Generative grammar

Generative Grammar (Latin generare " generate " and " grammar " ) is the generic term for grammar models, with their control system, the sentences of a language - can be generated - in contrast to the exclusively the phenomena descriptive language teaching. The principal representative of Noam Chomsky with his development of the generative transformational grammar, the controversially discussed within the framework of the so-called Wars and Linguistics - was changed in different versions - as a reaction to it. In this context also emerged another alternative, generative grammar concepts.

• 4.1 Development stages of generative grammar, Chomsky
• 4.2 with respect to the Chomsky hierarchy
• 4.3 roots and parallels

Initial question: Where, white ' man to speak?

The basic answer of generative grammar on this question is: to speak the power of man, that is, to make grammatically correct statements based on cognitive structures that are genetically inherited. With this assumption, the generative grammar of behaviorism delimits, who believes that man without innate abilities - as a tabula rasa - is born and so must learn to talk only by imitating its environment. ( In this context, is spoken in the linguistics of the cognitive revolution. ) While children learn the word material ' know by their environment - but the systems to the knowledge of how this material can be processed grammatically correct sentences to, ie how 'correct' language is generated genetically. In the process of language acquisition, these systems are trained on specific language training capabilities of a particular language.

Use

Often, the term is also used interchangeably with generative transformational grammar, so that all generative grammars are meant by transformation rules. However, there is also a further understanding of the term " generative grammar ", then under the alternative grammar models such as the Head -driven Phrase Structure Grammar ( " head -driven phrase structure grammar " ) or the lexical- functional grammar to fall. The formal foundations of these approaches, however, were revised in the 1990s, so that these models do not belong to the generative grammars in the strict sense.

In most cases, a generative grammar is able to generate an infinite number of sets using recursive rules of a finite number of lexemes. This property is very desirable for a model of natural languages ​​, since human brains only have a finite capacity, the number of possible grammatical sentences any one language is infinite but due to its recursive nature.

Accruals

Generative grammar has to be distinguished from traditional grammar, as the latter often highly prescriptive (rather than descriptive ) and is not mathematically explicit and usually with a relatively small amount involved individual language-specific syntactic phenomena. Similarly, the generative grammar should be distinguished from other descriptive approaches, such as the various functional theories.

Generative grammar and structuralism

The generative transformational grammar belongs to the modern American structuralism of other differences to the conventional structuralism are emphasized. The generative grammar is said to have undergone a paradigm shift from structuralist linguistics away and " brought a fundamental reorientation in linguistics ".

As differences between the structuralism ( then in the narrow sense ) and the generative transformational grammar are named:

Producing

Dynamic language as enérgeia

Starting from the langue ( = competence) of the ideal speaker

Mentalistic

Orientation to the philosophical rationalism

Focus on mathematical and automatic - theoretical models

Chomsky's generative grammar syntax - highlighted

Speaking of generative grammar, is mostly developed by Chomsky meant that although the standard theory and semantic components ( More information: Interpretive semantics) einbezog, but syntactic stressed.

Stages of development of generative grammar, Chomsky

The generative grammar has passed through several stages of development in Chomsky:

• (1955-1964) early transformational grammar ( Chomsky's " Syntactic Structures " )
• (1965-1970) standard theory (ST )
• (1967-1980) Extended Standard Theory ( EST ) or Revised Extended Standard Theory ( REST) ​​(concept of modularity )
• ( since 1980) " Government and Binding Theory" ( GB)
• ( 90s ) " Minimalist Program "

Relation to the Chomsky hierarchy

Generative grammars can be compared and described ( → Main article ) using the Chomsky hierarchy, which was designed by Noam Chomsky in the 50s. This assigns a number of different types of formal grammars in order of increasing expressive power. They differ by their symbol (terminal and non- terminal symbols ) and production control systems and have various well-defined verification methods suffice (eg, Turing machines). Type 0 (unrestricted formal grammars ) includes all formal grammars. The simplest types are the regular grammars (type 3). According to Chomsky, they are not suitable for mapping natural languages ​​as they can not model sets in a hierarchical arrangement ( hypotaxis ), which in his opinion is typical of the human communication system.

These requirements, however, the standing on a higher level of complexity context-sensitive grammars ( type 1) and context-free grammars (type 2) persons, eg Chomsky's " phrase structure grammar " in which the derivation of a sentence is represented as a tree structure. Linguists working in the field of generative grammar, such trees are often regarded as their main object of study. According to this view sets are not just strings of words, but trees with under - and higher-level branches, which are connected by nodes.

The tree model works something like this example, where S is a set, D is a determiner, N a noun, V a verb, NP a noun phrase and VP a verb phrase:

S                   / \                 NP VP                / \ / \               D N V NP             The dog ate / \                            D N                           the bone The generated sentence reads " The dog ate the bone ." Such a tree structure is also referred to as a phrase structure model. Such tree diagrams can be due to the underlying rules automatically generated ( see links).

The tree may also be represented as text, even if it is difficult to read:

[ S [ NP [D The ] [N dog ] ] [ VP [V ate ] [ NP [D the ] [N bone ]]]] Chomsky came to the realization that the phrase structure is not sufficient to describe the natural languages. To fix this, he formulated the complex system of transformational grammar.

Roots and parallels

Semantically oriented Generative Grammar George Lakoff ( Generative semantics)

→ see also Interpretative Semantics - compared with the generative semantics - Lakoff against Chomsky

The Generative Semantics is a generative grammar, the " semantics admitted primary importance before the syntax" in contrast to that of Chomsky ( generative grammar in the narrow sense ). It emerged in a critical analysis of the generative transformational grammar. She is a " grammar theory in which, instead of using the semantics of generative component and the basis of the sentence formation is ." Main representatives of generative semantics is George Lakoff.

In the generative semantics of the deep structure is an abstract semantic and the surface structure of a normal language syntactically correct level of representation.

The Generative semantics achieved by changing the verb-subject -object relations, a reduction of the projection rules: V is no longer VP subordinate ( tree graph as: ate the bone ), but based on the predicate logic (V = predicate calls NP ( 1) or NP ( 2) and NP ( 3) as additions / arguments) V is the S- nodes directly subordinate. Thus, the relations V arise ( ate ) → NP ( Subj: the dog) and V → NP (object: the bone ) without detour and the model comes with less derivation rules from. In addition, the GS system allows a " separation of individual lexemes in semantic features (decomposition ) and transformations are performed before setting the lexemes in the pedigree ( = prälexikalische transformations ). Ie: As described in the articles The model of semantic interpretation and comparison with the generative semantics, the meaning of the word at an earlier stage involved in the selection of linguistically correct sentences than in the interpretative semantics with their separate successive syntax and semantic tests. Thus, the options are limited.

Critics of generative semantics lead to the field, that the deep structure "highly abstract" and " extremely complex " was in accordance with the transformation part. The principle of the conservation importance of the transformations was not consistently maