m a n t i c r e a d i n g , o r a one-to-one c o r r e s p o n d e n c e .  The word b a c h e l o r would have f o u r l e x i c a l  items "bachelor," f o r the f o u r d i f f e r e n t semantic r e a d i n g s . Weinreich's disambiguation theory a p p l i e s to the examination o f the semantic  59 representation of the whole deep structure.  This theory requires the  factual knowledge, i.e. the knowledge of the outside world, of the language users. Weinreich's formulation of a semantic theory is an important step towards Generative Semantics.  2. Gruber's Theory Gruber's work is based on the concept of utterance synonymy. He wants to account for our intuition which relates such sentences as: 1) John sold the car to Peter, 2) Peter bought the car from John. Gruber proposes a deep structure which gives a similar representation to these sentences. Different rules will then account for the different lexical and syntactic interpretation.  It is a system close to a so-  called generative semantic theory, as opposed to an interpretative theoryI! Unlike Weinreich, Gruber does not want to modify the semantic component of Katz and Fodor, but to state that the semantic component is responsible for only one part of the semantics of the sentence. The other part is not a dictionary with its lexical entries and semantic features, but a system of rules generating semantic structures at a level deeper than Chomsky's deep structure.  These structures from a semantic base are  then interpreted by Projection rules of the Katz and Fodor type, and by those transformation rules which give to the lexical elements of the sentence a realization corresponding to the lexical entries of a dictionary.  The semantic structure receives a phonological form and  reaches the level of deep structure proposed by Chomsky. From this level  60 on, Gruber's model is identical to Aspects and is completed by means of a transformational and morphological component as described by Chomsky. Gruber's base rules are of a context-free, rewriting type. Gruber's theory differs from Chomsky's theories in the following three points, the fourth is common to both. 1) The concept of grammaticality occurs at the level of an adequate utterance interpretability; 2) A syntactic structure is not the central part in the model: the syntagmatic syntactic rules are eliminated and all the syntax is interpretative in relation to the deep semantic structure of the sentence; 3) The lexical level is not meaningful in the semantic structure, but only as syntactic and phonological interpretative levels; 4) The type of syntactic and transformational rules used in a Chomskyan grammar may account for the semantic structure of the sentence.  3. McCawley's Theory In a series of articles published since 1967, McCawley has been exploring some of the hypotheses postulated by Weinreich and Gruber. In one of his first articles, "The Role of Semantics in a Grammar" (1968), he adopts for his theory the type of lexicon such as the lexical item approach, proposed by Weinreich, one lexical entry for each different semantic interpretation opposed to the type of polysemic dictionary  61  e n t r i e s o f K a t z and F o d o r , who use t h e d i c t i o n a r y a p p r o a c h , one l e x i c a l e n t r y with- m u l t i - s e m a n t i c r e a d i n g s .  McCawley, however, a t t e m p t s t o  f o r m a l i z e t h e r u l e s t o d e r i v e some l e x i c a l items from o t h e r s ( a s i n G r u b e r ' s concept).  He adds t o W e i n r e i c h ' s d i c t i o n a r y a s e r i e s o f d e r i v a t i o n a l  r u l e s which g e n e r a t e some l e x i c a l i t e m s from o t h e r s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e word "warm" i n s e n t e n c e 2 can be d e r i v e d from "warm" i n o n e : 1) The c o f f e e i s warm, 2) The c o a t i s warm. McCawley c l a i m s t h a t t h e l e x i c a l i t e m warm has i t s i m p l i c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , where t h e p r e s e n c e o f one l e x i c a l i t e m  i s p r e d i c t a b l e from another.  He a l s o f a v o u r s L a k o f f ' s c o n c e p t o f t h e " r e i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s " (1968) and W i e r z b i c k a ' s f o r m u l a ( 1 9 6 7 ) , where John i n s e n t e n c e one may be t h e s o u r c e f o r John i n s e n t e n c e two: 1) John t h i n k s t h a t t h e w o r l d i s f l a t , 2) John weighs two hundred  pounds.  In a p o s t s c r i p t o f t h i s a r t i c l e , McCawley adds t o t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f l e x i c o n t h e r e s u l t s o f G r u b e r ' s work.  Then he q u e s t i o n s t h e v a l u e o f  deep s t r u c t u r e and r e j e c t s t h e n o t i o n o f deep s t r u c t u r e i n t h e s e n s e o f t h e A s p e c t s model.  He c l a i m s t h a t Chomsky's s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s do n o t  have any f u n c t i o n i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f l e x i c a l i t e m s , and p r o p o s e s an e q u i v a l e n c e between Chomsky's deep s t r u c t u r e and t h e s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e of the sentence.  McCawley's model becomes, t h e n , a c o m b i n a t i o n o f Wein-  r e i c h ' s and G r u b e r ' s p r o p o s a l s .  I t s base s t r u c t u r e i s s i m i l a r t o G r u b e r ' s  and i t s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l component i s p r e d i c t e d by W e i n r e i c h ' s c o n c e p t i o n . The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l component i s an amalgamation  o f s y n t a c t i c and s e m a n t i c  62 r u l e s , w i t h d e r i v a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c r u l e s , o f McCawley's own type.  The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  (Weinreich's  a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c  features  t y p e ) , and r u l e s f o r i n t r o d u c t i o n and i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f  l e x i c a l e l e m e n t s (Gruber's  type).  The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  component has  a l l t h e f u n c t i o n s o f a s e m a n t i c component o f W e i n r e i c h ' s  type " c a l c u l a t o r -  e v a l u a t o r " and G r u b e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e o r K a t z and Fodor's t y p e . c o n s i d e r s a l l s e m a n t i c s t o be o f a g e n e r a t i v e  McCawley  nature.  In a n o t h e r s e r i e s o f a r t i c l e s (1967:55) McCawley d e f e n d s h i s c l a i m t h a t s y n t a x as an autonomous mechanism does n o t e x i s t .  He wants  t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t s y m b o l i c l o g i c , w i t h s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n , i s an adequate system f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the semantic s t r u c t u r e o f natural l a n g u a g e s and he does show t h a t some t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  a r e d e p e n d e n t on  an a n a l o g o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r c o r r e c t f o r m a l i z a t i o n and t h a t t h e same mechanism may a c c o u n t f o r b o t h s y n t a c t i c and s e m a n t i c  operations.  A t t h e same t i m e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l argument f o r t h e d i c h o t o m y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s i s r e j e c t e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g b a s i s : 1) S e m a n t i c s p o s s e s s e s ,  l i k e syntax, a syntagmatic  structure;  2) T h e r e i s n o t a c l e a r d i v i s i o n between t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s s e m a n t i c and l e x i c a l  of  features;  3) The c a t e g o r i e s r e c o g n i z e d i n s y n t a x do n o t p l a y any f u n c t i o n in the semantic representation.  Therefore, these  categories  are u s e l e s s ; 4) I n d i c e s o f r e f e r e n c e a r e t r e a t e d i n a grammar o f s e m a n t i c s b e t t e r than i n a grammar o f s y n t a x ; 5) S e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e d e f i n a b l e s o l e l y i n terms o f properties o f semantic representation. p o s i t i o n i s i n t h e s e m a n t i c component.  Therefore, t h e i r  63 McCawley c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h e most r e f i n e d s e l e c t i o n a l  restriction  p r o c e s s must be met i n t h e s e m a n t i c component and be a c c o u n t e d f o r by the s p e a k e r ' s t o t a l f a c t u a l knowledge o f t h e w o r l d .  He g i v e s t o s e m a n t i c s  a l l the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f syntax.  4. L a k o f f ' s T h e o r y L a k o f f ' s d o c t o r a l t h e s i s (1965) g i v e s a s y n t a c t i c e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e two v e r b s h a r d e n , w h i c h a r e e q u i v a l e n t on t h e s e m a n t i c l e v e l : 1) The metal h a r d e n e d , 2) John h a r d e n e d t h e m e t a l . Lakoff's a n a l y s i s of the second sentence i s :  John causative  S NP  I  metal  VP  I  harden  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s s i m i l a r t o G r u b e r ' s and p o i n t s o u t a deep s t r u c t u r e at a deeper l e v e l than Aspects.  Gruber c a l l s t h i s s t r u c t u r e "pre-  l e x i c a l , " where the c a u s a t i v e e l e m e n t must undergo an " i n c o r p o r a t i o n p r o c e s s " b.efore i t can p r o d u c e the c o r r e c t s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e - "John  64 hardened t h e metal."  L a k o f f demonstrates t h a t t h i s process i s p a r t  of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l c y c l e .  In h i s a r t i c l e " I n s t r u m e n t a l Adverbs  and t h e Concept o f Deep S t r u c t u r e " ( 1 9 6 8 ) , L a k o f f renounces t h e c o n c e p t o f deep s t r u c t u r e . He d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e t h e o r y l a c k s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n when g i v i n g a d i f f e r e n t deep s t r u c t u r e t o two synonymous s e n t e n c e s , such a s : 1) John c u t s t h e s a u s a g e w i t h a k n i f e , 2) John uses a k n i f e t o c u t t h e s a u s a g e . He p o s t u l a t e s a s e r i e s o f t e s t s t o show t h a t t h e two s t r u c t u r e s a r e i d e n t i c a l and he p r o p o s e s t o c o n n e c t them w i t h one t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . Lakoff's " r e i f i c a t i o n process" demonstrates t h a t n o t every item o f the l a n g u a g e ( W e i n r e i c h ' s c o n c e p t ) has t o a p p e a r i n t h e l e x i c o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e ; a l l l a n g u a g e s have " i m p l i c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s " among t h e i r l e x i c a l i t e m s , i n which t h e e x i s t e n c e o f one i m p l i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f another.  He c i t e s , f o r example, words r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e t e m p e r a t u r e  r a n g e , and t e m p e r a t u r e s e n s a t i o n , as i n t h e s e n t e n c e s : 1) The c o f f e e i s warm, 2 2) The c o a t i s warm, where t h e r e i s o n l y one p h o n o l o g i c a l shape f o r t h e l e x i c a l i t e m warm. The l e x i c a l i t e m warm i n s e n t e n c e (2) would be d e r i v e d from t h e l e x i c a l i t e m warm i n s e n t e n c e ( 1 ) . W e i n r e i c h and McCawley c a l l t h i s p r o c e s s o f t h e l e x i c a l i t e m warm, t h e " i m p l i c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " and L a k o f f c a l l s i t t h e " r e i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , " where t h e p r e s e n c e o f a l e x i c a l item i s p r e d i c t e d o r d e r i v e d from another. S e n t e n c e 2 may be ambiguous: "warm 1" meaning " t h i c k and heavy" and "warm 2" meaning " t e m p e r a t u r e warm" (warm f r o m a r a d i a t o r ) . In t h i s c a s e t h e r e would be 3 l e x i c a l i t e m s "warm," where "warm 1" and "warm 2" i n s e n t e n c e 2 would be d e r i v e d from l e x i c a l i t e m "warm" i n s e n t e n c e 1.  65  L a k o f f d e f i n e s meaning as b e i n g t h e most i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f the grammar.  H i s b a s i c t h e o r y i s " g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s , " which c l a i m s t h a t  s e m a n t i c s can be h a n d l e d as s y n t a x . nomous and a r b i t r a r y s y n t a x .  Generative semantics r e f u t e s auto-  He c o n s i d e r s autonomous s y n t a x as u s i n g  ad hoc methods f o r a n a l y s i s , and he a l s o r e j e c t s the K a t z and theory.  Autonomous s y n t a x assumes t h a t grammatical  Fodor  r e g u l a r i t i e s are  c o m p l e t e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d w i t h o u t r e c o u r s e t o meaning. L a k o f f , i n h i s a r t i c l e "On G e n e r a t i v e S e m a n t i c s , " r e j e c t s t h e c o n c e p t s o f i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s o f s t r u c t u r e and deep s t r u c t u r e .  He  p o s i t s two k i n d s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s : 1) L o c a l d e r i v a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , which a r e s i m i l a r t o Chomsky's t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t y p e and have the. f u n c t i o n o f r e l a t i n g sentences; 2) G l o b a l d e r i v a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , which a r e a l s o s i m i l a r t o t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s but a r e f o r m a l i z e d o r d e r e d r u l e s and can o n l y a p p l y i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s .  These g l o b a l  d e r i v a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s may be o f two k i n d s : a) O b l i g a t o r y , when i n d e v e l o p i n g a sequence one wants t o r e a c h a n o t h e r sequence and has t o adopt t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t o r e a c h t h e end, b) O p t i o n a l , one o r more t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t which a l l o w the d e s i r e d s e n t e n c e t o be a c h i e v e d . L a k o f f r e c o g n i z e s a " s h a l l o w s t r u c t u r e , " which i s a l a b e l f o r a p a r t i c u l a r P-marker.  I t i s an in-between  which a p p l i e s i n between  level of structure, a syntactic state  66 some g l o b a l c o n s t r a i n t s . L a k o f f ' s argument i s t h a t i f we can show t h a t some t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s must a p p l y b e f o r e the i n s e r t i o n o f l e x i c a l  items,  then l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n does n o t a p p l y a t a s i n g l e l e v e l , and thus deep s t r u c t u r e does n o t e x i s t .  S u m m a r i z i n g the g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s c h o o l whose l e a d e r s a r e McCawley and L a k o f f , we p o i n t o u t the main a s p e c t s o f the t h e o r y : 1) Complete r e j e c t i o n o f the l e v e l o f "deep s t r u c t u r e , " j u s t i f i e d on t h e s e  grounds:  a) C o - o c c u r r e n c e , w h i c h i s p u r e l y a s e m a n t i c  problem;  b) L e x i c a l e n t r i e s may a p p e a r a t any l e v e l o f the d e r i v a t i o n but not a l l a t once; c) The grammatical  r e l a t i o n s show up o n l y on the s u r f a c e  level. 2) The e q u i v a l e n c e o f f u n c t i o n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and  semantic  interpretative rules. 3) The e q u i v a l e n c e between the s e m a n t i c s and t h e l o g i c a l forms o f the s e n t e n c e , where the p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e p r e s e n t i n g s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e i n terms o f a s y s t e m o f l o g i c i s p o s t u l a t e d . McCawley (1968b) has s u g g e s t e d a m o d i f i e d form o f P r e d i c a t e C a l c u l u s to r e p r e s e n t s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e s .  L a k o f f (1970)  i n a more r e c e n t a r t i c l e p r o p o s e s a new form o f l o g i c , w h i c h i s a d e v e l o p m e n t from Modal L o g i c , i n c o r p o r a t i n g n o t i o n s o f " p r e s u p p o s i t i o n , " " t o p i c " and " f o c u s , " as w e l l as t h e traditional predicate analysis.  67 4) T h e p r e s e n c e o f " g l o b a l c o n s t r a i n t s " on t h e d e r i v a t i o n , which, according to Lakoff, i s the great c o n t r i b u t i o n o f P r o p o s i t i o n a l L o g i c t o L i n g u i s t i c s , i n t h e above c o n c e p t s .  C.  The L e x i c a l i s t  Hypothesis  In an a r t i c l e (1967) Chomsky p r o p o s e s a new way t o t r e a t 'nomin a l i z a t i o n , ' w h i c h he c a l l s " t h e l e x i c a l i s t h y p o t h e s i s , " based on t h e origin of derived nominalizations.  In t h e l e x i c o n model p r e s e n t i n  Aspects the use o f contextual features allows f o r the i n s e r t i o n o f only one e n t r y f o r t h e v e r b o r noun s l o t , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h c e r t a i n morphophonemic r u l e s .  Chomsky (1967:12) p r o p o s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g base r u l e s :  NP  y N COMP  VP  =—»• v COMP  AP  •  y A COMP  COMP P  • NP, P, NP P, NP PP, PP PP, e t c . »• P r e p o s i t i o n  PP  »• P r e p o s i t i o n a l P h r a s e  N o t i n g t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e f i r s t t h r e e r u l e s and t h e awkwardness o f the Complement c a t e g o r y , Chomsky (1967:27) p r o p o s e s a new n o t a t i o n c a l l e d "The X-Bar C o n v e n t i o n . "  T h i s n o t a t i o n a l l o w s one t o show t h e p a r a l l e l i s m  of d e r i v a t i o n o f the d i f f e r e n t types o f phrases.  T h e symbol X^ d e s i g n a t e s  a node d o m i n a t e d by t h e e l e m e n t X, such t h a t t h e base r u l e s i n t r o d u c e N, A, and V ( a s a b o v e ) , w h i c h a r e r e p l a c e d by t h e r u l e X"  >- X...  F o l l o w i n g t h e same n o t a t i o n , t h e nodes d o m i n a t e d by N", A and V a r e  68  designated A, and Y i n  as N", A, and V" r e s p e c t i v e l y ; the p h r a s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the base are the "speci t i e r s . "  N,  The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the e l e -  ments i n the base can be done by the f o l l o w i n g schema: X  • specify  J.J  where s p e c i f i e d N - D e t e r m i n a n t "  V - Auxiliary A - A d j e c t i v a l AP  The d e f i n i t i v e base r u l e s p r o p o s e d by the l e x i c a l i s t h y p o t h e s i s  are as  follows: P  > N  X  • Specify X X  X  • X  V  By means o f t h i s c o n v e n t i o n a l i z a t i o n s concerning  ... Chomsky wants to a c c o u n t f o r s y n t a c t i c g e n e r -  the s t r u c t u r e o f the complements N, A and V w h i c h  b e l o n g t o the same d e r i v a t i o n a l f a m i l y , and t r y t o a c c o u n t a t the same t i m e f o r the l e x i c a l d e r i v a t i o n a l i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .  A l t h o u g h we a g r e e  w i t h t h i s new a n a l y s i s i n i t s p r i n c i p l e , we t h i n k t h i s s o l u t i o n i s n o t e n t i r e l y acceptable. representation  In the base r u l e s f o r m u l a t e d ,  i t shows n e i t h e r  o f s y n t a c t i c f u n c t i o n s , nor any s t r u c t u r a t i o n w h i c h d i s -  t i n g u i s h e s between a N S u b j e c t and a NComplement.  Chomsky  i n A s p e c t s the need o f t h e s e f u n c t i o n s i n the f o r m u l a t i o n  recognizes o f the s y n t a c t i c  rules. The l e x i c a l i s t h y p o t h e s i s S y n t a x P r o j e c t (UESP, 1968:69).  has been a d o p t e d i n the UCLA E n g l i s h The r e s e a r c h e r s  of this investigation  have i n t e g r a t e d t h e t h e o r y o f the l e x i c a l i s t h y p o t h e s i s  with  Fillmore's  t h e o r y o f Case Grammar i n o r d e r t o remove the d e f i c i e n c i e s o f the Chomskyan a n a l y s i s .  new  69 D.  I n t e r p r e t a t i v e Semantics I n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c s i s one s c h o o l o f s e m a n t i c s which f o l l o w s  up the A s p e c t s model.  I t p o s t u l a t e s a "deep s t r u c t u r e " g e n e r a t e d by a  s y s t e m o f r u l e s i n d e p e n d e n t o f c o n t e x t a t which l e v e l the l e x i c a l f e a t u r e s a r e i n t r o d u c e d en b l o c .  Chomsky (1968a, 1970) s a y s t h a t s i n c e i n a model  " n e u t r a l " by d e f i n i t i o n , i n terms o f p e r f o r m a n c e , the n o t i o n s o f a p o s i t i o n o f a component - b e f o r e o r a f t e r - i n r e l a t i o n t o a n o t h e r component, a r e a r b i t r a r y , the s e m a n t i c component may come b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e s y n t a c t i c component i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the model.  He c o n c l u d e s t h a t  the two p o s i t i o n s a r e e q u i v a l e n t ( 1 9 6 8 : 5 ) . K a t z , i n h i s r e c e n t work ( 1 9 7 0 ) , has a d o p t e d t h e same a t t i t u d e as Chomsky towards g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s , and has e l a b o r a t e d more e x t e n s i v e l y on some o f t h e o b j e c t i o n s . T h e r e a r e t h r e e p o s i t i o n s on i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c s .  These  p o s i t i o n s a r e Chomsky's new p r o p o s a l o f the b a s i c t h e o r y and K a t z ' s and Fillmore's modification of that proposal.  1. Chomsky's P o s i t i o n K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) and Chomsky (1965) a g r e e on t h e n e u t r a l i t y o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s i n r e l a t i o n to t h e s e m a n t i c s o f t h e s e n t e n c e . The K a t z and P o s t a l t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e p l a c e s t h e s e m a n t i c s o f t h e s e n t e n c e i n the base.  But Chomsky (1968a) p r e s e n t s a number o f  arguments  a g a i n s t t h i s p r i n c i p l e , showing t h a t i n s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t bases the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s add t o the meaning o f t h e s e n t e n c e .  To a s s u r e a c o r r e c t s e m a n t i c  70  form and t o e l i m i n a t e i m p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , Chomsky s u p p l i e s examp l e s based on ' f o c u s ' and ' p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s ' phenomena. g i v e s examples o f q u a n t i f i e r s and n e g a t i o n c a s e s .  Jackendoff  (1969)  Kuroda (1969) p o i n t s  out c o n d i t i o n s c o n s t r a i n i n g t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f some forms such as "even," and  "only." In t h e f o l l o w i n g  sentences  1) Did John g i v e the book t o B i l l ? 2) D i d John g i v e B i l l t h e book? we do n o t take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the a p p r o p r i a t e i n t o n a t i o n p a t t e r n w h i c h w o u l d g i v e the r i g h t answer t o t h e s e two q u e s t i o n s .  Chomsky s t a t e s  t h a t t h e r e i s one p a t t e r n o f normal i n t o n a t i o n to each one o f t h e s e  sen-  t e n c e s , but t h a t i n the o r d e r o f the c o n s t i t u e n t s , o n l y the s y n t a c t i c form d e t e r m i n e s  an a d e q u a t e answer.  r o g a t i v e form d e t e r m i n e s  The f i n a l p o s i t i o n o f the i n t e r -  t h e "Focus" and the o t h e r e l e m e n t s ,  s u p p o s i t i o n o f the s e n t e n c e .  the pre-  Thus t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t  "John gave the book t o someone," and i t does n o t a l l o w f o r an answer of the kind: 3) No, he gave George the p h o t o g r a p h , b e c a u s e t h e answer w o u l d c o n t r a d i c t the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n .  In an a n a l o g o u s  way, q u e s t i o n (2) c a r r i e s the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t "John gave s o m e t h i n g t o B i l l , " and e x c l u d e s answers such  as:  4) He gave the book t o Mary. Chomsky's c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c  r u l e s must f o l l o w  t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l and p h o n o l o g i c a l components, b e c a u s e t h e s e q u e n c e and the i n t o n a t i o n p a t t e r n s may c o n t r i b u t e t o the meaning o f the  utterance.  71 Chomsky (1968:35) p r o p o s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g model o f i n t e r p r e t a t i v e semanti cs: 1) The base has a n a l o g o u s r u l e s t o t h o s e f o r m u l a t e d i n t h e l e x i c a l i s t hypothesis; 2) The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n component i s o f the t y p e p o s t u l a t e d i n A s p e c t s (Ch. I l l ) ; 3) The p h o n o l o g i c a l component c o v e r s a s y s t e m o f r u l e s as f o u n d i n Chomsky and H a l l e ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; ' 4) The s e m a n t i c component i s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e , as p r o p o s e d by K a t z and P o s t a l ( 1 9 6 4 ) .  2. K a t z ' s P o s i t i o n K a t z , i n h i s o p p o s i t i o n t o Chomsky's i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c s , and a l s o as an a t t e m p t t o d e f e n d h i s own model ( K a t z and P o s t a l , 1964), c o n f i n e s s e m a n t i c s t o the l e v e l o f deep s t r u c t u r e . He p r o p o s e s t h a t a l l t h e f a c t s , " f o c u s , " " p r e s u p p o s i t i o n , " " n e g a t i o n , " and " q u a n t i f i e r c a s e s " t h a t Chomsky wanted t o e x p l a i n by i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s , s h o u l d be e x p l a i n e d n o t a t t h e s e m a n t i c l e v e l but a t t h e s t y l i s t i c l e v e l .  The  f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s which c a r r y t h e a c c e n t i n the u n d e r l i n e d word, r e v e a l t h e s u r p r i s e o f the s p e a k e r : 1) John i s r e a d i n g t h e  newspaper,  2) John i s r e a d i n g the  newspaper,  3) John i s r e a d i n g the  newspaper.  These t h r e e s e n t e n c e s have the same s y n t a c t i c c o n t e n t b u t the d i f f e r e n t emphasis i s a s t y l i s t i c f a c t .  A l l Chomsky's s u r f a c e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s  72 a r e c a l l e d by Katz " s t y l i s t i c f a c t s . " To a c c o u n t f o r them he p o s t u l a t e s a s t y l i s t i c component, w h i c h a p p l i e s t o t h e d e r i v a t i o n a f t e r t h e a p p l i cation o f the phonological  component.  3. F i l l m o r e ' s P o s i t i o n The t h i r d p o i n t o f view on I n t e r p r e t a t i v e S e m a n t i c s i s p r e s e n t e d by F i l l m o r e (1969) who i s i n s p i r e d by " o r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e p h i l o s o p h e r s " such as A u s t i n ( 1 9 6 2 a , 1962b-1963), S t r a w s o n ( 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 3 ) , A l s t o n (1964) and Ryle ( 1 9 5 3 - 1 9 6 4 ) .  He b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e i r methods a r e n o t d i r e c t l y  a p p l i c a b l e t o l i n g u i s t i c s , b u t t h e i r explanations could account f o r t h e co-occurrence  o f elements i n sentences.  Austin's attempt to d e f i n e  " f e l i c i t y c o n d i t i o n s " ( u s a g e c o n d i t i o n s ) may c o n t r i b u t e t o a s e m a n t i c d e s c r i p t i o n o f meaning, on l a r g e r u n i t s than t h e word.  Thus, the u t t e r -  ance " c l o s e t h e d o o r " needs t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s t o be u t t e r e d : 1) A r e l a t i o n between t h e s p e a k e r and t h e l i s t e n e r ; 2) The l i s t e n e r must be i n a p o s i t i o n t o p e r f o r m t h e command; 3) The d o o r must e x i s t , and be i d e n t i f i e d as t h e same d o o r by both t h e s p e a k e r and t h e l i s t e n e r ; 4) T h i s d o o r s h o u l d be open a t t h e moment o f u t t e r a n c e ; 5) The s p e a k e r must have t h e d e s i r e t o s e e t h e d o o r c l o s e d . A c c o r d i n g t o F i l l m o r e , t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s have n e g l e c t e d t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e 'usage c o n d i t i o n s ' and t h e grammatical t e r i z e the sentence.  f a c t s which  charac-  As an example, t h e i m p e r a t i v e i m p l i e s c o n d i t i o n  ( 1 ) , and t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i m p l i e s c o n d i t i o n ( 3 ) . t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e o f two t y p e s :  He p o i n t s o u t t h a t  73 a) P r e c o n d i t i o n s o r p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . by grammatical  T h e s e are n o t a f f e c t e d  transformations.  b) I l l o c u t i o n a r y ( e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c ) .  These are e x c l u s i v e l y  a f f e c t e d by the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ( n e g a t i o n o n l y a f f e c t s the fourth condition). F i l l m o r e p o s t u l a t e s the h y p o t h e s i s o f " s e m a n t i c p a t h s , " w h i c h says t h a t from an e x h a u s t i v e grammatical  d e s c r i p t i o n , i t w o u l d be p o s s i b l e  t o c a l c u l a t e the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s t h a t a r e i m p l i c i t . f u n c t i o n o f the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c component.  T h i s w o u l d be the But i n o r d e r t o a c c o u n t  f o r the i m p l i c i t p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s t h e s e f i r s t w o u l d have t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f each l e x i c a l e l e m e n t .  In h i s a r t i c l e "Verbs  of  J u d g i n g : An E x e r c i s e i n S e m a n t i c D e s c r i p t i o n " ( 1 9 6 9 ) , F i l l m o r e g i v e s an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h i s t y p e o f d e s c r i p t i o n , g i v i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a " s e m a n t i c p a t h " o f the v e r b s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the a c t o f j u d g i n g o r t h e "process of judging."  As an example we r e p r o d u c e h e r e the two  verbs  a c c u s e and c r i t i c i z e w i t h t h e i r l e x i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s . In t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s e two v e r b s we n o t i c e f i v e l e x i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between them: 1) A c c u s e - i s a p e r f o r m a t i v e verb ( i n A u s t i n ' s (1962) s e n s e ) , a verb w h i c h has an i n f o r m a t i v e v a l u e and may a l s o cons t i t u t e an.act of accusation.  C r i t i c i z e does not c o n s t i -  t u t e an a c t . a) I a c c u s e you o f b e a t i n g y o u r w i f e , b) I c r i t i c i z e y o u f o r b e a t i n g y o u r w i f e . 2) A c c u s e - r e q u i r e s the p r o p o s i t i o n o f b e f o r e a t h i r d a r g u ment; c r i t i c i z e r e q u i r e s i n the same e n v i r o n m e n t position for.  the p r e -  74 3) A c c u s e - p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n i s "bad"; c r i t i c i z e announces t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n i s "bad." 4) A c c u s e - s a y s t h a t t h e ' a c c u s e e ' i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s i t u a t i o n ; c r i t i c i z e presupposes the s i t u a t i o n . 5) C r i t i c i ze - p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t the s i t u a t i o n i s a g r a n t e d f a c t , w h i l e a c c u s e does n o t i n d i c a t e i t a t a l l . For F i l l m o r e a l l t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y as p a r t o f t h e s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e i n h e r e n t i n the meaning o f the s e n t e n c e .  The i n f o r -  m a t i o n must be i n c l u d e d i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s which w i l l i f a sentence i s well-formed or i l l - f o r m e d .  determine  He does n o t , however, d e s -  c r i b e t h e f o r m o f t h e s e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s , s o we can o n l y s u p p o s e t h a t t h e y w o u l d t a k e t h e f o r m o f t h e K a t z and Fodor t y p e o f p r o j e c t i o n r u l e s , o r the s e l e c t i o n a l r u l e s o f Chomsky.  E.  Case Grammar T h e o r y F i l l m o r e ' s work on " I n d i r e c t Complement C o n s t r u c t i o n s " (1962-  1965) d i v e r g e s f r o m Chomsky's A s p e c t s model.  The p r o b l e m o f t h e p r e -  p o s i t i o n a l f o r m o f the i n d i r e c t complement i s p a r t o f t h e g e n e r a l p r o b l e m of p r e p o s i t i o n s (1966a).  Note the f o l l o w i n g examples  (1966b-1968):  1) The key opened t h e d o o r , 2) The man opened t h e d o o r . A f t e r h a v i n g a p p l i e d a p a s s i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , t h e s e two s e n t e n c e s show d i f f e r e n t s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e forms: 3) The d o o r was opened wi t h a key, 4) The door was opened by_ the man.  75 F i l l m o r e p r o p o s e s t h e c o n c e p t o f "deep c a s e s " ( 1 9 6 6 a ) .  This hypothesis  would be a p p l i c a b l e t o l a n g u a g e s l i k e R u s s i a n , German, L a t i n , w h i c h p r e s e n t s u r f a c e c a s e s , and a l s o f o r l a n g u a g e s w i t h a s u p e r f i c i a l r e a l i z a t i o n o f c a s e such as E n g l i s h , F r e n c h , P o r t u g u e s e , w i t h a p r e p o s i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , and even f o r T u r k i s h w i t h an a g g l u t i n a t i o n o r d e r i n g . F i l l m o r e n o t e s t h a t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s a c c o u n t s f o r a g r e a t e r number o f f a c t s t h a n t h e A s p e c t s t y p e o f grammar.  In a s e r i e s o f a r t i c l e s (1966a, 1966b-1968,  1967, 1968a, 1968b, 1968c-1969, p r o p e r t i e s o f h i s model.  1970), he e x p l a i n s and j u s t i f i e s t h e  T h i s model (1968a:21-22)  examines f i r s t t h e  r e l a t i o n s between some s e m a n t i c a l l y s i m i l a r , b u t p h o n o l o g i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t f o r m s , such as t h e v e r b s " r o b " and " s t e a l . "  The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e  two v e r b s may be r e p r e s e n t e d as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e number and t h e permutation of cases: 1) George s t o l e ; George s t o l e a f o r t u n e . 2) George s t o l e f r o m t h e bank. 3) George s t o l e a f o r t u n e from t h e bank, l a ) George r o b b e d t h e bank. 2a) George robbed t h e bank o f a f o r t u n e . These v e r b s have t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s : Steal [Agent, ( O b j e c t ) , ( P a t i e n t ) ] Rob  [Agent, P a t i e n t , ( O b j e c t ) ]  By t h e same c r i t e r i a we can e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e m a n t i c v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e same p h o n o l o g i c a l f o r m (1967, 1968). 1. Break - [ O b j e c t ] The window b r o k e  76 2. Break  [Instrument,  Object]  The b a l l b r o k e t h e window 3. Break  [Agent,  Object]  The man b r o k e t h e window 4. B r e a k  [Agent, I n s t r u m e n t ,  Object]  The man b r o k e t h e window w i t h t h e b a l l The verb B r e a k r e q u i r e s o n l y one e n t r y i n t h e l e x i c o n : 3 Break [(Agent), (Instrument), Object].. The "deep c a s e s h y p o t h e s i s " a c c o u n t s a l s o f o r t h e n o t i o n o f grammatical  r e l a t i o n s w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o F i l l m o r e , a r e an e x c l u s i v e l y  s u r f a c e phenomenon. In t h e f o l l o w i n g  sentences:  1) The boy s l a p p e d t h e g i r l , 2) The boy r e c e i v e d a blow, the n o t i o n o f " s u b j e c t o f " comes from two deep s t r u c t u r e s .  The d i f f e r -  ence i s d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e cases t h a t take t h e arguments o f t h e v e r b s : Slap [Agent,  Patient]  Receive [ P a t i e n t , Object] The s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i s g i v e n by t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and does n o t exp r e s s any s e m a n t i c  relation.  The same c r i t e r i o n c a n a p p l y t o t h e n o t i o n  " o b j e c t o f . " In t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s  ( 1 9 7 0 : 3 8 ) , t h e word 'pumpkin'  p l a y s a d i f f e r e n t r o l e i n each deep c a s e , b u t i t s p o s i t i o n a t t h e s u r f a c e l e v e l i s always o f an o b j e c t . Where [ 1 r e q u i r e s an o b l i g a t o r y p r e s e n c e o f t h e argument. ( ) r e q u i r e s o n l y an o p t i o n a l argument.  77 1) I smashed the pumpkin. 2) I grew the pumpkin. 3) I l i k e the pumpkin. 4) I i m a g i n e d the pumpkin. Smash - [ A g e n t ,  Object]  Grow -  [Agent, P a t i e n t ]  Like -  [Patient, Instrument]  Imagine - [ P a t i e n t ,  Object]  F i l l m o r e ' s model has many a d v a n t a g e s .  B e s i d e s t h e ones a l r e a d y  p o i n t e d o u t , i t a l l o w s f o r the e l i m i n a t i o n i n t h e grammar o f n o u n - p h r a s e s and p r e p o s i t i o n a l and a d v e r b i a l p h r a s e s c a t e g o r i e s .  Every argument o f  t h e v e r b t a k e s the f o r m o f a u n i q u e nominal c a t e g o r y , d o m i n a t e d by a deep c a s e ; t h i s c a t e g o r y may be r e a l i z e d a t the s u r f a c e l e v e l by a p r e p o s i t i o n o r a n o u n - p h r a s e s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t (1966b, 1968:362). A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h Chomsky's model shows t h a t the deep c a s e  theory  p r o v i d e s a s i m p l e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r s e l e c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s p r o b l e m s and lexical entries. The f o l l o w i n g remarks summarize the most i m p o r t a n t c a s e grammar.  aspects  of  Case grammar t h e o r y p r o p o s e s t h a t a l l t h e s e n t e n c e s o f  a g i v e n n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e may be d e r i v e d from the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t r a n s formational rules to a p r o p o s i t i o n or to a s e r i e s of co-ordinated embedded p r o p o s i t i o n s .  or  The r u l e s w h i c h d e t e r m i n e t h e f o r m o f t h e i n i t i a l  p r o p o s i t i o n s t r u c t u r e s a r e o f the  type:  1) z  > (M) P  2) P  • V (0) (D) (A) ( I )  (...)  78  3) 0 D A I ...  • K NP  Where z = S e n t e n c e M = Modality (time, aspect, adverb,  etc..)  P = Proposition V = Verb D = Dative A = Agent 0 = Object 1 = (...)  Instrument  = Any o t h e r p o s s i b l e c a s e s n o t e x p l i c i t l y f o r m u l a t e d by t h e t h e o r y a t the p r e s e n t K = A c o n s t a n t : c a s e , p r e p o s i t i o n , o r word o r d e r , d e p e n d i n g on the l a n g u a g e .  A s e n t e n c e c o n s i s t s o f a p r o p o s i t i o n formed w i t h a v e r b and i t s c a s e  frame.  The c a s e frame has the i n h e r e n t p r o p e r t i e s o f the l e x i c o n o f t h a t v e r b . F i l l m o r e d e f i n e s " c a s e frame" as a f i n i t e number o f o b l i g a t o r y o r o p t i o n a l r o l e s , which a r e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e terms o f t h e e n s e m b l e : O b j e c t , D a t i v e , etc.  The l e x i c o n c o n s i s t s o f t h e e x h a u s t i v e l i s t o f t h e v e r b s d e f i n e d  by t h e i r " c a s e f r a m e s , " and perhaps a l s o o f o t h e r i n h e r e n t s y n t a c t i c properties.  ( F i l l m o r e i s n o t e x p l i c i t about t h i s . ) We suppose t h a t  nouns and o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s a r e marked as i n h e r e n t i n the c a s e c a t e g o r i e s t o which t h e y b e l o n g .  The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s r e a l i z e the same t y p e o f o p e r a -  t i o n as any o t h e r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m , such as e l l i p s e , a d j u n c t i o n and s u b s t i t u t i o n of elements.  The f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s t h e  o b j e c t o f an i m p o r t a n t m o d i f i c a t i o n . The grammatical s e n t e n c e a r e c r e a t e d by a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  f u n c t i o n s o f the  A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , t h e n , has  79 the f u n c t i o n o f c r e a t i n g t h e grammatical  c a t e g o r y o f s u b j e c t and comple-  ment. F i l l m o r e ' s c a s e grammar model has p r e s e n t e d d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s , outlined in his a r t i c l e s .  I t s g e n e r a l form has been a d a p t e d f o r t h e  d e s c r i p t i o n o f s e v e r a l n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s , such as E n g l i s h (UESP,19681969), S p a n i s h ( G o l d i n , 1968), L a t i n ( B i n k e r t , 1970), and R u s s i a n non,  F.  (Chan-  1971).  Montague's T h e o r y o f Grammar Montague's approach i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m any v e r s i o n o f t r a n s f o r -  m a t i o n a l grammar.  T h i s t h e o r y p r e s e n t s some r e m i n i s c e n c e s o f t h e e a r l y  K a t z - F o d o r t h e o r y where b o t h P S - r u l e s and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s had c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o j e c t i o n r u l e s . Montague's approach t o s y n t a x i s t o have r u l e s l i k e P S - r u l e s and r u l e s l i k e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which may a p p l y i n mixed and v a r i a b l e o r d e r s . tic significance.  The o r d e r o f o p e r a t i o n s i s o f t e n o f c r u c i a l seman-  T h e r e i s a l s o a n o t i o n o f noun-phrases s u b s t i t u t i n g  f o r v a r i a b l e s . Montague's grammar w o u l d a n a l y s e the f o l l o w i n g ambiguous sentence: 1) John i s l o o k i n g f o r a l i t t l e g i r l with red h a i r , w i t h one d e r i v a t i o n i n which t h e n o u n - p h r a s e "a l i t t l e g i r l w i t h r e d h a i r " i s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r x, i n " l o o k i n g f o r x" b e f o r e t h e p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s a t t a c h the v e r b - p h r a s e t o t h e s u b j e c t t o make a s e n t e n c e . On a f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , "John" i s d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g t h e p r o p e r t y o f " l o o k i n g f o r a l i t t l e g i r l w i t h r e d h a i r , " o r as c a l l e d by l i n g u i s t s  80  as the n o n - s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g . On a s e c o n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e w i l l be a d e r i v a t i o n w h i c h b u i l d s up a s e n t e n c e "John i s l o o k i n g f o r x," and then s u b s t i t u t e s t h e noun-phrase f o r x. Montague f o r m a l i z e d o n l y a s m a l l f r a g m e n t o f E n g l i s h , b u t t h i s f o r m a l i z a t i o n was c o m p l e t e , which means t h a t t h e s e m a n t i c s , i n c l u d i n g the' l o g i c , was c o m p l e t e l y s p e c i f i e d .  Montague's s y s t e m o f a l o g i c a l  f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f s e m a n t i c s e n c o u r a g e s l i n g u i s t s and l o g i c i a n s t o f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t o see w h e t h e r t h e t r e a t m e n t can be e x t e n d e d t o l a r g e r fragments o f n a t u r a l languages.  II.  SEMANTICS  A.  An O v e r v i e w o f S e m a n t i c s A great deal o f important research i n semantics i s being c a r r i e d  o u t t o d a y by l i n g u i s t s , p h i l o s o p h e r s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s , a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s and computer s c i e n t i s t s , w o r k i n g on a v a r i e t y o f t o p i c s i n d i f f e r e n t ways.  The change o f a t t i t u d e t o "meaning" i n American l i n g u i s t i c s i s  more s t r i k i n g than e l s e w h e r e , s i n c e f o r s o l o n g t h r e e a s s u m p t i o n s were held which s e v e r e l y d i s c o u r a g e d r e s e a r c h i n semantics: 1) Meaning i s i n a c c e s s i b l e t o o b s e r v a t i o n and hence i t is u n s c i e n t i f i c to study i t ; 2) A sound s e m a n t i c a n a l y s i s must be b a s e d on a r e l a t i v e l y complete s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s ; 3) S e m a n t i c s i n l i n g u i s t i c s i s an autonomous d i s c i p l i n e , a b s t r a c t e d f r o m m a t t e r s o f b e l i e f , custom, c o n t e x t , and o t h e r f a c t o r s y e t t o be d e t e r m i n e d .  81 The f i r s t p o i n t i s c o n t r a d i c t e d by the f a c t t h a t s p e a k e r s a r e much b e t t e r a t t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e meaning o f words and s e n t e n c e s t h a n about any o t h e r a s p e c t o f l a n g u a g e , because meaning i s more a c c e s s i b l e t o i n t r o s p e c t i o n than p h o n o l o g y and grammar.  As C h a f e s t a t e s (1970:  75-78): This u n w i l l i n g n e s s to recognize the r e a l i t y o f concepts, as w e l l as the p h o n e t i c b i a s from w h i c h so much o f l i n g u i s t i c s has s u f f e r e d , a r e b o t h t r a c e a b l e t o t h e v e r y r e a l problems which a r e i n h e r e n t i n a t t e m p t s t o a p p r o a c h c o n c e p t s t h r o u g h o b s e r v a b l e d a t a . . . . The o b s e r v a t i o n o f meanings and t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f an adequate way o f r e p r e s e n t i n g them c a n n o t h e l p b u t be more d i f f i c u l t by a c o n s i d e r a b l e m a r g i n . To say t h a t c o n c e p t s e x i s t , t h e n , i s not t o s a y we a r e a b l e t o i s o l a t e them i n o u r c o n s c i o u s n e s s a t a moment's n o t i c e o r we have s a t i s f a c t o r y ways o f r e p r e s e n t i n g o r d i s c u s s i n g them. A p r o p e r c o n c e r n f o r meanings s h o u l d l e a d t o a s i t u a t i o n where, i n t h e t r a i n i n g o f l i n g u i s t s , p r a c t i c e i n the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f concepts w i l l be g i v e n a t l e a s t as much time i n c u r r i c u l u m as p r a c t i c e i n the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f s o u n d s . The s e c o n d p o i n t , b a s i n g s e m a n t i c a n a l y s i s on s y n t a x , was c h a l l e n g e d when Katz and P o s t a l (1964) s u g g e s t e d t h a t i f the base component o f a grammar c o n t a i n s a l l t h e m e a n i n g f u l e l e m e n t s s o t h a t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s w i l l n o t change meaning, the whole grammar w i l l be s i m p l i f i e d .  Sub-  s e q u e n t work, s u c h as C a r o l and P a u l K i p a r s k y ' s p a p e r on f a c t i v e v e r b s ( 1 9 7 0 ) , shows t h a t by t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t s e m a n t i c f a c t s , t h e s y n t a x is greatly simplified.  McCawley (1968) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t many f e a t u r e s  t h a t a r e b e i n g c a l l e d s y n t a c t i c ( A n i m a t e , Human, C o n c r e t e ) a r e r e a l l y semantic f e a t u r e s . With r e s p e c t t o t h e autonomy o f l i n g u i s t i c s , t h e r e l e v a n c e o f l o g i c , b e l i e f s , and c o n t e n t i s r e c o g n i z e d .  P r e s u p p o s i t i o n s have t u r n e d  o u t t o be i m p o r t a n t a t a l l l e v e l s o f s e m a n t i c a n a l y s i s ; words, s e n t e n c e s ,  82 and u t t e r a n c e s i n c o n t e x t .  A s e n t e n c e P i s p r e s u p p o s e d by S i n c a s e S  i m p l i e s P and t h e s e n t e n c e formed by n e g a t i n g t h e main v e r b o f S a l s o imp l i e s P.  For example, b o t h (1) and (2) p r e s u p p o s e ( 3 ) : 1) J o h n knows t h a t t h e w o r l d i s r o u n d , 2) John d o e s n ' t know t h a t t h e w o r l d i s r o u n d , 3) The w o r l d i s r o u n d .  1. Word Meaning The n o t i o n o f s e m a n t i c f i e l d s i s a c o n c e p t d e v e l o p e d by T r i e r and P o r z i g and f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d and combined w i t h g e n e r a t i v e grammar by Lyons (1963-1968).  The f i e l d t h e o r y assumes t h a t t h e way t o under-  s t a n d what words mean i s t o s t u d y a l l t h e words i n a f i e l d t o g e t h e r and see how t h e y d i v i d e up c o n c e p t u a l s p a c e , how t h e words i n each f i e l d are r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r .  The f i e l d t h e o r y i s most u s e f u l f o r s e t s  o f words w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t e n t - nouns, v e r b s , a d j e c t i v e s , some p r e p o s i t i o n s , a d v e r b s , and some d e r i v a t i o n a l a f f i x e s ; l e a s t u s e f u l f o r gramm a t i c a l t e r m s , l i k e modals, i n f l e x i o n a l a f f i x e s , and a d v e r b s l i k e "even" and " y e t . "  One o f t h e advantages o f f i e l d a n a l y s i s i s t h a t we can b e t t e r  u n d e r s t a n d t h e ways i n which words can be s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x t e n d e d i n meaning.  S e t s o f l e x i c a l i t e m s t e n d t o b e a r t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p t o  each o t h e r i n a v a r i e t y o f d i s c o u r s e c o n t e x t s . T h e r e a r e , however, problems i n d e t e r m i n i n g the domain o f a f i e l d and d e c i d i n g w h i c h  lexical  items are i n c l u d e d i n i t . C o m p o n e n t i a l a n a l y s i s , the t e c h n i q u e o f decomposing  the meaning  of words i n t o s e m a n t i c components comes from H j e l m s l e v and f r o m s t u d i e s  83 i n e t h n o s c i e n c e , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e s t u d y o f k i n s h i p terms and p r o n o u n s . Componential a n a l y s i s p r e s u p p o s e s a s p e c t s o f t h e f i e l d t h e o r y i n t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t o r l o o k s a t a s e t o f words i n a c a r e f u l l y d e l i n e a t e d a r e a which has b a s i c s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s i n common b u t whose meanings c o n t r a s t w i t h each o t h e r by v i r t u e o f one o r more d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s p e c t t o s e v e r a l o t h e r k i n d s o f f e a t u r e s . The s e m a n t i c t h e o r i e s o f K a t z and Fodor ( 1 9 6 3 ) , K a t z and P o s t a l ( 1 9 6 4 ) , and W e i n r e i c h (1966) a r e based on decomposing words i n t o f e a t u r e s o r s e m a n t i c m a r k e r s .  Y e t , i t i s n o t v e r y c l e a r what  a s e m a n t i c component i s supposed t o be,whether i t i s j u s t a s e m a n t i c p r i m i t i v e , a s e t o f b a s i c words, a p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r i m e , o r a c o n c e p t o f some s o r t .  Some components c a n be e x p r e s s e d by a word o r two ( A n i m a t e ) ,  ( M a l e ) , w h i l e o t h e r s r e q u i r e a t l e a s t a whole s e n t e n c e . By c o m b i n i n g t h e f i e l d t h e o r y w i t h c o m p o n e n t i a l a n a l y s i s - t h a t i s , by l o o k i n g a t t h e way i n which a s e m a n t i c f i e l d i s d i v i d e d up by the words i n i t and u s i n g t h a t as a b a s i s f o r d e c i d i n g what t h e i r semant i c f e a t u r e s a r e -we can g a i n i m p o r t a n t i n s i g h t s i n t o word meaning.  Fill-  more has d e s c r i b e d t h e s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e o f v e r b s o f ' j u d g i n g ' ( a c c u s e , c r i t i c i z e , credit, praise, scold, confess, apologize, forgive, justify and e x c u s e ) : 1) John a c c u s e d H a r r y o f w r i t i n g t h e l e t t e r , 2) J o h n c r i t i c i z e d H a r r y f o r w r i t i n g t h e l e t t e r , 3) John c r e d i t e d H a r r y w i t h w r i t i n g t h e l e t t e r , 4) John p r a i s e d H a r r y f o r w r i t i n g t h e l e t t e r . In ( 1 ) John p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t H a r r y i s bad and s a y s t h a t H a r r y i s r e s p o n sible.  In ( 2 ) John p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t H a r r y i s r e s p o n s i b l e and p r e s u p p o s e s  84 t h a t the a c t i s bad.  In (3) John p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t w r i t i n g the l e t t e r  i s good and says t h a t H a r r y i s r e s p o n s i b l e , w h i l e i n (4) John p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t H a r r y i s r e s p o n s i b l e and says t h a t w r i t i n g the l e t t e r i s good. The use o f b i n a r y f e a t u r e s a l o n g w i t h [+] n o t a t i o n i s w i d e l y in semantic a n a l y s i s .  used  D i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e a n a l y s i s was so s u c c e s s f u l  i n p h o n o l o g y t h a t i t has been a p p l i e d t o s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s as w e l l . A n i m a t e - I n a n i m a t e , Count-Mass, S i n g u l a r - P l u r a l , Proper-Common, d i s t i n c t i o n s h a v e been s y m b o l i z e d o n l y one t e r m o f each p a i r .  Masculine-Feminine, as [+] o r [-] by  using  The a d v a n t a g e o f t h i s n o t a t i o n i s t h a t i t  makes e x p l i c i t t h a t b o t h f e a t u r e s o f d i f f e r e n t s e t s b e l o n g t o the same s y s t e m , i . e . Count and Mass. treatment  The d i s a d v a n t a g e  o f t h i s n o t a t i o n i s the  o f unmarked i t e m s , such as c h i l d .  2. The L e x i c o n and t h e Grammar The d i v i s i o n o f s e m a n t i c s i n t o the meaning o f words and meaning o f p h r a s e s i s a r b i t r a r y and even o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y  limited  use, s i n c e many words a r e p a r a p h r a s e s o f p h r a s e s o r c l a u s e s . s e m a n t i c t h e o r i e s have a l l s t r e s s e d t h i s p o i n t .  the  The m a j o r  'Dentist' i s roughly  e q u i v a l e n t t o 'one who f i x e s t e e t h ' and 'sadden' i s a n a l y s e d as 'make (someone) s a d . '  A c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f r e s e a r c h has been done on t h e  s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c e r t a i n c l a s s e s o f verbs and o f l o c a t i o n and m o t i o n ( G r u b e r ,  prepositions  1 9 6 5 ) , and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  s t a t i v e , i n c h o a t i v e , and c a u s a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s , 'be dead,' ' d i e - k i l l ' ( L a k o f f , 1970; B i n n i c k , 1970). In a d d i t i o n t o the p r o b l e m o f how t o r e p r e s e n t t h e s e f a c t s , t h e r e are genuine d i f f e r e n c e s of substance concerning  the e q u i v a l e n c e  o f meaning.  85  C h a f e i s somewhat a p p a l l e d by a " r e m a r k a b l e i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o meaning d i f f e r e n c e s e x h i b i t i n g any d e g r e e o f s u b t l e t y " ( 1 9 7 1 : 1 1 ) . that sentences  Chafe argues  l i k e (1) and ( 2 ) : 1) The o l d l a d y k i c k e d the  bucket,  2) The o l d l a d y d i e d , are paraphrases  i n o n l y vague t e r m s , and the two s e n t e n c e s  f e r e n t semantic s t r u c t u r e .  Even i n s e n t e n c e s  have a d i f -  that are t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y  r e l a t e d , such as a c t i v e s and p a s s i v e s , the meaning i s d i f f e r e n t i n v a r i o u s s u b t l e ways. P o s t a l ' s a n a l y s i s o f Remind ( 1 9 7 0 ) , i n w h i c h " r e m i n d " i s d e r i v e d from an u n d e r l y i n g p h r a s e l i k e " p e r c e i v e as s i m i l a r , " r e s t s u l t i m a t e l y on w h e t h e r the two a r e synonymous.  Postal argues that  1) Larry r e m i n d s me o f W i n s t o n C h u r c h i l l a l t h o u g h I p e r c e i v e t h a t L a r r y i s not s i m i l a r t o W i n s t o n C h u r c h i l l , is contradictory.  But the  sentence  2) F o r some r e a s o n L a r r y r e m i n d s me o f W i n s t o n C h u r c h i l l a l t h o u g h I p e r c e i v e t h a t L a r r y i s not r e a l l y s i m i l a r t o him a t a l l , expresses a meaningful  and n o n c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e p o r t on the p a r t o f t h e  s p e a k e r o f some s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f h i s .  P o s t a l a r g u e s t h a t the  u n d e r l y i n g verb " p e r c e i v e " i s not e q u i v a l e n t t o the s u r f a c e verb and " s i m i l a r " i s not e q u i v a l e n t t o s i m i l a r . So, s e n t e n c e be c o n t r a d i c t o r y .  perceive,  (2) m i g h t n o t  Even i f " r e m i n d " i s synonymous w i t h " p e r c e i v e as s i m i -  l a r " on one r e a d i n g , t h e r e r e m a i n s the p r o b l e m o f the o t h e r  readings.  In c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the p r o b l e m o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between words and c o n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e r e i s t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f p o s s i b l e and  impossible  86 l e x i c a l items.  Morgan (1968, 1969), P o s t a l (1968) and McCawley (1970)  have done i n t e r e s t i n g work on the t h i n g s t h a t can be i n c o r p o r a t e d a l e x i c a l i t e m and c a n n o t .  into  Morgan (1969) a r g u e s t h a t o n l y c e r t a i n k i n d s  o f c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e s may be encoded i n a s i n g l e word, though i t i s necessary  t o s p e c i f y what k i n d s o f c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e s a r e i n v o l v e d . The n o t i o n o f l e x i c a l gap i s r e l a t e d t o the p r o b l e m o f p o s s i b l e  l e x i c a l i t e m s , but i s somehow i n c o h e r e n t .  Not e v e r y p o s s i b l e b u t  non-  e x i s t i n g l e x i c a l i t e m c o n s t i t u t e s a gap. McCawley has d i s t i n g u i s h e d between l e x i c a l i t e m s t h a t a r e  im-  p o s s i b l e i n a l l l a n g u a g e s and t h o s e t h a t a r e i m p o s s i b l e t o a s p e c i f i c culture.  F o r example, t h e r e c a n n o t be a l e x i c a l i t e m i n E n g l i s h  "dotter"  meaning " f e m a l e c h i l d o f a f e m a l e p a r e n t " s u c h t h a t x i s t h e d o t t e r o f y o n l y i f y i s the mother o f x. f o r such  O t h e r l a n g u a g e s , however, have words  concepts.  The a b s e n c e o f " d o t t e r " i n E n g l i s h i s a s p e c i a l case o f a much more g e n e r a l phenomenon, namely t h a t no E n g l i s h k i n s h i p t e r m makes r e f e r e n c e to the sex o f the "ego" o r any o f the " l i n k i n g r e l a t i v e s , " e.g. i n "x i s y ' s u n c l e , " x's sex i s r e l e v a n t t o the c h o i c e o f u n c l e r a t h e r t h a n a u n t , b u t y ' s sex i s not . . . (1971:13) C e n t r a l t o McCawley's n o t i o n o f " p o s s i b l e l e x i c a l i t e m i n a c u l t u r e " i s a l e x i c a l f i e l d w i t h a c l e a r l y d e l i m i t e d domain, t h a t can be  described  by a s m a l l c l o s e d s e t o f components, s u c h as k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y .  How-  e v e r , i n a domain d e a l i n g w i t h a r t i f a c t s , m o t i o n , o r e m o t i o n i n w h i c h the membership o f words i s open, i n w h i c h the b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e domain a r e amorphous, and i n w h i c h i t i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r what t o i n c l u d e o r o m i t f r o m l e x i c a l s t r u c t u r e , the m a t t e r i s  obscure.  87 3. Language and L o g i c T h e r e a r e words i n e v e r y n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e t h a t c a n n o t be a n a l y s e d a d e q u a t e l y by a s s i g n i n g components. such a s : not,  and,  or;  words l i k e even and yet.  These words a r e l o g i c a l c o n j u n c t o r s  q u a n t i f i e r s , such a s : all,  some, only; and o t h e r  These words a f f e c t the meaning o f the whole  s e n t e n c e , by b r i n g i n g i n e n t a i l m e n t s and p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s t h a t would be l a c k i n g w i t h o u t them.  A sentence l i k e  1) Even C h a r l e s t r i e d on t h e j a c k e t , e n t a i l s three other statements, 2) C h a r l e s t r i e d on t h e j a c k e t , 3) O t h e r p e o p l e t r i e d on t h e j a c k e t , 4) The s p e a k e r would n o t e x p e c t o r would n o t e x p e c t the h e a r e r t o e x p e c t C h a r l e s t o t r y on t h e j a c k e t . S e n t e n c e (2) i s the main a s s e r t i o n and w o u l d remain i f "even" d i d n o t a p p e a r i n s e n t e n c e ( 1 ) . When "even" o c c u r s i n c o n d i t i o n a l s e n t e n c e s , i t has the e f f e c t o f n e u t r a l i z i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n a l c l a u s e ( F r a s e r , 1969: 68). G. L a k o f f has done i n t e r e s t i n g work on l o g i c and n a t u r a l l a n guage.  He s t a t e s t h a t i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e n t e n c e 5) The mayor i s a R e p u b l i c a n and the used c a r dealer i s honest, too,  c e r t a i n p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s e n t e n c e t o be g r a m m a t i c a l namely, t h a t 8) A l l R e p u b l i c a n s a r e h o n e s t , 9) The mayor i s the used c a r d e a l e r .  88  However, s e n t e n c e ( 1 0 ) 10) John i s a R e p u b l i c a n , b u t he i s h o n e s t , i s grammatical  o n l y i f one e x p e c t s t h a t R e p u b l i c a n s a r e n o t h o n e s t .  4. Language i n C o n t e x t Many p h i l o s o p h e r s have been a n a l y s i n g speech a c t s .  Austin dis-  c u s s e s p e r f o r m a t i v e s e n t e n c e s , o r u t t e r a n c e s , i n which t h e " i s s u i n g o f the u t t e r a n c e i s t h e p e r f o r m i n g o f an a c t i o n " ( 1 9 6 2 : 6 ) .  Some p e r f o r -  m a t i v e s a r e e x p l i c i t , such as 1) I p r o m i s e t o buy t h e r e c o r d tomorrow, which c o n s t i t u t e s a p r o m i s e , and 2) I am i n v i t i n g y o u f o r d i n n e r tomorrow, which i s an i n v i t a t i o n .  Most p e r f o r m a t i v e s a r e , however, i m p l i c i t .  Ross (1970) has i n c o r p o r a t e d p e r f o r m a t i v e v e r b s i n t o t h e s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e o f s e n t e n c e s , s o t h a t s e n t e n c e ( 3 ) w o u l d be d e r i v e d f r o m s e n t e n c e ( 4 ) , 3) Go home now, 4) I o r d e r y o u t o go home now, and s e n t e n c e ( 5 ) w o u l d be d e r i v e d from s e n t e n c e ( 6 ) , 5) What time i s i t ? 6) I a s k y o u ( o r I r e q u e s t t h a t y o u t e l l me) what t i m e i t i s . Many l i n g u i s t s have worked o u t many o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n and p o i n t o u t t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n does n o t c o n s i s t o f d i s c o n n e c t e d f r a g ments o f d i s c o u r s e , b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e r e a r e c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s which participants recognize.  G. L a k o f f has a t t e m p t e d t o f o r m a l i z e some o f  89 t h e s e n o t i o n s , and R. L a k o f f (1970) has a n a l y s e d s e n t e n c e s i n t h e l i g h t of discourse conventions.  She p o i n t s o u t t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e answers t o  the q u e s t i o n "what time i s i t ? " m i g h t be 7) T h r e e  o'clock,  8) I j u s t t o l d B i l l i t was noon, 9) The sun j u s t came up, 10) None o f y o u r  business,  11) Why? 12) Ask t h e p o l i c e m a n . The f o l l o w i n g answers w o u l d be i n a p p r o p r i a t e : 13) T h e r e a r e t h i r t y - s i x i n c h e s i n a y a r d , 14) In 1962. R. L a k o f f a n a l y s e s t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s and t h e l o g i c a l d e d u c t i o n s t h a t s p e a k e r s make when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h i n d i r e c t answers l i k e t h o s e i n s e n t e n c e s 8-12. c  B.  Current Controversies T h e r e a r e a few c o n t r a d i c t o r y p o s i t i o n s i n t h e d i s p u t e between  the g e n e r a t i v e and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s .  Katz i s i n c l u d e d  w i t h Chomsky as a p r o p o n e n t o f i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c s .  Jackendoff  d i f f e r s from t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s as much as he d i f f e r s the g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s . semanticist,  Chafe c l a s s i f i e s h i m s e l f as a g e n e r a t i v e  b u t i n some ways h i s s y s t e m i s u n i q u e .  there i s disagreement  from  The i s s u e s on w h i c h  a r e d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , the kinds o f r u l e s needed, t h e  o r d e r o f t h e r u l e s , and w h e t h e r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s change meaning.  90 C h a f e has a r g u e d t h a t a l a n g u a g e has d i r e c t i o n a l i t y and t h a t a grammar s h o u l d r e f l e c t t h i s . There i s , then, a kind o f d i r e c t i o n a l i t y i n language w h i c h m i g h t be r e f e r r e d t o as t h e d i r e c t i o n a l i t y o f w e l l - f o r m e d n e s s . What t h i s means i s t h a t t h e w e l l formedness o f s e n t e n c e s i s d e t e r m i n e d i n one d i r e c t i o n from deep ( o r s e m a n t i c ) s t r u c t u r e t o s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e t o ( e v e n t u a l l y ) p h o n e t i c s t r u c t u r e - and n o t i n t h e r e v e r s e d i r e c t i o n . (1971:7) Chomsky ( 1 9 7 0 ) , K a t z ( 1 9 7 0 ) , and G. L a k o f f (1969) t r e a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between sound and meaning as one o f mapping, i n t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l s e n s e , and they d i s a g r e e w i t h C h a f e ' s c l a i m t h a t mapping f r o m s e m a n t i c s t o p h o n e t i c s i s more i n f o r m a t i v e than some o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y . Since the generative semanticists s t a r t with semantic s t r u c t u r e and g e t e v e n t u a l l y t o s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e by means o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , p r o j e c t i o n r u l e s r e l a t i n g deep s t r u c t u r e s t o s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e a r e unnecessary.  Katz agrees with the generative semanticists that a l l  m e a n i n g f u l e l e m e n t s a r e i n s e m a n t i c o r deep s t r u c t u r e , h e n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a r e n o t a l l o w e d t o change meaning.  Chomsky and J a c k e n d o f f  hold  the view t h a t s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e c o n t r i b u t e s t o m e a n i n g , and s o s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r u l e s a r e needed i n a d d i t i o n t o base r u l e s , transformations,  and o u t p u t c o n d i t i o n s .  K a t z needs p r o j e c t i o n r u l e s ,  w h i l e t h e g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s need, i n a d d i t i o n t o base r u l e s , t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s , and o u t p u t c o n d i t i o n s , g l o b a l r u l e s o r c o n s t r a i n t s that can r e t r i e v e t h e d e r i v a t i o n a l h i s t o r y o f a  sentence.  T h e r e a r e a number o f i s s u e s i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y be m a t t e r s o f m e t h o d o l o g y .  that appear to  P o s t a l (1969) a r g u e d t h a t t h e b e s t  i s one w h i c h has t h e f e w e s t k i n d s o f r u l e s , hence g e n e r a t i v e  theory  semantics  91 i s b e t t e r than i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c s b e c a u s e i t can do w i t h o u t j e c t i o n r u l e s and s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r u l e s . g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s need s e v e r a l new t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t h a t convert phrases i n t o s i n g l e l e x i c a l items. t i c i s t s do n o t need s u c h r u l e s . one k i n d o f r u l e , t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , says  pro-  However, the rules, rules  The i n t e r p r e t a t i v e seman-  A l t h o u g h fewer k i n d s o f r u l e s a r e n e e d e d , must do more k i n d s o f t h i n g s .  McCawley  that: In such works as K a t z and Fodor (1963) and K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e was t r e a t e d as s o m e t h i n g o f a very d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e f r o m s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e , and i t was o n l y i n the y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h o s e works t h a t i t became p o s s i b l e f o r l i n g u i s t s t o c o n c e i v e o f the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y m i g h t r e a l l y be t h e same. (1970)  K a t z (1970) a r g u e d t h a t i n h i s own t h e o r y s e m a n t i c and s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e were n o t as d i f f e r e n t as McCawley s u g g e s t e d . The m a j o r i s s u e o v e r w h i c h t h e v a r i o u s groups o f l i n g u i s t s d i f f e r is that of  lexical insertion.  F o r Chomsky, a l l l e x i c a l  items,  i n c l u d i n g terms l i k e " r e s p e c t i v e l y , " a r e i n s e r t e d a f t e r a l l t h e base r u l e s and b e f o r e a l l t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  rules.  For the  generative  s e m a n t i c i s t s , many l e x i c a l i t e m s w i l l be i n s e r t e d a f t e r some t r a n s f o r mations.  F o r e x a m p l e , " c a u s e t o become n o t a l i v e , " a f t e r s e v e r a l  f o r m a t i o n s , w i l l be r e p l a c e d by the l e x i c a l i t e m  trans-  "kill."  Chomsky and K a t z have a r g u e d t h a t t h e i d e a s o f the s e m a n t i c i s t s a r e n o t a t i o n a l v a r i a n t s o f t h e i r own t h e o r i e s .  generative Theory A  i s a n o t a t i o n a l v a r i a n t o f T h e o r y B i f t h e r e i s an a l g o r i t h m f o r g e t t i n g from one t o the o t h e r .  T h e i r c l a i m may be p a r t i a l l y t r u e , as i n r e p l a c i n g  "become n o t a l i v e " w i t h " d i e " o r i n t e r p r e t i n g " d i e " as "become ( n o t a l i v e ) . "  92  However, t h e c u r r e n t work o f t h e g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s , s u c h as McCawley' s r e s e a r c h on r e f e r e n c e , d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s and o t h e r  aspects  o f l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e , a r e very f r a g m e n t e d and i n c o m p l e t e , and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s have done even l e s s on t h e s e t o p i c s .  Therefore  i t i s i n a d v i s a b l e t o s t a t e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t systems a r e n o t a t i o n a l variants.  Moreover, i t i s premature to p r e d i c t the e m p i r i c a l consequences  o f the v a r i o u s  theories.  CHAPTER 3 CRITICISM OF SOME GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the theoretical assumptions and principles which underlie my conception of linguistic description.  Some aspects  of linguistic theory are also criticized in order to establish a position on certain questions already discussed.  This analysis is a necessary  methodological preliminary to the formulation of a theoretical descriptive model for the grammar of Portuguese.  This model will be the base for  the elaboration of an adequate description of the syntactic structures of Portuguese.  The f i r s t step in developing the model is to establish  some criteria to distinguish between syntax and semantics/ This distinction seems absolutely necessary after the discussion in the preceding chapters.  I.  THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY  A.  Dichotomy: Syntax/Semantics In order to write a description of a given language, a clear  conception about syntax is necessary.  The two domains of syntax and  semantics have to be distinguished, although Chomsky's post-Aspects theory does not clearly define syntax, its primacy is proclaimed. This distinction is not necessary for the linguists who say that syntax and semantics are the same. 93  94 In t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s a new s c i e n c e o f s e m a n t i c s has d e v e l o p e d out o f syntax.  Two h y p o t h e s e s on t h e n a t u r e o f s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e s a r e  a c c e p t e d as q u a s i - u n i v e r s a l s : 1) A minimal u n i t o f t h e " s i g n i f i e d " ; t h e s t r u c t u r e o f the " s i g n i f i e d " i s p a r a d i g m a t i c . 2) A u n i t c o m p r i s i n g two " s i g n i f i e d s " ; t h e s t r u c t u r e o f " s i g n i f i c a t i o n " i s syntagmatic. The o p p o s i t e s p a r a d i g m a t i c / s y n t a g m a t i c a r e p o s t u l a t e d by S a u s s u r e ' s conception. Many l i n g u i s t s , such as K a t z , Lamb, McCawley and L e e c h , a g r e e on t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e e s t a b l i s h e d by W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 6 6 : 4 1 7 ) : The g o a l o f a s e m a n t i c t h e o r y o f a l a n g u a g e , as we c o n c e i v e i t , i s t o e x p l i c a t e t h e way i n w h i c h t h e meaning o f a s e n t e n c e o f s p e c i f i e d s t r u c t u r e i s d e r i v a b l e from t h e f u l l y s p e c i f i e d meanings o f i t s p a r t s . I s h a l l d e f i n e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n o f s y n t a x i n t h e same way as H j e l m s l e v , namely, as "an o p e r a t i o n a l h y p o t h e s i s . "  S i n c e my p u r p o s e  i s n o t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e o f P o r t u g u e s e I do n o t pursue t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e s e t h e o r i e s any f u r t h e r . To r e c o g n i z e and e s t a b l i s h a d e l i m i t a t i o n and o p p o s i t i o n between t h e n o t i o n s o f s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s , I w i l l d e f i n e t h e p a r a d i g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e o f t h e " s i g n i fied."  1. The S t r u c t u r e o f t h e " S i g n i f i e d " The s t r u c t u r e o f t h e " s i g n i f i e d " i s a fundamental  hypothesis  t o c o m p o n e n t i a l s e m a n t i c s , b u t q u e s t i o n e d by g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s . If there i s a s u b s t i t u t i o n o f  95 o p e r a t i o n s l i k e G r u b e r ' s " i n c o r p o r a t i o n " ( 1 9 6 5 ) , McCawley's " d e r i v a t i o n " ( 1 9 6 8 ) , o r L a k o f f s " r e i f i c a t i o n " (1968) p r o c e s s e s , i m p o s i n g a s y n t a g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e on t h e " s i g n i f i e d , " a s e r i e s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r e d u c t i o n s makes t h e " s i g n i f i e d " t a k e a p a r a d i g m a t i c s u r f a c e form.  Although  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s seems i n g e n i o u s t h e r e a r e r e a s o n s t o d o u b t i t s v a l i d i t y . G e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s base t h e i r c r i t i c i s m o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s on t h e a p p a r e n t e q u i v a l e n c e o f e l e m e n t s , such as fazer morrer ( c a u s e t o d i e ) and matar ( k i l l ) . matar ( k i l l )  L a k o f f (1965) p r o p o s e s t h a t t h i s l a s t l e x i c a l u n i t  be d e r i v e d f r o m t h e f i r s t b y t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f p r e d i c a t e  r a i s i n g , p r u n i n g o f S, and l e x i c a l i n c o r p o r a t i o n . From (a) we o b t a i n 2 (b) and ( c ) . (a) Deep S t r u c t u r e 0 Manuel fas o Jorge morrer.  (Manuel makes J o r g e d i e . )  o  Jorge  McCawley (1968) has p r o p o s e d an a n a l y s i s a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t from t h i s t y p e o f s t r u c t u r e , f r o m a form "0 Manuel fas que o Jorge ndo seja  vivo"  (Manuel makes t h a t J o r g e i s n o t a l i v e ) . The c r i t i c i s m o f L a k o f f s a n a l y s i s a p p l i e s t o McCawley's a n a l y s i s a s w e l l .  96  (b) P r e d i c a t e R a i s i n g and S P r u n i n g  Det  Jorge 0 Manuel faz morrer o Jorge.  (Manuel makes d i e J o r g e . )  (c) L e x i c a l I n c o r p o r a t i o n  Jorge 0 Manuel mata o Jorge,  (Manuel k i l l s J o r g e . )  Where S NP VP N V Det  Sentence Noun P h r a s e Verb P h r a s e Noun Verb Determiner  97 B u t as n o t e d b y Fodor (1970) s e n t e n c e s (1) a n d (2) do n o t mean t h e same thing: 1) 0 Manuel mata o Jorge no beco.  (Manuel k i l l s J o r g e i n t h e a l l e y . )  2) 0 Manuel faz morrer o Jorge no beoo.  (Manuel makes d i e J o r g e i n t h e a l l e y . )  The a m b i g u i t y o f s e n t e n c e (2) i s due t o i t s two deep s t r u c t u r e s ( V ) and ( 2 ' ) : (T) S  0  Where Adv L o c =  Adverb  Locative.  Manuel  faz  0 Jorge morre  98 (2') S  NP  VP  Det  0  '  N  V  Manuel  faz  S  Adv  S  The s e n t e n c e , 0 Manuel mata o Jorge  (Manuel k i l l s J o r g e ) ,  has t h e same deep s t r u c t u r e a s 0 Manuel faz morrer o Jorge  (Manuel makes d i e J o r g e ) .  The f i r s t s e n t e n c e s h o u l d thus have t h e same a m b i g u i t i e s as t h e s e c o n d , b u t as o b s e r v e d , t h e s e n t e n c e 0 Manuel mata o Jorge no beoo  (Manuel k i l l s J o r g e i n t h e a l l e y ) ,  i s n o t ambiguous.  T h e r e f o r e , t h e s e two t y p e s o f s t r u c t u r e s a r e n o t  equivalent. This demonstration i l l u s t r a t e s the general p r i n c i p l e concerning the f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s .  99  In a s y n t a g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h an o r d e r of relations.  In the s t r u c t u r e o f a s e n t e n c e t h i s o r d e r o r d e g r e e o f  dependence i s r e a l i z e d by t h e l e v e l s o f embedding.  In t h i s s t r u c t u r e the r e l a t i o n between V l a t i o n between  and Sg.  2  and NP  following rules i s absolutely S  >  VT^;  Thus, the o r d e r o f t h e  necessary:  NP VP (  2) VP —  depends on t h e r e -  T h e r e f o r e , VP-j e m p i r i c a l l y p r e c e d e s  the l a t t e r does n o t e x i s t w i t h o u t t h e f o r m e r .  1)  3  >  V) VS  N P  ) J  But i n a p a r a d i g m a t i c r e l a t i o n , t h e c o n c e p t o f r u l e o r d e r i s n o t The f o l l o w i n g p a r a d i g m does n o t show any p r i o r i t y i n t h e o p p o s i t i o n relations.  needed. of  100  Male  Adult  Man  +  +  Boy  +  -  Woman  -  +  Girl  -  -  The word man i s opposed s i m u l t a n e o u s l y  to the other elements.  I t may  seem t h a t i n t h e f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e r u l e s o f p a r a d i g m a t i c r e l a t i o n s t h e r e w o u l d be an e m p i r i c a l p r i o r i t y , b u t t h a t i s n o t so as t h e p a r a d i g m f o r t h e c l a s s o f d e m o n s t r a t i v e s i n P o r t u g u e s e has t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e s :  Where Dem. Dem.  3  1  1)  + Dem.  + near  2)  - Near  + far  Near  Far  Dem.  1  -  +  Dem.  2  -  -  Dem.  3  +  -  c o r r e s p o n d s t o aquele, Dem.  corresponds to  este,  respectively.  2  corresponds to  esse,  and  The o r d e r i n g o f t h e r u l e s  o f a d e s c r i p t i v e s y s t e m does n o t c o n t a i n any  dependence.  F o r m a l i z a t i o n shows c l e a r l y t h e i n t u i t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n between a s y n t a g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e and a p a r a d i g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e .  Although both  s t r u c t u r e s may be f o r m a l i z e d , t h e y c a n n o t be f o r m a l i z e d by means o f the same s y s t e m as h y p o t h e s i z e d , f o r example, i n G r u b e r ' s  "incorporation."  101  This argument emphasizes Saussure's conception of sign and its essentially internal paradigmatic structure.  2. The Structure of the "Signification" If i t is assumed that the internal structure of the "signified" is paradigmatic, then the structure of the "signification," which is the result of an operation of concatenation of "signifieds," is also paradigmatic.  Therefore, there is an isomorphism between the structure 3  of the "signification" and the structure of the "signified." I adopt then the isomorphist principle.  This principle has  the function or the role of an operational hypothesis as proposed by Hjelmslev.  The structure of the "signifier" has the configuration of  a matrix of distinctive features.  These distinctive features are ex-  tracted from the representations by bundles of underlying features of the "signifieds."  From this underlying representation the necessary  system of rules to derive the essential signification of any given sentence is established. The system of rules has the form described for the phonological component. Once the isomorphist principle is adopted, I postulate a theoretical system of rules to determine certain generalizations concerning the predications realized in a given language. This system is based on the analogy of the morphophonemic rule system which determines The isomorphist principle is very important in semantics in order to account for difficult problems. The neglect of this principle might explain why so many deficiencies appear in some recent linguistic models.  102  t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o f a l l p o s s i b l e phonemic c o m b i n a t i o n s , i n m e a n i n g f u l u n i t s , and a l s o on t h e a n a l o g y o f t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l component r u l e s y s t e m . I p o s t u l a t e a system o f r u l e s which w i l l determine t h e t r a n s i t i o n o f an u n d e r l y i n g s c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t o a s y s t e m a t i c s u r f a c e r e p r e s e n tation.  The s y s t e m o f r u l e s w i l l a l s o d e t e r m i n e t h e d e f i n i t i v e s e m a n t i c  f o r m o f each m e a n i n g f u l c o n s t i t u e n t , i n a manner s i m i l a r t o t h e s y s t e m of rules f o r phonetic realization. In o r d e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e t y p e o f r u l e s used t o d e f i n e t h e i m p l i c i t a u t o m a t i c o p e r a t i o n s i n some p r e d i c a t i o n s we l o o k a t t h e r u l e s o f s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p r o p o s e d by Chomsky i n A s p e c t s , and t h e way Chomsky proposes t o block t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f the sentence. 1)0  mogo  transcorreu.  (The boy e l a p s e d . ) S  VP  I  V  From t h i s deep s t r u c t u r e t h e c a t e g o r y N i s r e p l a c e d by a noun e x t r a c t e d from the l e x i c o n . NP < D e t <  :  T h i s noun c a r r i e s a s e l e c t i o n a l f e a t u r e o f t h e f o r m  — » , resulting i n the following S  VP Det  moQo  //+ a n i m a t e / / / /- t i m e / /  phrase-marker,  103  where t h e noun moco appears under t h e form o f a b u n d l e o f i n h e r e n t f e a t u r e s , |+ a n i m a t e ] , |- t i m e | , as a s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n .  Once t h e noun i s i n s e r t e d  i n i t s p l a c e , t h e verb i s i n t r o d u c e d a c c o r d i n g t o i t s s e l e c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s . I t i s assumed t h a t t h e verb transcorrer  has a s e l e c t i o n a l f e a t u r e o f  the form S < NP < - a n i m a t e > VP < S < NP < + time > VP <  » , or ».  Given t h e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f t h e s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f e a t u r e o f t h e verb w i t h t h e f e a t u r e o f t h e NP s u b j e c t , t h e l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n i s i m p o s s i b l e . The d e r i v a t i o n i s b l o c k e d a n d c a n n o t t a k e p l a c e . The f u n c t i o n o f t h e i m p l i c i t r u l e i n t h e s e l e c t i o n a l f e a t u r e o f t h e verb i s s i m i l a r t o t h e r u l e t h a t prevents t h e formation o f c e r t a i n i n i t i a l consonantal  c l u s t e r s i n t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l component.  The f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e c l u s t e r | d l | i s n o t b l o c k e d by any r u l e , b u t s i m p l y does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l s y s t e m o f P o r t u g u e s e ,  because  t h e r e i s no r u l e w h i c h c a n make t h i s c o n s o n a n t a l s e q u e n c e p o s s i b l e . The d e r i v a t i o n l i k e w i s e i s n o t b l o c k e d by any s p e c i f i c r u l e . T h i s cons i d e r a t i o n i n p h o n o l o g y l e a d s us t o q u e s t i o n t h e v a l u e o f Chomsky's s e l e c t i o n a l r u l e s . However, t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e l e c t i o n a l r u l e s i s i m p l i c i t i n the correspondence  o f t h e s e m a n t i c r u l e s w i t h t h e morpho-  phonemic r u l e s .  3. Formal  Rules  In o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e we must f u r t h e r examine F i l l m o r e ' s work, a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s  chapter.  104 The v e r b acusar  i s opposed t o t h e v e r b criticar  s t r u c t u r e p o i n t o f view.  from a p a r a d i g m a t i c  In the f o l l o w i n g sentences,  1) A Maria aousa a  viziriha  (Mary a c c u s e s t h e n e i g h b o u r ) ,  2) A Maria critioa  a  viziriha  (Mary c r i t i c i z e s t h e n e i g h b o u r ) ,  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d i f f e r e n c e o f meaning by means o f a d e s c r i p t i o n i n terms o f s y n t a g m a t i c o p e r a t i o n s .  The following sentences  are paraphrases o f the preceding sentences: 1') M a r i a s t a t e s t h a t t h e n e i g h b o u r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r an a c t w h i c h p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t s h e i s r e p r e hensible; 2') M a r i a s t a t e s t h a t s h e f i n d s r e p r e h e n s i b l e an a c t f o r which s h e p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e n e i g h b o u r i s responsible.  105 (2')  (2)  Mari a  Maria  states  presupposes neighbour  act  responsible  reprehensible  act  The common p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s different transformations.  d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t the s t r u c t u r e s imply  two  In the c a s e o f acusar, t h e r e i s the i n c o r -  p o r a t i o n o f the f e a t u r e |+ r e s p o n s i b l e ! t o the l e x i c a l i t e m " n e i g h b o u r . " In t h e c a s e o f oritiaar,  t h e r e i s the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e f e a t u r e  |+  r e p r e h e n s i b l e | t o the l e x i c a l i t e m " a c t . " A l t h o u g h the f o r m a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n  o f s e m a n t i c s i s beyond t h e  s c o p e o f t h i s s t u d y , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t g e n e r a t i v e and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c s w i l l have t o work w i t h f o r m a l r u l e s t o a c h i e v e  successful  r e s u l t s , f o l l o w i n g the l i n e s o f L a k o f f o r McCawley, who a r e w o r k i n g in that d i r e c t i o n .  4. P r e d i c a t i o n R u l e s F o r t h i s type o f r u l e we t a k e a g a i n an a n a l o g y f r o m t h e phonol o g i c a l component.  The t y p e o f r u l e p r o p o s e d by Chomsky and H a l l e (1968)  says t h a t t h e p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a t i o n o f a g i v e n phoneme p r o d u c e s d i f f e r e n t rules.  The v a r i a n t s o f the phoneme a r e d e t e r m i n e d by the g e n e r a l  rules  106 o f the p h o n e t i c s y s t e m o f a l a n g u a g e .  T h e r e i s a s i m i l a r i t y between  t h i s t y p e o f r u l e w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s the p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a t i o n form o f a phoneme a n d the phenomenon d e f i n e d by W e i n r e i c h polysemy."  Weinreich  (1966) as " i n f i n i t e  s t u d i e s t h e p r o b l e m o f the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f  the l e x i c a l e l e m e n t a n d i t s s y s t e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . verb comer ( e a t ) i s then c o n s i d e r e d a p o l y s e m i c f e r e n c e s o f meaning i n t h e f o l l o w i n g 1) A crianga  come uma  2) A crianca  come a sopa.  3) A erianca  come nozes.  The l e x i c a l  i t e m , b a s e d o n the d i f -  sentences:  laranja.  (The c h i l d e a t s an o r a n g e . )  (The c h i l d e a t s the s o u p . ) (The c h i l d e a t s n u t s . )  I p o s t u l a t e , i n the s e m a n t i c component, r u l e s w h i c h a l l o w a b u n d l e o f s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s t o be r e a l i z e d i n a s u b s t a n t i a l form o f meaning, c o n d i t i o n e d by i t s context..  These r u l e s are e q u i v a l e n t t o  the r u l e s o f phonetic r e a l i z a t i o n . W i t h the p r o p o s a l o f t h e s e r u l e s I do n o t c l a i m an a b s o l u t e s o l u t i o n t o the d e s c r i p t i o n o f s e m a n t i c s .  I w o u l d l i k e t o show t h a t  t h e s e t y p e s o f r u l e s c o u l d b e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a s e m a n t i c component b a s e d on the model o f the p h o n o l o g i c a l  component.  The s e m a n t i c domain c o u l d  be l i m i t e d t o a c a l c u l u s o f the m a t r i c e s o f d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s w h i c h w i l l be t h e r e s u l t o f a s e q u e n c e o f a f i n i t e number o f s i g n i f i e d s .  This  s y s t e m o f r u l e s does not d e f i n e t h e n o t i o n o f p o s s i b l e p r e d i c a t i o n . The s e m a n t i c component must a c c e p t p r e d i c a t i o n s as g i v e n f a c t s . T h e n o t i o n o f p o s s i b l e p r e d i c a t i o n does n o t r e v e a l t h e s y s t e m b u t the e x perience.  Q u i n e (1951:39-43) r e f u t e s a l l a t t e m p t s t h a t impose l i m i t a t i o n s  107 to e x p e r i e n c e .  I n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f a r t i f i c i a l systems c o n s t r u c t e d  to a t t r i b u t e t h e meanings t o p r e d i c a t i o n s i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o r e f l e c t the f l e x i b i l i t y which c h a r a c t e r i z e s experience.  5. S u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n Rules In s e p a r a t i n g s y n t a x from s e m a n t i c s , Chomsky p r e s c r i b e s t h e form o f t h e i n t e g r a t e d model.  T h i s i n t e g r a t e d model c o n s i s t s o f a s y s t e m  o f s y n t a c t i c r u l e s c o n c e r n i n g g r a m m a t i c a l i t y and a s y s t e m o f s e m a n t i c r u l e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a t t r i b u t i o n o f p o s s i b l e meanings t o t h e s y n t a c t i c structures.  In t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c h a p t e r i t was m e n t i o n e d t h a t i n  t h e p r o p o s e d model i n A s p e c t s , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s y n t a x a n d s e m a n t i c s was c o n f u s i n g and weak.  Chomsky g i v e s t h r e e s o l u t i o n s f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n  of the f o l l o w i n g sentences: 1) 4 sinoeridade  admira o mooo.  ( S i n c e r i t y admires t h e boy.)  2) 0 moQo transcorreu.  (The boy e l a p s e d . )  The f i r s t and s e c o n d s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n A s p e c t s a r e s y n t a c t i c and t h e t h i r d i s a s e m a n t i c s o l u t i o n . T h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n has c r e a t e d some c o n f u s i o n among t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s , who t h o u g h t t h a t Chomsky favoured a s y n t a c t i c approach.  Then they s o u g h t models t o d e s c r i b e  s e m a n t i c and s y n t a c t i c f a c t s w i t h t h e same mechanism. i s t s d i s a g r e e i n t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n o f syntax'.  Transformational-  F i l l m o r e , with h i s case  grammar a p p r o a c h , p r e s e n t s one v e r s i o n o f s y n t a x .  Chomsky (1968) p r e s e n t s  a d i f f e r e n t notion o f syntax i n h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e semantics  approach.  108 But b o t h a r e t r y i n g t o i n t e g r a t e s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s . i n s i s t s on t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s .  K a t z (1970)  G e n e r a t i v e seman-  t i c i s t s abandon c o m p l e t e l y t h e n o t i o n o f s y n t a x , o r a t l e a s t , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s y n t a x a n d s e m a n t i c s .  F o r example, W e i n r e i c h s a y s  t h a t t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e c o - o c c u r r e n c e o f moco (boy) a n d transeorreu (elapsed) are o f a syntactic nature.  Therefore, a l l the constraints  of co-occurrence a r e s y n t a c t i c , which leads t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t synt a x a n d s e m a n t i c s a r e r e a l l y one a n d t h e same t h i n g . I f we s e p a r a t e s y n t a x f r o m s e m a n t i c s , a c c o r d i n g t o a c a l c u l u s o f t h e s i g n i f i e r o r o f t h e s i g n i f i e d , we c a n d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n r u l e , w i t h w h i c h Chomsky b l o c k e d t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f u t t e r a n c e s , i s w e l l p l a c e d i n t h e s e m a n t i c component.  A c c o r d i n g t o my  d e f i n i t i o n , the s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n type o f rule belongs t o t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e p r e d i c a t i o n o r c o - o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e " s i g n i f i e d s . " I assign this rule to a class o f syntactic rules limited to a calculus of the d e f i n i t i v e form o f the " s i g n i f i e r . " An i n t u i t i v e  remark  t h a t t h e grammar must have t h e t y p e o f  s e l e c t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s o f Aspects i s too r i g i d .  This r i g i d selectional  constraint rule i s i n c o n f l i c t with the s i m p l i c i t y notion that i s a s c r i b e d i n t u i t i v e l y t o a grammar. 0 moQo transeorreu  The agrammaticality o f t h e sentence,  ( t h e boy e l a p s e d ) , may be e x p l a i n e d as an i n c o m p a t i -  b i l i t y o f t h e f e a t u r e s |+ t i m e | , |- t i m e | o r |- a n i m a t e | , |+ a n i m a t e | , in that given context.  T h e same f e a t u r e s a r e c o m p a t i b l e i n a n o t h e r  c o n t e n t , as i n t h e s e n t e n c e , Uma geragao  transeorreu  (A g e n e r a t i o n e l a p s e d ) .  109 In some c o n t e x t s t h e s i g n ' g e n e r a t i o n ' must c a r r y t h e i n h e r e n t f e a t u r e |+ a n i m a t e |  as i n t h e s e n t e n c e , Esta geragao vive feliz  lives happily).  (this  generation  B u t i n o t h e r c o n t e x t s the s i g n ' g e n e r a t i o n ' c a r r i e s t h e  i n h e r e n t f e a t u r e |- t i m e | , a s i n t h e  sentence,  Pense na geraedo em que nasceu  ( T h i n k o f the g e n e r a t i o n i n t o w h i c h y o u were b o r n ) . A l l the s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f e a t u r e s p o s t u l a t e d b y Chomsky a r e s u b j e c t e d to a gradation o f grammaticality. are o f a semantic nature.  Chomsky's s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  features  I a s s i g n t h e s e f e a t u r e s t o the s i g n i f i c a t i o n  o f the m a t r i x o f f e a t u r e s from t h e p r e d i c a t i o n o f a t l e a s t two " s i g n i fieds."  From the p r e d i c a t i o n o f t h e s e two " s i g n i f i e d s " a d e f i n i t i v e  form i s g e n e r a t e d by a s y s t e m o f r u l e s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s the component.  semantic  A l s o , Chomsky's s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f e a t u r e s a r e n o t i n h e r e n t  i n t h e r e a l i z e d f e a t u r e s o f t h e s u r f a c e form o f the s e n t e n c e .  The presence  o f t h e s e f e a t u r e s i s d u e t o a p r e d i c a t i o n w h i c h r e v e a l s t h e knowledge o r e x p e r i e n c e o f the s p e a k e r but n o t h i s grammar.  Chomsky (1965:157-8) h a s  a l s o p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e c o n s t r a i n t s e x p r e s s e d by the s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f e a t u r e s a r e n o t a b s o l u t e and he g i v e s some c o n t e x t s where t h e s e  con-  s t r a i n t s are not a p p l i c a b l e : 1) A sinoeridade  ndo pode admirar a ninguem.  ( S i n c e r i t y c a n n o t a d m i r e somebody.)  2)  E ridioulo  dizer que o livro  transoorreu.  ( I t i s n o n s e n s e t o s a y t h a t t h e book  elapsed.)  In t h e s e two s e n t e n c e s t h e s e m a n t i c o c c u r r e n c e s may be r e a l i z e d .  This  r e a l i z a t i o n indicates that there i s nothing inherent i n the s i g n i f i e r s to r e q u i r e t h e c o n s t r a i n t s i n t h e s e s e q u e n c e s . the d i s t i n c t i o n between s e m a n t i c s  and s y n t a x .  This fact  strengthens  110  In my view, s y n t a x i s t h e s y s t e m o f g r a m m a t i c a l r u l e s o p e r a t i n g on the form o f the c o - o c c u r r e n c e o f two o r more s i g n i f i e r s .  Semantics  i s a l s o d e f i n e d as the s y s t e m o f r u l e s d e t e r m i n i n g the d e f i n i t i v e f o r m o f t h e m a t r i x o f s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s r e s u l t i n g from any p r e d i c a t i o n . G i v e n t h e s e two d e f i n i t i o n s , I do n o t e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n t e r f e r e n c e between s e m a n t i c s and s y n t a x .  S u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f e a t u r e s p r e s e n t an  i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the semantics-syntax i n t e r f e r e n c e .  These f e a t u r e s are  o f a s e m a n t i c n a t u r e because t h e i r d i s p o s i t i o n i n t h e m a t r i x o f t h e s i g n i f i c a t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d by the r u l e s o f t h e s e m a n t i c component. However, t h e s e f e a t u r e s a r e a l s o p r e d i c a t e s b e c a u s e t h e y can be a t t a c h e d o p t i o n a l l y t o an argument. Another aspect of these features i s t h a t t h e i r f u n c t i o n i s not only semantic.  T h e r e a r e some c i r c u m s t a n c e s where t h e i r p r e s e n c e i s  t h e s o l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f s y n t a c t i c f o r m s , such as t h e use o f Male f o r s e m a n t i c r e s t r i c t i o n s and f o r s y n t a x t h e p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . The s y n t a c t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s show t h a t the p r e s e n c e o f t h e f e a t u r e s depends e n t i r e l y on t h e t y p e o f r e l a t i o n between t h e i r r e f e r e n t s . S y n t a x , t h e n i s c e n t r e d on t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e n o t i o n o f "poss i b l e s e n t e n c e , " o r a sequence o f " s i g n i f i e r s . "  I t follows that i t i s  not necessary t o appeal to experience to d e f i n e the c o n s t r a i n t s .  Any  sequence o f " s i g n i f i e r s " b e l o n g i n g t o a l a n g u a g e r e v e a l s i t s p r e d i c a t i o n of " s i g n i f i e r s . "  The c a l c u l u s o f t h e s y s t e m which d e f i n e s t h e form o f  the meaning may be c o n s i d e r e d as a c t i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y on t h e " s i g n i f i e r s " and t h e " s i g n i f i e d s , " r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The sequence o f t h e " s i g n i f i e r s "  i s i m p l i c i t i n the sequence o f " s i g n i f i e d s " b e c a u s e t h e " s i g n i f i e d s "  Ill  a r e always a t t a c h e d t o t h e " s i g n i f i e r s " i n a r e a l i z e d s e n t e n c e .  But  t h e r e would n o t be any c o n n e c t i o n between t h e f i n a l f o r m w h i c h r e a l i z e s the sequence o f " s i g n i f i e r s " and t h e f i n a l f o r m which r e a l i z e s t h e sequence of " s i g n i f i e d s . "  The s y s t e m o f r u l e s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e  sequence o f " s i g n i f i e r s " i s s y n t a x , and t h e s y s t e m o f r u l e s w h i c h d e t e r mines t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e sequence o f " s i g n i f i e d s " i s s e m a n t i c s . In t h i s l i g h t , t h e d i c h o t o m y between s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s i s e s t a b l i s h e d .  B.  T h e o r e t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s and N o t i o n s In t h i s s e c t i o n I d i s c u s s some o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s  and n o t i o n s o f g e n e r a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t h e o r y w h i c h w i l l be a d o p t e d f o r t h e p r o p o s e d g r a m m a t i c a l model.  These t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s a r e  based on c o n s i d e r i n g l a n g u a g e as a f o r m a l s y s t e m and on i n t u i t i o n .  The  t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n s d i s c u s s e d a r e c r e a t i v i t y , g r a m m a t i c a l i t y and s i m plicity. An i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f Chomsky's t h e o r y i s t h a t h i s methodology a d o p t s t h e t e c h n i q u e s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l s c i e n c e . Chomsky s t a r t s w i t h a f o r m a l h y p o t h e s i s and t h e n a t t e m p t s t o v e r i f y i t .  This  b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f Chomsky's method remains c o n s t a n t t h r o u g h o u t h i s writings.  B u t Chomsky f i n d s a m o t i v a t i o n f o r h i s h y p o t h e s i s i n t h e  i n t u i t i v e n o t i o n o f the speaker about h i s language. F o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f my m o d e l , I w i l l a d o p t t h e two f o l l o w i n g b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f Chomsky.  112  1. Language as a Formal S y s t e m In p o s t u l a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e o f language as a f o r m a l  system  we have t o make t h e a n a l o g y o f a language w i t h a c l a s s o f systems where a l l t h e s t r u c t u r e s a r e f o r m a l i z e d , o r c a l c u l a t e d i n terms o f a s p e c i f i c structure.  We must a l s o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s between  and f o r m a l systems a r e a n a l o g o u s .  language  The l a n g u a g e i t s e l f i s n o t i d e n t i c a l  t o t h e f o r m a l s y s t e m used f o r i t s d e s c r i p t i o n . The l a n g u a g e o f t h e f o r m a l s y s t e m i s a m e t a l a n g u a g e used f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e g i v e n natural  language.  2. The P r i n c i p l e o f I n t u i t i o n T h i s p r i n c i p l e a c c e p t s t h e v a l i d i t y o f i n t u i t i o n as one g u i d e f o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a l i n g u i s t i c model.  The p r i n c i p l e o f i n t u i t i o n  a c c o u n t s f o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f b a s i c n o t i o n s o f t h e m o d e l , s u c h as g r a m m a t i c a l i t y , a m b i g u i t y and synonymy. The i n t e r a c t i o n a m b i g u i t y and synonymy has g i v e n r i s e t o t h r e e n o t i o n s which a r e t h e t h r e e c o n s t a n t s o f t h e t h e o r y : c r e a t i v i t y , gramm a t i c a l i t y and s i m p l i c i t y ;  3. The N o t i o n o f C r e a t i v i t y T h i s n o t i o n acknowledges t h a t a human b e i n g i s a b l e t o p r o d u c e and u n d e r s t a n d whole new s e n t e n c e s .  T h i s phenomenon i s a c c o u n t e d f o r  i n t h e g e n e r a t i v e base o f t h e grammatical ciple.  model by t h e r e c u r s i v e p r i n -  The r e c u r s i v e r u l e s d e r i v e p o t e n t i a l l y an i n f i n i t e number o f  structures.  Chomsky had f i r s t a s s i g n e d t h e r e c u r s i v e p r o p e r t y t o t h e  113 t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l component, w h i c h , as became e v i d e n t , was awkward and inefficient.  K a t z ' s and P o s t a l ' s i n t e g r a t e d model shows t h e r e c u r s i v e  p r i n c i p l e i n the base. the deep s t r u c t u r e . more e c o n o m i c a l ,  In t h i s way, s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t i s c o n f i n e d t o  K a t z ' s and P o s t a l ' s p r o p o s a l makes t h e grammar  b u t a t t h e same time i t i s an a n t i - i n t u i t i v e m o d e l ,  b e c a u s e i t a l l o w s f o r t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f a g r e a t number o f deep s t r u c t u r e s , and many o f t h e s e deep s t r u c t u r e s w i l l n e v e r be r e a l i z e d i n t h e surface structure.  T h u s , they c a n n o t undergo any t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .  The n o t i o n o f a f i l t e r i n g p r o c e s s i s c r e a t e d by Chomsky i n A s p e c t s t o e l i m i n a t e t h e s e n o n - r e a l i z e d deep s t r u c t u r e s . R e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s one a s p e c t o f c r e a t i v i t y . A t t h e competence l e v e l i t may p o t e n t i a l l y g e n e r a t e s e n t e n c e s o f an i n f i n i t e l e n g t h , such a s : II  I gave i t t o my f r i e n d , who gave i t t o h i s f r i e n d , who gave i t t o h i s f r i e n d , who . . . n  The r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h i s o p e r a t i o n i s a c c o u n t e d in the base.  T h i s r u l e has t h r e e v a r i a t i o n s :  (1) Ross's R e c u r s i v e Rule (1967) S  * NP VP  NP  > NP S S VP  NP NP  S  f o r by a r e c u r s i v e r u l e  114 (2) S t o c k w e l l ' s R e c u r s i v e Rule (1967) S  • NP  NP  • Det  Norn  >N  VP Norn S  Where A r t = A r t i c l e .  115 I s h a l l not d i s c u s s h e r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e a d v a n t a g e s and tages o f t h e s e t h r e e v a r i a t i o n s .  disadvan-  I want t o p o i n t o u t , r a t h e r , t h a t  these  three analyses present "parasite s t r u c t u r e . "  P a r a s i t e s t r u c t u r e s as  d e f i n e d by S e v r e n (1969:51) a r e the g e n e r a t e d  deep s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h a r e  n e v e r r e a l i z e d as s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s . The f o l l o w i n g p h r a s e - m a r k e r S  NP,  NP  VP  VP  3  V  NP  4  w i l l d e r i v e o n l y s e n t e n c e s o f the l a n g u a g e i f they c o r r e s p o n d  t o the  s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f R e l a t i v i z a t i o n . The R e l a t i v i z a t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n has the f o l l o w i n g f o r m : SD  # X NP [X NP X]S X # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  SC  |+ R e l | SUBSE 5  Condition  if 3 = 5  E v e r y p h r a s e - m a r k e r w h i c h does not meet the c o n d i t i o n i s e l i m i n a t e d by t h e f i l t e r i n g  process.  Where SD = Structural Description. SC = S t r u c t u r a l Change. |+ R e l | = A f e a t u r e d c a l l e d " R e l a t i v e . " SUBSE 5 = The node 5 i s r e p l a c e d by t h e node 3 and the o r i g i n a l node i s d e l e t e d .  116  Excessive creativity of the base is a deficiency of the model . Intuition, which according to Chomsky's theory, must be the guide, does not present any reason to accept the excess of production as a reality of the language.  I thus propose a restriction on the production imple-  mented on the base.  This restriction assures us that only the production  of structures satisfactory to a structural description of transformation takes place. A restriction rule built into the base makes automatic the rejection of the notion of a filtering process.  4. The Notion of Grammaticality The adjective grammatical, when used in reference to sentences of natural languages, may be employed in several different senses: for example, that which is "accepted" and/or "understood" by a native speaker and that which is in conformity with the "rules" of some grammar. According to Chomsky, a grammar should produce only and all the sentences of a language which are in accordance with formal grammatical rules. Strange sentences which are formed by the successive application of elementary processes are s t i l l grammatical.  But i f acceptability is  taken as the test for grammatical sentences, then some sentences which conform to grammatical rules fail and the grammar should not produce them. If successive application of constructional processes justifies their production, then there is a lapse into the logical circularity  117  o f i d e n t i f y i n g ' t h a t which i s p r o d u c e d by a grammar' w i t h  'grammatical.'  F u r t h e r m o r e , i f n o t h i n g i s t o be g a i n e d by e x c l u d i n g such s e n t e n c e s , n e i t h e r i s t h e r e a n y t h i n g o f a t h e o r e t i c a l n a t u r e t o be g a i n e d by i n c l u d i n g them, s i n c e t h e y a r e n o t h i n g more t h a n t h e p r o d u c t o f e l e m e n t a r y c o n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s - p r o c e s s e s which i n any c a s e would f i n d formul a t i o n i n any a d e q u a t e grammar.  I f a c c e p t a b i l i t y to a native speaker  i s r e t a i n e d as t h e s o l e c r i t e r i o n f o r d e c i d i n g g r a m m a t i c a l i t y , i t i s s t i l l e m p i r i c a l l y t r u e t h a t t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n s e n t e n c e s which a n a t i v e s p e a k e r w i l l a c c e p t w i t h o u t r e s e r v a t i o n and o t h e r s e n t e n c e s which t h e s p e a k e r w i l l have extreme d i f f i c u l t y i n j u d g i n g . Such f a c t s s u g g e s t t h a t g r a m m a t i c a l i t y f o r m u l a t e d i n terms o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s b e s t t h o u g h t o f as a s o r t o f g r a d u a t e d s c a l e .  The p o l e s o f t h e s c a l e a r e f o u n d i n  c l e a r l y a c c e p t a b l e and c l e a r l y r e j e c t e d s e n t e n c e s , w h i l e between t h e s e two extremes l i e a s e t o f s e n t e n c e s t h a t a r e n e i t h e r r e a d i l y a c c e p t e d n o r r e j e c t e d . In l i g h t o f the extreme s u b j e c t i v i t y o f t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y t e s t , t h i s t y p e o f i n d e t e r m i n a n c y i s h a r d l y t o be a v o i d e d , and m a r g i n a l l y g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e s must be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t by any t h e o r e t i c a l t r e a t m e n t o f l a n g u a g e i n which g r a m m a t i c a l i t y i s f o r m u l a t e d i n terms of i n t u i t i v e acceptability.  Chomsky's s t a t e m e n t " l e t t h e grammar i t s e l f  d e c i d e " upon t h e s t a t u s o f a c l a s s o f i n d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c e s i s open t o c r i t i c i s m b e c a u s e grammars a r e n o t s e l f - c o n s t r u c t i n g .  I f grammars  f o r p a r t i c u l a r languages are not c o n s t r u c t e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n conformity w i t h some c o m p r e h e n s i v e t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e - i n which c a s e t h e q u e s t i o n o f m a r g i n a l s e n t e n c e s would n o t a r i s e - then each s t e p and each s t a t e ment, f o r m a l o r o t h e r w i s e , i n a grammar r e p r e s e n t s a d e c i s i o n on t h e  118 p a r t o f t h e l i n g u i s t who i s f o r m u l a t i n g t h e grammar.  If a particular  s e n t e n c e i s p r o d u c e d by a grammar, i t i s p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e a r u l e o r a s e t o f r u l e s w h i c h p r o d u c e s t h e s e n t e n c e s has been f o r m u l a t e d by t h e linguist.  C o n v e r s e l y , i f a p a r t i c u l a r s e n t e n c e i s n o t p r o d u c e d by a  grammar i t i s b e c a u s e t h e l i n g u i s t f o r m u l a t i n g t h e grammar has chosen not t o i n c l u d e a r u l e o r s e t o f r u l e s w h i c h w i l l p r o d u c e t h e s e n t e n c e ( o r , perhaps i t d i d n ' t o c c u r t o h i m ) . In b o t h c a s e s , i t i s t h e l i n g u i s t and n o t t h e grammar who has made t h e c h o i c e . I f i t i s g r a n t e d t h a t a grammar f o r a n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e i s n o t definitional  i n n a t u r e , l i k e t h e grammar f o r p r o p o s i t i o n a l c a l c u l u s ,  but i s r a t h e r a d e s c r i p t i v e a c c o u n t o f c e r t a i n p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s e n t e n c e s o f t h e l a n g u a g e , t h e n i t must a l s o be g r a n t e d t h a t the a d e q u a c y , however d e f i n e d , o f t h e grammar c a n n o t be d e t e r m i n e d f r o m i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e grammar a l o n e .  I f a grammar f o r a n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e  i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d a d e q u a t e when and o n l y when i t p r o d u c e s o n l y and a l l t h e g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e s o f t h e l a n g u a g e , t h e n adequacy must be d e t e r m i n e d e i t h e r by t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e c o r p u s o f s e n t e n c e s f r o m w h i c h t h e grammar i s a b s t r a c t e d o r f r o m t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e c o r p u s o f s e n t e n c e s p r o d u c e d by t h e grammar.  T h a t i s , a grammar c a n be shown  t o be a d e q u a t e , i n Chomsky's t e r m s , i f i t c a n be d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e c o r p u s on which t h e grammar i s c o n s t r u c t e d i s s u f f i c i e n t l y  comprehensive  t h a t t h e r u l e s a b s t r a c t e d f r o m i t w i l l g e n e r a t e o n l y and a l l t h e g r a m m a t i c a l sentences o f the language.  Or t h e grammar can be shown t o be a d e q u a t e  i f i t can be d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e c o r p u s o f s e n t e n c e s p r o d u c e d by t h e grammar i s i n d e e d t h e s e t o f g r a m m a t i c a l , commonly u n d e r s t o o d s e n t e n c e s  119 o f the language.  I f i t i s granted t h a t the grammaticality of a sentence  i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e ' s a c c e p t a b i l i t y to a n a t i v e s p e a k e r , then i t must a l s o be g r a n t e d t h a t a) s e n t e n c e s a r e n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d g r a m m a t i c a l s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y a r e p r o d u c e d by a grammar; b) a grammar i t s e l f c a n n o t d e c i d e c a s e s o f m a r g i n a l grammaticality; c) a complex s e n t e n c e c o n t a i n i n g a number o f r e f e r e n t i a l r e c u r s i o n s c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d ' g r a m m a t i c a l ' s i m p l y b e c a u s e each r e c u r s i o n has been s p e c i f i e d by an e l e m e n tary rule. Chomsky's r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a grammar p r o d u c e o n l y and a l l t h e g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e s o f a l a n g u a g e , i f u n d e r s t o o d l i t e r a l l y , seems t o be u n r e a l i s t i c , s i n c e t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be no method by w h i c h t o t e s t w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t has been met.  Theoretically  any l a n g u a g e i s a p o t e n t i a l i n f i n i t i v e s e t . The adopt i o n o f one s e t , f i n i t e o r i n f i n i t e , s h o u l d be b a s e d on t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f t h e grammarian.  B e c a u s e o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s s u c h as memory,  i t i s b e t t e r to s t a t e t h a t a language i s f i n i t e . The a n a l o g y between l a n g u a g e and f o r m a l s y s t e m g i v e s r i s e t o a unique c l a s s o f well-formed sequences.  These well-formed sentences  a r e t h e grammatical s e n t e n c e s o f the l a n g u a g e .  Chomsky's o r i g i n a l i t y  c o n s i s t s i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g 'grammatical s e n t e n c e s ' f r o m ' m e a n i n g f u l sentences.'  The s e n t e n c e " c o l o r l e s s g r e e n i d e a s s l e e p f u r i o u s l y " meets  the c o n d i t i o n s o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y . But t h i s s e n t e n c e does n o t meet t h e c r i t e r i o n o f common u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  120  The o p p o s i t i o n between s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s has o b v i o u s c u s s i o n s on t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f any model.  reperMy con-  c e p t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y i s s i m i l a r t o t h e one p r e s e n t e d i n S y n t a c t i c Structures.  In t h i s way t h e model a c c o u n t s f o r some phenomena w h i c h  seem anomalous i n t h e A s p e c t s grammar.  5. The N o t i o n o f S i m p l i c i t y As Chomsky has r e m a r k e d , t h e r e i s no a b s o l u t e c r i t e r i o n by w h i c h t o d e f i n e s i m p l i c i t y . The n o t i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y seems t o be based on a "common s e n s e "  criterion.  S i m p l i c i t y as used i n t h e e l a b o r a t i o n o f my grammatical  model,  i s b a s e d on f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : a) The f o r m u l a t i o n o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e ones common t o a l l t h e a s p e c t s o f t h e l a n g u a g e . b) Economy o f e x p r e s s i o n , by making u s e o f a s t r i c t f o r m a l i s m and u s i n g a r e g u l a r e x p l a n a t i o n w i t h a minimum o f symbols o r r u l e s . c) The p r e f e r e n c e o f a model w i t h i n t h e frame o f a f o r m a l s y s t e m w h i c h a c c o u n t s f o r t h e g r e a t e s t number o f f a c t s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e n a t i v e s p e a k e r ' s i n t u i t i o n s about t h e language. d) The c o n c e r n i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n t o a c h i e v e an e v e n t u a l theory o f u n i v e r s a l s . The c h o i c e o f t h e most e x a c t model f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f a n a t u r a l language i s an e m p i r i c a l d e c i s i o n . based on t h e s i m p l i c i t y n o t i o n .  One c r i t e r i o n f o r t h i s c h o i c e i s  121 C.  The P o s t - A s p e c t s  Notion of  The p o s t - A s p e c t s school. facts.  Constraints  period presents a fragmentation  o f Chomsky's  A number o f models a p p e a r w h i c h c l a i m t o a c c o u n t f o r the same T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l p r e s e n t some c r i t i c a l comments on the d i f f e r e n t  models and w i l l f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h a b a s i s f o r d e v e l o p i n g a s p e c t s o f my own  model. W i t h r e g a r d t o the p r i n c i p l e o f c r e a t i v i t y , o b j e c t i o n s have  been r a i s e d t o the f u n c t i o n o f the f i l t e r i n g p r o c e s s w h i c h Chomsky and o t h e r s a s s i g n to t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  component.  As e x p r e s s e d  by  Lakoff  (1970a), the transformation  p o s t u l a t e d i n t h i s way c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n -  s t r a i n t on the d e r i v a t i o n .  And, i f the t h e o r y d e f i n e s the c o n s t r a i n t s  on t h e d e r i v a t i o n , i n t h i s s e n s e , t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n efficient solution.  Ross (1967) r e v e a l s t h i s i n e f f i c i e n c y by demon-  s t r a t i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f more p o w e r f u l constraints.  r e p r e s e n t s an i n -  generalizations concerning  He p r e s e n t s c o n s t r a i n t s on the c o o r d i n a t i o n  the  structure.  These c o n s t r a i n t s , a f f e c t i n g the a c t i o n o f a w h o l e c l a s s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , must be c o n s i d e r e d as l a r g e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s f o r a more a d e q u a t e description. C o n s t r a i n t s o p e r a t e on Chomsky's s e l e c t i o n a l r u l e s .  The i m p l i c i t  f e a t u r e r u l e s o f t h e l e x i c a l word correr  (run)  | NP < + a n i m a t e > - |  a r e too r i g i d t o c o r r e s p o n d  t o t h e r e a l i t y o f the l a n g u a g e , s i n c e t h e  f o l l o w i n g d e r i v a t i o n s can be r e a l i z e d .  122  1 ) Este carro (This  corre.  car  runs.)  2 ) A bola corre para a (The  ball  runs  crianga.  towards  3) Os meus pensamentos (My  But  the  following  thoughts  sentences  * 5) A moralidade (Morality  The that  these  of  the  predications  grammar  cannot i s to  Generally, the tive  of  intuition  of  operations  realized:  corre. correm.  sky-scrapers  rejection  These s e n t e n c e s  be  runs.)  * 6 ) Os aranha-cSus (The  child.)  oorrem.  run.)  cannot  the  run.)  sentences  and  (5)  have not y e t  is explained  (6)  b e e n p r e s c r i b e d by  be b l o c k e d by  the  grammar  a s s i g n a form to sentences  because and n o t  t o e s t a b l i s h a d e s c r i p t i v e model  the native  speaker,  one h a s  and n o t  on t h e  restrictive  Ross's  notion  of  to  by  the to  function  experience.  that w i l l  of  fact  experience.  concentrate  functions  the  represent  on  some  construc-  other  operations. Although this  notion  completely constraints  because  the notion  of  One  a rule  constraint  are created to  the deep s t r u c t u r e s . for  incorporating  constraints  remedy of  establishing categories  these rather  a v a l i d one,  i n a grammar w o u l d  from the  the  is  theory.  d e f i c i e n c e s of  deficiences is than  relations.  Ross's his  Ross's  I  criticize  eliminate universal  analysis  of  preference  123 My p o i n t o f view on c o n s t r a i n t s d i f f e r s f r o m L a k o f f ' s and R o s s ' s . Transformation i s n o t a c o n s t r a i n t but a p o s i t i v e step i n sentence f o r mation.  I r e j e c t a l l f i l t e r i n g n o t i o n s from t h e grammar, and a l l n e g a t i v e  a p p r o a c h e s such as b l o c k e d d e r i v a t i o n s , f i l t e r i n g s , c o n s t r a i n t s , and restrictions.  I n s t e a d , I propose a p o s i t i v e approach i n c o n s t r u c t i n g  r u l e s which s p e c i f y t h e d e r i v a t i o n s b u t do n o t b l o c k them.  T h i s approach  i s n o t m e r e l y a change i n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y , b u t a change o f p e r s p e c t i v e .  1. P e r l m u t t e r ' s Deep C o n s t r a i n t s P e r l m u t t e r (1968) p o i n t s o u t t h a t some v e r b s have s p e c i a l p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h impose some r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s u b j e c t o r t h e complement o f an embedded s e n t e n c e . v e r b s u c h as persuadir  He s t a t e s (1967:6) t h a t a  ( p e r s u a d e ) c a n o n l y a l l o w f o r t h e embedding o f  a s e n t e n c e complement, where t h e s u b j e c t and t h e complement  are iden-  tical. An Equi-NP c o n s t r u c t i o n : 1) Persuadi  3  o Alberto  que  comegasse  a  trabalhar.  (I p e r s u a d e d A l b e r t t o s t a r t w o r k i n g . )  3  Equi-NP  E q u i v a l e n t Noun P h r a s e , i . e . t h e r e f e r e n t Noun P h r a s e i n t h e s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e i s t h e same as i n t h e main c l a u s e .  NP  Eu •persuadir  Alberto  trabalhar  But t h e r e i s no p o s s i b l e d e r i v a t i o n i n such c o n s t r u c t i o n s a s : *2) Persuadi  o Alberto  que  (eu) comegasse a  trabalhar.  (I p e r s u a d e d A l b e r t t h a t I s t a r t e d w o r k i n g . )  Where * = symbol used f o r a g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e s .  1  s  NP  VP  Eu  trabathar  P e r l m u t t e r (1970:174) i n a n o t h e r example s u g g e s t s t h a t a v e r b such a s aondesoender ( c o n d e s c e n d ) o n l y a l l o w s f o r t h e embedding o f a s e n t e n c e  complement where t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e embedded s e n t e n c e i s i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e main s e n t e n c e .  A n  Equi-Subject construc-  t i on: 3) 0 Jorge condescendeu a acompanhar a Maria.  ( J o r g e c o n d e s c e n d e d t o accompany Mary.)  126  S  NP  Det  VP  N V  S  a  Maria  But there is no derivation for the sentence: * 4) 0 Jorge oondesoendeu a Maria a aoompanhd-lo.  (Jorge condescended Mary to accompany him.)  These examples show that a faulty grammar presupposes in its hypothesis the existence of this type of constraint.  There are only rare cases  where a language tolerates two identical occurrences of a sign in the deep structure.  If these two identical occurrences are realized, each  one has a representation in the surface structure.  Therefore, Perl-  mutter's analysis seems counter-intuitive. In my grammar, where two equivalent identities appear in the same sentence, the grammar takes the first  occurrence and generates the other by means of rules.  This  grammar w o u l d a n a l y s e s e n t e n c e ( 1 ) , above, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: ( l ) Persuadi 1  o Alberto  que comegasse a  trabalhar.  (I p e r s u a d e d A l b e r t t o s t a r t w o r k i n g . ) S  VP  s  Not o n l y i s t h i s a n a l y s i s more e c o n o m i c a l than P e r l m u t t e r ' s ,  but i t  a l s o e x p l a i n s p e r f e c t l y why s e n t e n c e (2 ) - * Persuadi o Alberto 1  eu comegasse a trabalhar  que  ( I p e r s u a d e d A l b e r t t h a t I s t a r t t o work) -  is agrammatical. I f the a u x i l i a t i o n transformation d e r i v a t i o n w i l l take  place:  i s applied, the following  come oar a trabalhar Alberto  T h e n , by a p p l y i n g t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f complement f o r m a t i  we have t h e c h o i c e between (3) o r ( 4 ) :  129 3) A d j u n c t i o n que + p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n :  4) D e l e t i o n Equi-NP + i n f i n i t i v i z a t i o n :  persuadir,  Det  0  S e n t e n c e ( 3 ) - Persuadi  N  come oar a trabalhar  Alberto  o Alberto que comecasse a trabalhar  A l b e r t t o s t a r t w o r k i n g ) - and s e n t e n c e (4) -Persuadi a trabalhar  structures.  ( I peruaded  o Alberto  a comecar  ( I p e r s u a d e d A l b e r t t o s t a r t t o work) - a r e both s u r f a c e  130  The s t r u c t u r e * (2), p r e s e n t i n g two i d e n t i c a l NPs, i s not a s t e r i l e s t r u c t u r e , b e c a u s e an o b l i g a t o r y R e l a t i v i z a t i o n  transformation  w i l l a p p l y , f o l l o w i n g the complement f o r m a t i o n , and we w i l l have o n l y one p o s s i b l e d e r i v a t i o n : 5)  Persuadi-me  que  comegasse  a  trabalhar.  (I p e r s u a d e d m y s e l f t o s t a r t w o r k i n g . ) S  NP  VP  come ear NP  trabalhar  Eu  Such a n a l y s i s l e a d s t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no p l a c e f o r deep constraints in a transformational  grammar.  o f f a u l t y a n a l y s i s which lacks important R e f l e x i v e and d i r e c t complement  T h e i r p r e s e n c e i s the r e s u l t  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s s u c h as the  formation.  131 2. Ross's C o n s t r a i n t s Ross (1967:114) has p r e s e n t e d t h e ' P i e d P i p e r C o n v e n t i o n ' d i s c u s s e d below: 1) 0 govevno prescreve capa dos dossiers.  a espessura  da letra  da  (The government p r e s c r i b e s t h e t h i c k n e s s o f the l e t t e r i n g o f t h e c o v e r o f t h e f i l e s . )  S  de  dossiers  132 From t h i s c o n v e n t i o n , t h e y-movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n e x t r a p o s e s  from  t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n any NP. F o r example, w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Relativization  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , we c o u l d have t h e f o l l o w i n g  sentences:  2) 0 governo que prescreve a espessura da letra eta capa dos dossiers abdicard em breve.  (The government t h a t p r e s c r i b e s t h e t h i c k n e s s o f t h e l e t t e r i n g o f t h e f i l e s w i l l r e s i g n soon.)  3) A espessura da letra da capa dos dossiers que prescreve o governo nao chega a dez milimetros.  (The t h i c k n e s s o f t h e l e t t e r i n g o f t h e c o v e r o f the f i l e s t h a t i s p r e s c r i b e d by t h e government i s l e s s than t e n m i l l i m e t r e s . )  * 4) A letra da capa dos dossiers que o governo prescreve a espessura e" dourada.  (The l e t t e r i n g o f t h e c o v e r o f t h e f i l e s , t h a t the government p r e s c r i b e s t h e t h i c k n e s s , i s g o l d . )  * 5) A capa dos dossiers que o governo prescreve espessura da letra e preta.  a  (The c o v e r o f t h e f i l e s , t h a t t h e government prescribes the thickness o f the l e t t e r i n g , i s black.)  * 6) Os dossiers que o governo prescreve a espessura da letra da capa, medem sete por cinco.  (The f i l e s t h a t t h e government p r e s c r i b e s t h e . t h i c k n e s s o f t h e l e t t e r i n g o f t h e c o v e r , measure s e v e n by f i v e . )  A c c o r d i n g t o t h e " P i e d P i p e r C o n v e n t i o n , " t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same transformation w i l l allow f o r the f o l l o w i n g agrammatical d e r i v a t i o n s : * 7) A espessura que o governo prescreve da letra da capa dos dossiers nao chega a dez milimetros.  (The t h i c k n e s s t h a t t h e government p r e s c r i b e s o f the l e t t e r i n g o f t h e c o v e r o f t h e f i l e s does n o t reach ten m i l l i m e t r e s . )  * 8) A letra que o governo prescreve a da capa dos dossiers 4 dourada.  espessura  (The l e t t e r i n g t h a t t h e government p r e s c r i b e s the t h i c k n e s s o f t h e c o v e r o f t h e f i l e s i s golden.)  133 * 9 ) A capa que o govemo prescreve a espessura letra de dos dossiers & preta.  da  (The c o v e r t h a t t h e government p r e s c r i b e s t h e thickness o f the l e t t e r i n g o f the f i l e s i s black.)  Ross remarks t h a t f a u l t y d e r i v a t i o n s a r i s e each time t h a t t h e r e i s an e x t r a p o s i t i o n o f an NP, i f t h i s NP i s t h e most l e f t c o n s t i t u e n t o f a n o t h e r NP. He then s u g g e s t s  a c o n s t r a i n t which prevents  p o s i t i o n o f t h i s type o f c o n s t i t u e n t . s t r a i n t " L e f t Branch C o n d i t i o n . "  the extra-  Ross (1967:114) names t h i s c o n -  F o r l a n g u a g e s such a s E n g l i s h , t h i s  c o n d i t i o n c o n c e r n s t h e most l e f t c o n s t i t u e n t ; f o r l a n g u a g e s s u c h a s J a p a n e s e , i t c o n c e r n s t h e most r i g h t c o n s t i t u e n t .  This condition i s  c a l l e d "Right Branch C o n d i t i o n . " I t i s my o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no need f o r any o f t h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n o f a natural language. To a c c o u n t f o r Ross's example I p r o p o s e t h e f o l l o w i n g sis: 1) 0 govemo prescreve capa dos dossiers.  a espessura  da letra  da  (The government p r e s c r i b e s t h e t h i c k n e s s o f the l e t t e r i n g o f t h e c o v e r o f t h e f i l e s . )  analy-  134  In t h i s a n a l y s i s i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o use t h e r u l e NP The c o n s t i t u e n t s  • NP ( N P ) , w h i c h i s e s s e n t i a l t o Ross's a n a l y s i s . espessura,  letra,  capa,  a r e n o t NP and t h e r e f o r e  be e x t r a p o s e d by t h e y-movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  cannot  In t h e c a s e o f t h e  R e l a t i v i z a t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e a r e o n l y f i v e p o s s i b l e forms o f R e l a t i v i z a t i o n f o r t h i s s e n t e n c e , one f o r each NP. T h i s a n a l y s i s a l l o w s t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f Ross's t y p e o f c o n s t r a i n t and g i v e s more s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s from t h e u n i v e r s a l t h e o r y p o i n t o f view. The symbol F i s used t o d e s i g n a t e a c o n s t i t u e n t and t h e symbol Z i s used f o r l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n , i t does n o t have any f u r t h e r e x p r e s s i o n .  The c o n s t r a i n t f o r t h e e x t r a p o s i t i o n i n t h i s t y p e o f a n a l y s i s i s t h e one p r o p o s e d by Ross f o r t h e complex n o u n p h r a s e .  As an exampl  we p r e s e n t t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f a g e n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e a f t e r a p p l i e d t r a n s formation, (a) NP  Z  NP  de  with the r e l a t i v e s t r u c t u r e , a f t e r  transformation,  '(b)  1  /\  NP  S  NP  F  136 Both o f t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s a r e t h e r e s u l t o f a deep s t r u c t u r e :  The f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s a r e i l l u s t r a t i v e examples o f (a) a n d ( b ) : 1) 0 pdssaro  oanta.  (The b i r d s i n g s . )  2) 0 pdssaro que oanta.  (The b i r d t h a t s i n g s . )  3) A oanodo do pdssaro.  The b i r d ' s song.)  (1)  oanta  (2)  pdssaro  que  oanta  137 (3) NP  NP  oangao  NP  NP  Z  ds  Z  canaao  passaro  pdssaro  Ross c o n s i d e r s t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s a s d i f f e r e n t .  In the English version,  he g e n e r a t e s d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e base t h e forms (2) a n d ( 3 ) . (3)  (2)  NP  NP  NP  bird  Gen  NP  who  sings  bird  Where Gen = A g e n i t i v e c o n s t i t u e n t .  's  song  138 Ross's p r o p o s e d a n a l y s i s needs a c o n s t r a i n t . I t i s p o s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h an a n a l y s i s o f r e l a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s f o r a l l l a n g u a g e s , h a v i n g i n t h e base a s y s t e m o f n o t t o o d i f f e r e n t rules. Ross's a n a l y s i s f o r J a p a n e s e o r P o r t u g u e s e and E n g l i s h o f t h e sentence, That c h i l d eats a b i g f i s h  come tun peixe  (Aquela crianQa  grande),  a r e as f o l l o w s : (1) J a p a n e s e o r P o r t u g u e s e a n a l y s i s S  F  NP  NP  Z  Z  ookii  sono  S  aquela  NP grande  1 1  kodomo  crianQa  NP .  F  1  Z  sakana  peixe  sakana  peixe  tabete i r u come  (2)  English analysis  The base r u l e s f o r J a p a n e s e o r P o r t u g u e s e a r e 1) S  NP  • NP  F  >S  NP  and t h e base r u l e s f o r E n g l i s h a r e : 2)  S NP  • NP • NP  F S  140 I f the aim i s the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a base w h i c h r e f l e c t s the common f a c t o r s f o r p r e d i c a t i o n o f a l l l a n g u a g e s , then i t i s my  ultimate  aim t o c o n s t r u c t a s y s t e m o f r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o E n g l i s h , P o r t u g u e s e , J a p a n e s e and e v e r y o t h e r l a n g u a g e .  After that, transformations  will  account f o r t h e i r s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s .  3. P e r l m u t t e r ' s  Surface  Constraints  T h i s type o f c o n s t r a i n t f i l t e r s d e r i v a t i o n s o f the grammar. T h e r e e x i s t s s e v e r a l v e r s i o n s o f t h i s type o f c o n s t r a i n t : Ross ( 1 9 6 7 ) , Lakoff (1968), Perlmutter  ( 1 9 6 8 ) , L a n g a c k e r (1970) and o t h e r s .  example I s h a l l c o n s i d e r P e r l m u t t e r ' s  As an  (1969) v e r s i o n .  The s u r f a c e c o n s t r a i n t seems as c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e as Chomsky's f i l t e r i n g devices.  These s u r f a c e c o n s t r a i n t s are supposed to account  f o r the s t r u c t u r e s t h a t a r e c a p a b l e o f g e n e r a t i n g too l a r g e a number o f d e r i v a t i o n s , where some o f t h e s e g e n e r a t e d  s t r u c t u r e s a r e marked as  not w e l l formed. Perlmutter's  surface c o n s t r a i n t s are clumsy.  W h i l e Chomsky's  f i l t e r i n g r u l e s a c t on the deep s t r u c t u r e l e v e l , the s u r f a c e c o n s t r a i n t s a l l o w t h e d e r i v a t i o n t o take p l a c e b e f o r e m a r k i n g t h e i l l - f o r m e d s t r u c tures.  The u s e l e s s n e s s  o f t h e s e s u r f a c e c o n s t r a i n t s i s e v i d e n t when  we d e m o n s t r a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s y s t e m o f r u l e s o f a p o s i t i v e n a t u r e . The r u l e s o f t h i s s y s t e m , i f formed c o r r e c t l y , do not a l l o w f o r t h e generation of i l l - f o r m e d sentences.  Perlmutter's  arguments i n f a v o u r  o f s u r f a c e c o n s t r a i n t s on the S p a n i s h c l i t i c pronoun s y s t e m a r e not satisfactory.  For each type o f s t r u c t u r e t h a t P e r l m u t t e r wants t o b l o c k ,  141  t h e r e i s a n o t h e r s t r u c t u r e which can e a s i l y be d e r i v e d by t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a l r e a d y i n t h e grammar.  The i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t must be added t o t h e grammar  t o r e a l i z e o b l i g a t o r i l y the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s where t h e y must be r e a l i z e d , does n o t c o m p l i c a t e t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e grammar. T h e s e c r i t i c i s m s and o t h e r s made about grammar d e v i c e s which have the f u n c t i o n o f f i l t e r i n g o r e l i m i n a t i n g t h e non-grammatical o f the language, l e a d to the proposal o f a general convention.  forms This  c o n v e n t i o n a s s u r e s t h a t where an i n t u i t i v e p r e d i c a t i o n o c c u r s i t e x i s t s i n t h e l a n g u a g e as a c o r r e s p o n d i n g grammatical  form.  The f u n c t i o n o f  the grammar i s t o d e f i n e the form o f e v e r y g i v e n i n t u i t i v e p r e d i c a t i o n and n o t t o e x c l u d e t h e p r e d i c a t i o n s w i t h complex d e r i v a t i o n s .  D.  G e n e r a t i v e and I n t e r p r e t a t i v e S e m a n t i c s Chomsky s t a t e s t h a t the l o g i c a l n o t i o n o f p r i o r i t y has meaning  only  i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a model which aims a t t h e p r o d u c t i o n o r t h e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s o f the language and not a t t h e i r c h a r a c terization.  G e n e r a t i v e and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c t h e o r i e s a r e  opposed  to each o t h e r by s e v e r a l p r i n c i p l e s which a r e not d i r e c t l y based on the d i s t i n c t i o n o f performance/competence. c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e model. here.  T h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n f l u e n c e the  An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i s p r e s e n t e d  142 1. S y n t a c t i c and S y n t a c t i c - S e m a n t i c F e a t u r e s W e i n r e i c h (1966:402) and McCawley (1968:265) have q u e s t i o n e d the v a l i d i t y o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n made by K a t z a n d Chomsky between semant i c a n d s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s . A c c o r d i n g t o K a t z t h e word ' b a l l '  (baile  and bola) i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s c a r r y t h e two f e a t u r e s . 1) I o b s e r v e d t h e b a l l r+ o b j e c t - , + event L  {Observei  \ o baile ( a bola  J  \) J  2) I a t t e n d e d t h e b a l l r- o b j e c t - event L  (Assisti  ao  J  baile)  3) I b o u n c e d t h e b a l l r+ o b j e c t - , - event J  {Fiz saltar  a bola)  K a t z s a y s t h e s e a r e s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s w h i c h have a d o u b l e f u n c t i o n . In s e n t e n c e ( 1 ) t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s i s t o desambiguate the semantic ambiguity.  In sentences (2) and (3) t h e i r f u n c t i o n  i s t o prevent t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f i l l - f o r m e d sentences such a s : * 4) I a t t e n d e d t h e b a l l r+ object-i >- e v e n t J  {Assisti  a. bola)  According to Weinreich, the function o f s y n t a c t i c features i s e x a c t l y t h e same as t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s o f K a t z . Then, i n the sentence, 5) T h i s s u b s t a n c e i s f a t {esta substanoia  £  gorda),  t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e f e a t u r e s |+ N| o r |+ A d j . | p r e v e n t s a m b i g u i t y . In a s i m i l a r way, g i v e n t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e s S  y  NP VP  143 VP  >£vt}  NP  • Jorge, Alberto,  NP  the verbs queixar-se  ( c o m p l a i n ) , arrepender-se  (to repent),  atrever-se  ( t o d a r e ) , do n o t have a' n o n - r e f l e x i v e f o r m , such as *queixar  3  der  3  *arrepen-  - t h e r e f o r e , we c o u l d n o t d e r i v e from t h e s e forms t h e  *atrever  r e f l e x i v e forms b y a R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  T h e s e v e r b s must  c a r r y i n the l e x i c o n t h e f e a t u r e |+ R e f 1 . | , w h i c h a l l o w s t h e i r s t a t u s t o b e the same as t h e verbs w h i c h a c q u i r e t h e s e f e a t u r e s by the R e f l e x i vization  process. T h i s R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n |+ R e f l . | f e a t u r e a l l o w s f o r t h e d e r i v a t i o n  o f the c o r r e c t f o r m s : queixo-me ( I c o m p l a i n ) , arrependes-te  (he d a r e s ) ; and does not a l l o w the d e r i v a t i o n o f the i l l - f o r m s :  atreve-se *eu  (you r e p e n t ) ,  queixo  3  *tu arrependes  3  * ete atreve.  This reflexive feature i s  n o t a s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e , b e c a u s e the synonym o f t h e s e v e r b s a r e n o t r e f l e x i v e verbs.  T h e synonym o f atrever-se  i s ousar but n o t  *ousar-se.  The verb ousar then c a n n o t c a r r y the f e a t u r e |+ R e f 1 . | . 1) Ousou mentir.  (He d a r e d t o l i e . ) *  Ousou-se mentir.  I n h e r e n t f e a t u r e s such a s | + R e f l . | a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d from  semantic  f e a t u r e s b y the f a c t t h a t t h e y b r i n g t o t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r m , w i t h o u t a d d i n g a n y t h i n g t o t h e meaning o f t h e  sentence.  In t h i s l i g h t , I p r o p o s e a n o t h e r t y p e o f f e a t u r e w h i c h o v e r l a p s semantics  and s y n t a x , and comes from the r e f e r e n t .  'referential feature.'  It is called a  144 As an example o f a ' r e f e r e n t i a l f e a t u r e , ' we c o n t r a s t t h e f e a t u r e male| w i t h t h e i n h e r e n t f e a t u r e |+ masc|. the same c l a s s o f f e a t u r e s as |+ R e f l . | . 1) Um bom estudante  ndo falta  These w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d In the sentences:  nunoa as aulas  ( A good s t u d e n t n e v e r m i s s e s c l a s s e s ) ,  2) Uma boa estudante  ndo falta  nunoa ds aulas  (A good s t u d e n t n e v e r m i s s e s c l a s s e s ) ,  1)  ndo falta nunoa ds aulas  bom  2)  ndo falta nunoa ds aulas  boa estudante  145 the a t t r i b u t i o n o f a sex w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s s e n t e n c e (2) must be c o n s i d e r e d as an o p t i o n a l p r e d i c a t i o n , though the g e n d e r , i n t h i s |+ masc| i s c o m p l e t e l y  a feature of a s y n t a c t i c nature.  This  case, feature  does not r e c e i v e any o v e r t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the p r e d i c a t i v e s t r u c t u r e of the sentence.  At the same t i m e the t y p e o f p r e d i c a t e w h i c h  presents  one u n i q u e f e a t u r e i s o p p o s e d t o the p r e d i c a t e s o f a p a r a d i g m a t i c tic structure.  seman-  T h e s e p r e d i c a t e s have a l e x i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , w h i c h  j u s t i f i e s the d i s t i n c t i o n between s e m a n t i c and r e f e r e n t i a l  features.  2. L o g i c and S e m a n t i c S t r u c t u r e s G e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s o f f e r s t h e s e two t y p e s o f s t r u c t u r e s l o g i c and  semantics.  The l o g i c a l s y s t e m s a v a i l a b l e a r e n o t a b l e t o r e p r e s e n t a s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e , e i t h e r a t the l e x i c a l o r p r o p o s i t i o n l e v e l s .  The  reason i s t h a t l o g i c i s not concerned with a n a l y z i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s  be-  l o n g i n g t o the s y s t e m o f p o s s i b l e p r o p o s i t i o n s . rather, with determining  Logic i s concerned,  the t r u t h value of p r o p o s i t i o n s .  Logic i s  c o n c e r n e d w i t h n e i t h e r a s m a l l a s p e c t o f the " s i g n i f i c a t i o n , " n o r w i t h the a n a l y t i c a l  aspect.  Weinreich's  (1961) and McCawley's (1967) a t t e m p t s t o employ  a p r e d i c a t e - c a l c u l u s s y s t e m t o r e p r e s e n t a s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e a r e as u s e l e s s as K a t z and F o d o r ' s a t t e m p t t o use B o o l e ' s L a k o f f (1970) i s now a t t e m p t i n g  l o g i c a l system.  to develop a 'natural l o g i c , ' which  seems to be g o i n g i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .  F i l l m o r e , with h i s presuppo-  s i t i o n t h e o r y has c o n t r i b u t e d t o the r e s u r r e c t i o n o f the works o f t h e  146 ' o r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e p h i l o s o p h e r s ' and S e a r l e ' s (1968) t h e o r y o f "Speech A c t s , " i n s p i r e d by A u s t i n , has b r o u g h t new i d e a s i n t o t h e f i e l d .  Leech  (1969) has remarked t h a t t h e l i n g u i s t w o u l d be b e t t e r o f f t r y i n g t o f o r m u l a t e h i s own l o g i c a l systems i n s t e a d o f t r y i n g t o a d a p t systems from s c i e n c e s o t h e r than l i n g u i s t i c s . A n o t h e r p r o b l e m t h a t l i n g u i s t s must a t t e m p t t o s o l v e i s t o recognize the l i m i t s o f semantics i n l i n g u i s t i c s .  Semantics cannot  a c c o u n t - as p r o p o s e d by L a k o f f (1970:354) - f o r " a l l p o s s i b l e words" in a l l possible contexts. S e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e i s used as t h e i n t e p r e t a t i v e s e m a n t i c component o f my model.  Then, I p r o p o s e a g r a m m a t i c a l model w h i c h  accounts f o r the i n t u i t i v e notion o f " s y n t a c t i c well-formedness." The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d and s e p a r a t e d from' the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s o r t h e s e m a n t i c g e n e r a t i o n . The f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s i s t o e s t a b l i s h an adequate l e v e l w h i c h i s i n t u i t i v e l y r e a l and i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e s e m a n t i c l e v e l .  In  k e e p i n g t h e s e two l e v e l s s e p a r a t e I a v o i d r e j e c t i n g t h e s e m a n t i c level.  The s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e two l e v e l s does n o t i m p l y a t o t a l s e p a r a -  t i o n o f s y n t a c t i c and s e m a n t i c phenomena.  Some p r e d i c a t i o n s , s u c h as  the r e f e r e n t i a l f e a t u r e s , a r e r e f l e c t e d i n t h e s e q u e n c e o f " s i g n i f i e r s . " T h i s s e q u e n c e i s by d e f i n i t i o n t h e domain o f t h e s y n t a c t i c r u l e s .  The  p r o p o s e d g r a m m a t i c a l model w i l l d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e i s n o t a s e p a r a t i o n o f s e m a n t i c s and s y n t a x e v e r y t i m e t h a t s e m a n t i c s p l a y a r o l e i n t h e  147 f o r m a t i o n o f a s y n t a c t i c form o f a s e n t e n c e . w i t h i n the s y n t a c t i c r u l e frame.  The s e m a n t i c s w i l l a c t  The form o f the m o d i f i c a t i o n i s always  a f o r m a l r e a d y p r e s c r i b e d by a s y n t a c t i c r u l e , as t h e c a s e o f the r e ferential feature  + male . T h i s f e a t u r e f i t s p e r f e c t l y i n the g e n d e r  and agreement r u l e s w h i c h a r e r u l e s o f a s y n t a c t i c n a t u r e . In c o n c l u s i o n , the c r i t i c i s m s o f the t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c p l e s  and  n o t i o n s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r c o n s t i t u t e the base on w h i c h I w i l l seek to e s t a b l i s h the f o u n d a t i o n s model.  f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n o f my  grammatical  I propose the f o l l o w i n g n o t i o n s :  1) The c o n c e p t o f " p o s s i b l e p r e d i c a t i o n " as a n o t i o n o f p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r a given p r e d i c a t i o n .  The d e f i n i t i o n o f the n o t i o n  o f " p o s s i b l e p r e d i c a t i o n " i s hampered by the l i m i t a t i o n o f our knowledge i n s e e k i n g t o d e f i n e the n o t i o n o f " e x p e r i e n c e ; "  present  i t is also  hampered by the l i m i t a t i o n o f l i n g u i s t i c s as a s c i e n c e , w h i c h s h o u l d n o t go beyond the n a t u r a l l i m i t s o f v e r b a l a r t i c u l a t i o n . 2) The n o t i o n o f " s i g n , " d e f i n e d as a minimal u n i t o f s e m i o t i c function.  I concentrate  on the c l a s s o f " s i g n s " w h i c h c a r r y a v e r b a l  " s i g n i f i e r " ( s i m i l a r t o de S a u s s u r e ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f " s i g n " ) . 3) The e x i s t e n c e o f two systems o f i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s , where one s y s t e m i s b a s e d on the p r e d i c a t i o n o f g i v e n " s i g n i f i e d s " and w i l l be a b l e t o d e f i n e t h e n o t i o n o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s p r e d i c a t i o n , which i s c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a t i o n .  The  other  s y s t e m i s b a s e d on a s e q u e n c e o f g i v e n " s i g n i f i e r s " and w i l l be a b l e t o d e f i n e the n o t i o n o f p o s s i b l e f o r m o f t h i s s e q u e n c e . ponds t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f Chomsky's n o t i o n o f  This corres-  grammaticality.  148 4) The r u l e s w h i c h c a l c u l a t e the form o f the s e q u e n c e o f the " s i g n i f i e r s " may be o f two  kinds:  a) The r u l e s w h i c h c a l c u l a t e the s y n t a c t i c f o r m o f any s e q u e n c e , i . e . a s e n t e n c e - the s y n t a c t i c component; b) The r u l e s w h i c h c a l c u l a t e the p h o n e t i c form o f the s y s t e m o f " s i g n i f i e r s " - the p h o n o l o g i c a l  component.  5) The s y n t a c t i c component p r e c e d e s the p h o n o l o g i c a l s i n c e the s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s p l a y an a c t i v e r o l e i n the o f the p h o n o l o g i c a l  component, determination  form.  6) The n o t i o n o f i s o m o r p h i s m o f the s e m a n t i c and p h o n o l o g i c a l ponents j u s t i f i e d by the p a r a l l e l s between the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e s the " s i g n i f i e r " and the " s i g n i f i c a t i o n . " by m a t r i c e s  of d i s t i n c t i v e  These s t r u c t u r e s a r e  comof  represented  features.  7) The s y n t a c t i c component does not have any. c o n s t r a i n t o r f i l t e r i n g r u l e type, since to every i n t u i t i v e given p r e d i c a t i o n corresponds  one  p o s s i b l e g r a m m a t i c a l form. From t h e s e t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n s I c o n s t r u c t a model o f l i n g u i s t i c description.  T h i s model s h o u l d be a b l e t o p r o v i d e a g u i d e f o r t h e d e s -  c r i p t i o n of every natural  language.  CHAPTER 4 PORTUGUESE SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES INTRODUCTION T h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s t h e n o t a t i o n and base r u l e s f o r t h e model o f a P o r t u g u e s e grammar.  T h i s model d e v i a t e s i n many a s p e c t s from Chom-  sky's t r a d i t i o n a l t h e o r e t i c a l a p p r o a c h , and i n c l u d e s some i n n o v a t i o n s w h i c h w i l l be commented on as they a r e i n t r o d u c e d .  I.  NOTATION AND BASE RULES  A.  Notation A new n o t a t i o n ^ i s a d o p t e d f o r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e r u l e s .  T h i s new n o t a t i o n has t h e a d v a n t a g e o f p r o v i d i n g p r e c i s i o n f o r t h e f o r malization o f the s y n t a c t i c d e s c r i p t i o n .  The d e s c r i p t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d  w i t h Friedman's n o t a t i o n a l s y s t e m , w h i c h has s e v e r a l a d v a n t a g e s . i t a l l o w s f o r a more p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and f o r an i n c r e a s e d number o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s .  First,  operations  Second, i t helps  prevent  the e r r o r s o f p r e v i o u s works due t o t h e i n a c c u r a n c y o f s t r u c t u r a l d e s cription.  T h i r d , i t o f f e r s a more e l a b o r a t e i n v e n t o r y o f o p e r a t i o n s  than t h e ones p r e v i o u s l y a v a i l a b l e . T h i s s y s t e m comprises  operations  ^The n o t a t i o n used i n t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r s when commenting on o t h e r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l works was t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l n o t a t i o n used i n t h o s e works. 149  150 o f a d j u n c t i o n (Chomsky's t y p e ) , and a l a r g e s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n s o f i n corporation or deletion o f features.  F i n a l l y , Friedman's n o t a t i o n a l  s y s t e m a l l o w s t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h i s grammar i n t o t h e computer t o v e r i f y t h e s y n t a c t i c r u l e s o f t h e grammar and t o g e n e r a t e new An e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e formal c o n v e n t i o n s  sentences.  used h e r e i s as f o l l o w s .  1. S t r u c t u r a l D e s c r i p t i o n %  Variable  A<B>  A dominates B d i r e c t l y  A/<B>  A dominates B  A-/<B>  A does n o t d o m i n a t e B  (A, B)  A or B  ((A, B))  A o r B o r nothing  2. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  Operations  a) ERASE 5  Deletion o f 5 i n the structural description  b) 3 ALESE 5  A copy o f node 3 i s j o i n e d as a s i s t e r t o t h e l e f t o f node 5 and t h e o r i g i n a l node 3 disappears: 1  c) 3 ARISE 5  idem, but at the right of node 5  d) 3 ALADE 5  idem, but as a last daughter node:  6 7  8  e) 3 AFIDE 5  idem, but as a first sister node  f) 3 ACHLE 5  idem, but adjunction (Chomsky's type) at the left side of the node 5:  6 7  g) 3 ACHRE 5  idem, but adjunction (Chomsky's type) at the right of node 5.  h) 3 SUBSE 5  the node 5 is replaced by the node 3 and the original disappears.  152 The o p e r a t i o n s ADLES, ADRIS, ADLAD, ADFID, ADCHL, ADCHR, and SUBST c o r r e s p o n d  t o t h e o p e r a t i o n s ALESE, ARISE, ALADE, AFIDE, ACHLE,  ACHRE, and SUBSE r e s p r e c t i v e l y , b u t w i t h o u t e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l i ) |+A| MERGEF 3  The f e a t u r e |+A| i s j o i n e d t o t h e b u n d l e o f f e a t u r e s o f node 3.  j) |*A|  ERASEF 3  The f e a t u r e |+A| d i s a p p e a r s f r o m t h e b u n d l e o f f e a t u r e s o f node 3, and a l s o a l l t h e features that are i t s dependents.  k) |+A|  SAVEF 3  A l l t h e f e a t u r e s o f t h e node 3 d i s a p p e a r , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e f e a t u r e |+A| and a l l t h e f e a t u r e s t h a t a r e d e p e n d i n g on i t .  1) |*A| MOVEF 3 5 - The f e a t u r e |+A|  goes t o t h e node 5, w i t h  t h e v a l u e s t h a t i t has i n 3, as w e l l as a l l the features that are i t s dependents. m) |aA|  SUBSEF  3-The f e a t u r e |A| r e p l a c e s t h e f e a t u r e |B| i n 3, k e e p i n g t h e v a l u e a o f B.  3. C o n d i t i o n s on t h e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  Operations  a) A & B  C o n d i t i o n A and c o n d i t i o n B.  b) A/B  C o n d i t i o n A o r c o n d i t i o n B.  c) A, & B/C A & B,/C  A and (B o r C) (A and B) o r C.  d) 3 TRM  The node i s t e r m i n a l .  e) 3 NUL  The node 3 i s n u l .  f ) 3 INCL  |+A|  The f e a t u r e |+A|is i n c l u s i v e i n 3.  153  B.  g) 3 NINCL |+A  The f e a t u r e |+A| i s n o t i n c l u s i v e i n 3.  h) 3 DOM A  The node 3 dominates A.  i ) 3 NDOM A  The node 3 does n o t dominate A.  j ) 3 NDOMBY A  The node 3 i s n o t d o m i n a t e d by A.  k) 3 EQ 5  The nodes 3 and 5 a r e e q u a l .  1) 3 NEQ 5  The nodes 3 and 5 a r e n o t e q u a l .  T h e Base R u l e s Base r u l e s c o n s t i t u t e a f i n i t e s y s t e m o f r u l e s i n d e p e n d e n t o f  c o n t e x t , and p r e s e n t a r e l a t i v e l y f i x e d form A -> BC where t h e o r d e r o f t h e r u l e s i s s t r i c t l y d e t e r m i n e d .  They c a n always  be r e p r e s e n t e d by a u n i q u e t r e e d i a g r a m which i s t h e p h r a s e - m a r k e r . In t h e S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s m o d e l , b a s e - r u l e s have t h e f u n c t i o n of s u p p l y i n g t h e stratum o f the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e o f the sentence and o f s u p p l y i n g t h e morphemes w h i c h f o r m t h e l e x i c a l  structure.  A f t e r K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) a t h i r d f u n c t i o n , r e c u r s i v e n e s s , i s a s s i g n e d t o base r u l e s .  Chomsky (1965) adds a n o t h e r f u n c t i o n t o  b a s e - r u l e s : t h e e x p l i c i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l f u n c t i o n s . Howe v e r , i n one o f t h e grammar v e r s i o n s p r o p o s e d by Chomsky ( s o l u t i o n I I ) , the base r u l e s do n o t e x e c u t e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f l e x i c a l  elements.  In p o s t - A s p e c t s works, Chomsky (1967) a n d F i l l m o r e (1968) have e l i m i n a t e d from t h e b a s e - r u l e s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l f u n c t i o n s . In my s t u d y t h e b a s e - r u l e s have o n l y two i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n s :  154  1) the d e f i n i t i o n o f the n o t i o n o f p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c e i n terms o f a p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e where the nodes r e p r e s e n t the grammatical categories; 2) the i n c l u s i o n o f a r e c u r s i v e mechanism w h i c h w i l l  account  f o r t h e i n t u i t i v e n o t i o n o f c r e a t i v i t y o f the l a n g u a g e . My t h e o r y a d o p t s t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s f o r the form o f the b a s e - r u l e s , b u t r e j e c t s Chomsky's p o i n t o f view r e g a r d i n g the f u n c t i o n o f b a s e - r u l e s . The d i f f e r e n c e between my b a s e - r u l e s and Chomsky's c o n s i s t s i n t h e t y p e o f c o n s t i t u e n t w h i c h must be s p e c i f i e d by t h e s e r u l e s .  I propose that  what i s f u n d a m e n t a l i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e o f a s e n t e n c e , r a t h e r than t h e c a t e g o r i e s , i s t h e n o t i o n o f grammatical  r e l a t i o n and, more s p e c i -  f i c a l l y , the " c o n s t i t u e n t s o f r e l a t i o n " w h i c h a r e f o u r : s u b j e c t , p r e d i c a t e , complement and p r e d i c a t i o n .  T h i s c o n c e p t i o n i s b a s e d on  two  t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . The f i r s t p r i n c i p l e t a k e s up the a n a l o g y  be-  tween the b a s e - r u l e s o f a g e n e r a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar and  the  r u l e s o f formation o f a formal system. system a convention  In t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a f o r m a l  ( C a r n a p , 1947) e x i s t s a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h s o m e t h i n g  c a n n o t be a s s i g n e d t o the r u l e s o f f o r m a t i o n w h i c h can be r e a l i z e d by means o f d e d u c t i o n s .  T h i s c o n v e n t i o n has the p u r p o s e o f l i m i t i n g t h e  r u l e s o f f o r m a t i o n t o a v e r y s m a l l number, e x p r e s s i n g t h e maximum g e n e r a l i zations.  The a d v a n t a g e o f a d o p t i n g t h i s p r i n c i p l e f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f a grammar i s t o reduce t h e number o f b a s e - r u l e s and t o e l i m i n a t e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s r a t h e r than the f u n c t i o n s . The second p r i n c i p l e i s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e t h e o r y o f q u a s i - u n i v e r sals.  The l i n g u i s t attempts  t o c o n s t r u c t a model w h i c h can a c c o u n t  for  155 most n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e s and w h i c h can make e x p l i c i t t h e e l e m e n t s t h a t most o f the l a n g u a g e s have i n common. S t u d i e s on u n i v e r s a l s s u c h as G r e e n b e r g (1961-1963 and 1964-1966) and t h e works i n c o m p a r a t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s o f Vinay and D a r b e l n e t  (1958)  show t h a t when t h e r e i s a s y n t a c t i c o p p o s i t i o n between l a n g u a g e s , i t i s a t the l e v e l o f g r a m m a t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s .  The b e s t way t o e s t a b l i s h com-  p a r i s o n s i s t o e s t a b l i s h what the l a n g u a g e s have i n common i n g r a m m a t i c a l relations.  Greenberg's s y n t a c t i c u n i v e r s a l s are based almost e x c l u s i v e l y  on t h e s u p e r f i c i a l o r d e r o f the c o n s t i t u e n t s o f r e l a t i o n . order i s expressed  Where t h i s  i n terms o f c a t e g o r i e s , as i n the o p p o s i t i o n  post-  p o s i t i o n / a n t e - p o s i t i o n , he s u p p o s e s a c e r t a i n e q u i v a l e n c e , w h i c h w i l l equal the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s u p p l i e d by my b a s e - r u l e s . v e r s a l s has m o t i v a t e d  The t h e o r y o f u n i -  the e l i m i n a t i o n , i n the b a s e - r u l e s , o f t h e d e t e r -  m i n a t i o n o f c a t e g o r i e s w i t h the o b j e c t i v e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e elements o f every natural language.  constant  T h e s e w i l l be c a l l e d " p r e d i c a t i v e  structures." On a b a s i s o f t h e two p r i n c i p l e s above the f u n c t i o n s o f the b a s e - r u l e s a r e d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : 1) t o s u p p l y a p h r a s e - m a r k e r w h i c h e x p r e s s e s  simultaneously  t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s o f the s e n t e n c e i n terms o f the e l e m e n t s o f the p r e d i c a t i o n and i n terms o f t h e o n l y r e c o g n i z e d u n i v e r s a l c o n s t i t u e n t s w h i c h a r e "the p r o p o s i t i o n " and "the s i g n " ; 2) t o a c c o u n t , by means o f r e c u r s i v e r u l e s , f o r t h e c r e a t i v e a s p e c t o f the l a n g u a g e ;  156 3) t o make e x p l i c i t two t y p e s o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : a) one c o n c e r n i n g t h e s y n t a c t i c p r o p e r t i e s s h a r e d by a l l natural languages, b) t h e o t h e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e common p r o p e r t i e s o f some predicates, independently o f t h e i r morphologic realization. To a c c o u n t f o r t h e s e f u n c t i o n s I p r o p o s e t h e f o l l o w i n g b a s e rules : 1.  P -> F (NP, P)  2.  F +  Z ( ( N P , P) NP)  3.  NP -  ( P , Z)  The o r d e r o f a p p l y i n g t h e s e r u l e s i s s t r i c t l y d e t e r m i n e d and t h e o r d e r o f t h e symbols a t t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e arrow i s s i g n i f i c a n t .  1. Rule 1:  P + F (NP, P)  The i n i t i a l symbol  "P" i s used t o r e p r e s e n t t h e t h r e e n o t i o n s :  " p h r a s e , " " p r o p o s i t i o n " and " p r e d i c a t i o n . " These n o t i o n s a r e d i s t i n c t b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s a r e l i n k e d and p a r t i a l l y d e f i n e d by t h i s f i r s t r u l e . Chomsky has l i m i t e d t h e n o t i o n o f " s y n t a c t i c grammar" t o t h e " p h r a s e grammar."  Most o f t h e grammars c o n c e i v e d i n a g e n e r a t i v e t r a n s -  f o r m a t i o n a l frame have a d o p t e d t h i s d e l i m i t a t i o n , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f L a k o f f (1969).  I f o l l o w t h i s d e l i m i t a t i o n and d e f i n e t h e s e n t e n c e as  " t h e axiom o f t h e s y s t e m . "  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n d o e s n o t i m p l y my b e l i e f ;  t h a t t h e s y n t a c t i c p r o c e s s e s do n o t go beyond t h e l i m i t s o f t h e s e n t e n c e , but r a t h e r t h a t I choose t o p l a c e t h e s t u d y o f t h e s e p r o c e s s e s w i t h i n t h e  157 l i m i t s t h a t the s e n t e n c e c i r c u m s c r i b e s .  Rule 1 g i v e s a d e f i n i t i o n o f  P = " p r o p o s i t i o n " o r " S e n t e n c e " i n terms o f the two r u l e s w h i c h a r e implicit: a) P -> F  NP  b) P  P  F  From the p o i n t o f view o f the deep s t r u c t u r e form o f the s e n tence, these r u l e s p r e s c r i b e that a "sentence"  c o n s i s t s a t l e a s t o f two  c o n s t i t u e n t s , where one i s a t the l e f t o f the o t h e r , and where t h e cons t i t u e n t a t t h e r i g h t has two v a r i a b l e s :  P and  NP.  The n o t i o n o f " p r o p o s i t i o n " i s r e s e r v e d f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f a P c o n s t i t u e n t d e f i n e d as x <P>, where x i s a c o n s t i t u e n t o r node o f the P-marker.  T h e r e e x i s t s an a b s o l u t e i d e n t i t y between t h e p r o p o s i t i o n  and t h e p h r a s e f o r m s , i . e . p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e by d e f i n i t i o n p h r a s e - f o r m s . Rule 1 d e f i n e s t h e s e n t e n c e as " p r e d i c a t i o n , " c o m p r i s i n g  the  n o t i o n s o f " p r e d i c a t e , " r e p r e s e n t e d as P<_(NP, P)>, and " s u b j e c t " r e p r e s e n t e d as P<F_>.  2. Rule 2:  F ->Z ( ( P , NP)  NP)  T h i s r u l e d e f i n e s F " p r e d i c a t e , " and c o n d e n s e s the f o l l o w i n g five rules: 1) F  Z 2  The p r e d i c a t e F may be r e a l i z e d as an e l e m e n t Z, c a l l e d " s i g n . " The p r e d i c a t e F may be a s s i g n e d t o the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e by a v e r b , an The e l e m e n t Z c a l l e d " s i g n " i s the o n l y one t o a l l o w f o r l e x i c a l insertion.  158 a d j e c t i v e , an a d v e r b , o r the l i k e ; as i n the f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s , where the p r e d i c a t e i s u n d e r l i n e d : a) Amariha vai dhover.  (Tomorrow i t w i l l r a i n . ) b) 0 Jodo vem.  (John i s coming.) c) Estd  nervosa.  (She i s  nervous.)  d) 0 chefe geral S um bandido.  (The g e n e r a l c h i e f i s a b a n d i t . ) e) Comega a mooa a dor  gritos.  (The g i r l s t a r t s t o scream.)  2)  F  ->ZP  T h i s r u l e s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h e d i r e c t complement i s an embedded p r o p o s i t i o n i n the s e n t e n c e .  Examples o f complement P a r e u n d e r l i n e d :  a) Sai porque ouvi vozes.  (I went out b e c a u s e I h e a r d v o i c e s . ) b) Ao• dobrar a esqvina ouvi um barulho.  ( T u r n i n g the c o r n e r I h e a r d a n o i s e . )  159 c ) A Helena cree que e" mentir a.  (Helen b e l i e v e s t h a t i t i s a l i e . ) 3) F •> Z NP NP  T h i s r u l e s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h e d i r e c t complement and i n d i r e c t complement a r e represented  by two NP as i n t h e f o l l o w i n g  a) 0 Jodo devolveu  sentence:  o disco go seu dono.  (John r e t u r n e d t h e r e c o r d t o i t s owner.)  4) F -> Z P NP  .  •  T h i s r u l e s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h e d i r e c t complement i s a P a n d t h e i n d i r e c t complement i s an NP. An example i s t h e f o l l o w i n g a) 0 policia  sentence.  prometeu-me que nao acontecia nada.  (The p o l i c e m a n p r o m i s e d me t h a t n o t h i n g w o u l d happen.) T h i s R u l e 2 has t h e p u r p o s e o f d e f i n i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s : a) " d i r e c t complement o f " , n o t e d (NP, P) / F<Z _ %>; b) " i n d i r e c t complement o f " , n o t e d NP / F<Z (NP, P) _ %>. 3. R u l e 3: NP  (P, Z)  The n o u n - p h r a s e (NP) i s a r e l a t i o n c o n s t i t u e n t :  Its function i n  deep s t r u c t u r e i s f i x e d b y i t s r e l a t i o n t o t h e d o m i n a t i n g P. T h i s NP has two p o s s i b l e r e a l i z a t i o n s , g i v e n b y Rule 3. NP<P> by means o f t r a n s formations  g i v e s a g r e a t r a n g e o f s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s (nominal  groups,  nominalizations, adjectivizations, r e l a t i v i z a t i o n s , i n f i n i t i v i z a t i o n s , etc. . . ) .  Rule 3 a l s o g i v e s a n o t h e r p o s s i b l e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e forms  NP<Z>, where a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e c o n t e x t u a l  features,  the o n l y e l e m e n t t h a t can be i n s e r t e d i s t h e dummy e l e m e n t A . 3  The e x a c t n a t u r e o f NP<P> w i l l be made e x p l i c i t l a t e r .  160 J u s t as the symbol P o f Rule 1 has a d o u b l e v a l u e o f a m a t r i x element "sentence"  and t h e embedded e l e m e n t " p r o p o s i t i o n , " the e l e m e n t s  F and NP a l s o c a r r y two v a l u e s .  The p o s s i b l e e x p r e s s i o n s o f F p r e d i c a t e  and NP s u b j e c t o r complement a r e p a r a l l e l s , even i f m a t r i x o r embedded c o n s t i t u e n t s a r e i n q u e s t i o n . F, NP c o n t r a s t w i t h the e l e m e n t Z. have any f u r t h e r e x p a n s i o n  constituents  The e l e m e n t s o f t h e base P,  Z i s a l e x i c a l e n t r y w h i c h does not  and must be c o n s i d e r e d as a " t e r m i n a l e l e m e n t "  i n the s e n s e o f t h e t e r m used by Chomsky i n A s p e c t s .  T h i s i s an advan-  tage f o r the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e o f t h i s grammar o v e r the p r e v i o u s ones. I t l i m i t s the t e r m i n a l s e r i e s t o a s e r i e s o f u n i q u e Z s y m b o l s .  The s e r i e s  e x p r e s s e s the i m p l i c i t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f o t h e r t e r m i n o l o g i e s such  as:  s i g n , word, morpheme, p r e d i c a t e , e t c . . . The terms " m a t r i x " and "embedded c o n s t i t u e n t " a r e used i n t h i s grammar both i n an a b s o l u t e and sense.  relative  T h e n , e v e r y s e n t e n c e i s a " m a t r i x " and has two " m a t r i x c o n s t i -  t u e n t s , " F and (NP, P ) . P o f the t r e e .  Both nodes a r e d i r e c t l y d o m i n a t e d by t h e h i g h e s t  Every expansion  o f t h e s e m a t r i x symbols i s c o n s i d e r e d  as an embedding i n the m a t r i c e s F and (NP, P ) .  In a d o p t i n g the p r i n c i p l e  o f the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l c y c l e which c o n s i s t s i n f o l l o w i n g the t r e e branching from bottom-up by s t e p s o f l e v e l s o f embeddings o f P i n P, we can r e f e r to any P as a m a t r i x i n a g i v e n c y c l e , a l t h o u g h i n t h i s c y c l e t h a t same m a t r i x i s the o b j e c t o f embedding i n the n e x t c y c l e . To a c c o u n t f o r t h e c r e a t i v e a s p e c t o f l a n g u a g e , o r r e c u r s i v e n e s s i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l a n g u a g e , I a d o p t t h e s o l u t i o n o f K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) and a s s i g n the r e c u r s i v e p r o p e r t y t o the b a s e - r u l e s o f the grammar. T h i s grammar d i s t i n g u i s h e s between f o u r t y p e s o f r e c u r s i v e n e s s .  In t h i s  161 way the p r o p o s i t i o n may be d i r e c t l y embedded as s u b j e c t  ( R u l e 1: P-*- F P ) ;  the p r o p o s i t i o n may be d i r e c t l y embedded as complement ( R u l e 2: F -v Z P ) ; and the p r o p o s i t i o n may be i n d i r e c t l y embedded as s u b j e c t o r as which i s a transformed NP -*• P ) .  predicate,  v e r s i o n o f an embedded p r o p o s i t i o n i n NP ( R u l e  The f o u r t h type o f r e c u r s i v e n e s s  3:  i s coordination, which i s a  p a r t i c u l a r c a s e and w i l l be f u l l y d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s grammar. The q u e s t i o n o f o r d e r i n t h e base c o n s t i t u e n t s b r i n g s up  two  problems already mentioned: 1) t h e r e l a t i o n between the model and the mental  operations  i n v o l v e d i n the a c t o f s p e e c h ; 2) the base o f u n i v e r s a l s  (Greenberg).  The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f mental p r o c e s s e s  f o r the c r e a t i o n o f s e n -  t e n c e s by s p e a k e r s t h r o u g h l i n g u i s t i c b a s e - r u l e s i s n o t f e a s i b l e .  I  t r y i n s t e a d t o c o n s t r u c t the most e f f i c i e n t s y s t e m t o r e p r e s e n t t h e most common g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o f t h e l a n g u a g e ' s s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s .  Green-  b e r g ' s (1964-1966) p o i n t o f v i e w , t a k e n up by Ross (1970) and McCawley ( 1 9 7 0 ) , t h a t a g i v e n l a n g u a g e has, i n an i n h e r e n t way,  a fixed order  f o r the g r a m m a t i c a l f u n c t i o n s , i s c o n s i d e r e d h e r e .  The word o r d e r i s  g i v e n by t h e b a s e - r u l e s i n a l e f t t o r i g h t manner.  T-rules  the c o r r e c t s u r f a c e word o r d e r t o P o r t u g u e s e .  assign  These base r u l e s do n o t  r e f l e c t any s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p e r t i n e n t t o the P o r t u g u e s e l a n g u a g e only.  The a s s e r t i o n o f " p o s s i b l e p r e d i c a t i v e s t r u c t u r e " p r e s c r i b e d by  the b a s e - r u l e s i s an h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h i s a r b i t r a r y and a p p l i c a b l e t o any n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e .  162  II.  SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF "SIGN" Language, a c c o r d i n g t o Chomsky's c o n c e p t i o n  o f a t h e o r y o f com-  p e t e n c e , i m p l i e s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y even i f t h e r e i s not a c o r r e s pondence on the s o c i a l l e v e l .  Language can be d e f i n e d i n terms o f  two  constituents: a) the l e x i c o n - an open c l a s s o f l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s ; b) t h e grammar - a s t r u c t u r a l s y s t e m w i t h s e v e r a l t y p e s o f r u l e s . The s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e r u l e s o f t h e s e n t e n c e a r e o f two  kinds:  a) Base R u l e s - w h i c h d e t e r m i n e the s y n t a c t i c form o f a l l t h e p o s s i b l e p r e d i c a t i o n s ; and b) T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  Rules - which determine the s u r f a c e  s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s e n t e n c e f r o m the deep s t r u c t u r e p r e s c r i b e d by t h e base r u l e s and the a s s o c i a t e d s y s t e m o f s i g n s .  In the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n  we p r e s e n t the s e c o n d a s p e c t o f t h e deep s t r u c t u r e , t r e a t e d h e r e as the l e x i c o n , o r t h e s y s t e m o f s i g n s o f the l a n g u a g e .  A.  The  Sign The c o n c e p t i o n  modified.  o f " l i n g u i s t i c s i g n " i s taken from S a u s s u r e b u t  Any s i g n i s the a r b i t r a r y j u n c t i o n o f a " s i g n i f i e r " and a  " s i g n i f i e d " p e r c e i v e d i n terms o f an a s s o c i a t i o n o f a m a t r i x and a b u n d l e o f f e a t u r e s - p h o n e t i c and s e m a n t i c - d e f i n e d r e s p e c t i v e l y by  alphabets  o f f i n i t e f e a t u r e s and by b e i n g a b l e t o c h a r a c t e r i z e each s i g n o f any natural language.  T h i s same c o m b i n a t i o n  i s a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s e c o n d  b u n d l e o f f e a t u r e s - the " s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s . "  163 1.  Hypothesis T h i s s t u d y examines the h y p o t h e s i s  t h a t the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r a -  t i o n o f the s e n t e n c e i s a phenomenon r e a l i z e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y t i c o r s e m a n t i c form o f the s i g n .  o f t h e phone-  The s y n t a c t i c p r o p e r t i e s o f the s i g n  4  are three: a) C o n t e x t u a l  F e a t u r e s - the p r o p e r t i e s t h a t d e t e r m i n e the s y n t a c t i c  c o n t e x t o f t h e s i g n i n terms o f s t r u c t u r e s p r e s c r i b e d by t h e base r u l e s . b) C a t e g o r i a l F e a t u r e s - the p r o p e r t i e s t h a t d e t e r m i n e the s u r f a c e c a t e g o r i e s which r e a l i z e the s i g n . c) I n h e r e n t F e a t u r e s - t h e p r o p e r t i e s t h a t d e t e r m i n e t h e  behaviour  o f t h e s i g n i n some s p e c i f i e d c o n t e x t s by a s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the  transformation. We n o t e t h a t between the c l a s s e s o f f e a t u r e s (b) and ( c ) t h e r e  i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n f u n c t i o n and f o r m .  The o n l y r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n  depends on t h e e x p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s s u c h as  grammar o f c e r t a i n  "categories."  F o l l o w i n g i s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e sign f o r Portuguese.  B.  Contextual  Features  In A s p e c t s o f the T h e o r y o f S y n t a x , Chomsky has p r o p o s e d t h r e e ways t o i n t r o d u c e the l e x i c a l e l e m e n t i n the frame g i v e n by the base  T h e s e s y n t a c t i c p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s i g n t o g e t h e r w i t h the p h o n e t i c and the s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s make up the l e x i c o n . L e x i c a l e n t r i e s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 6.  164  rules.  D u r i n g the r e s e a r c h t h a t f o l l o w e d A s p e c t s , most o f the t r a n s -  f o r m a t i o n a l works have e x p l o r e d t h e s e c o n d s o l u t i o n p r o p o s e d  in Aspects.  Each l e x i c a l e l e m e n t was g i v e n a f e a t u r e or a s e r i e s o f c o n t e x t u a l  features,  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , d e s c r i b i n g the p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f s y n t a c t i c coo c c u r r e n c e i n terms o f c a t e g o r i e s and s e l e c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s . a d o p t s t h a t s o l u t i o n t o o , a l t h o u g h the form o f my proposed f e a t u r e s d i f f e r s from the form p r o p o s e d  by Chomsky.  This  study  contextual  I n s t e a d o f Chomsky's  n o t a t i o n [. . .] (NP, VP, PP, N V . . . ) , I use <. . .> ( P , F, Z,  NP).  The main d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two d e s c r i p t i o n s i s t h a t t h e nodes o f t h i s a n a l y s i s d i f f e r from Chomsky's c a t e g o r i e s , w h i c h o r i g i n a t e i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar and r e v e a l the u s u a l p a r t s o f the d i s c o u r s e and t h e i r variants. D i s c o u r s e i s an e l e m e n t w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s a u n i q u e t y p e o f a n a l y s i s - a t the s u r f a c e l e v e l . formulated i n  The grammatical  rules that are  terms o f p a r t s o f d i s c o u r s e cannot a c c o u n t  f o r s y n t a c t i c phenomena.  satisfactorily  The p a r t s o f d i s c o u r s e c a n n o t c a r r y a f i x e d o r  w e l l - d e f i n e d v a l u e i n t h e grammar and must be d e f i n e d o n l y as s y n t a c t i c or morphologic  elements.  ficial creation.  The t h e o r y o f p a r t s o f d i s c o u r s e i s an a r t i -  The s u r f a c e p a r t o f d i s c o u r s e i s i n r e a l i t y t h e  product  o f i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , where t h e d e r i v a t i o n has s e v e r a l c a u s e s : deep s t r u c t u r e , i n h e r e n t f e a t u r e s and p o s s i b l e m o r p h o l o g i c zations.  reali-  The c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s d e f i n e a s e r i e s o f s y n t a c t i c c l a s s e s -  o r s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s - the form o f w h i c h depends on the base r u l e s , but w h i c h a r e n o t comparable to the t r a d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s .  The  des-  c r i p t i o n o f t h e s e c l a s s e s w i l l be opposed t o " p a r t s o f d i s c o u r s e . "  165 The principal function of Chomsky's subcategorization features is to eliminate the surface structures that contain a contradiction in terms of the properties of the verb. Then, to avoid agrammatical sentences such as, 1) * 0 moqo  transeorreu  (*The boy elapsed),  2) * A Maria ohoveu o gato  (*Mary rained the cat),  Chomsky assigns to the verbs, subcategorization features to prevent insertion in such derivations. The intransitive verbs will carry the feature /_<_NP>/ and the embedded verbs of complements the feature /+<_Z>/. Another device to prevent conflicting inherent features in derivations, is the use of |+ animate|, |+ abstract|. To avoid such agrammatical sentences, 3) * 0 livro  correu da  biblioteca  (*The book ran from the library),  4) * 0 gato comeu a  alegria  (*The cat ate the joy),  Chomsky proposes selectional features such as <|+ animate|_NP> for oorrer  (run), and <NP_ |- abstract|> for comer (eat). A semantic  theory must assign to the verbs atrever-se  (dare) and ousar (dare)  a similar semantic description, but cannot point out the syntactic  166 differences:  atrever-se  i s a r e f l e x i v e v e r b and ousar i s n o t .  This  example s u p p o r t s t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c p r o p e r t i e s a r e independent  o f semantics.  T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s b a s e d on t h e n o t i o n o f  s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g Chomsky's s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f e a t u r e s , i . e . the d i s t i n c t i o n t r a n s i t i v e / i n t r a n s i t i v e which i s expressed i n t h e s e verbs by c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s ; and c a t e g o r i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s , i . e . v e r b / a d j e c t i v e , accounted  f o r by t h e c a t e g o r i a l f e a t u r e s .  In my t h e o r y any s i g n o r l e x i c a l e l e m e n t i s a p o t e n t i a l p r e d i c a t e and must p o s s e s s a t l e a s t one c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e w h i c h a l l o w s its insertion i n a predication.  This contextual features prescribes  t h r e e a s p e c t s o f t h e form o f t h e p r e d i c a t i o n .  These a s p e c t s must be  realized before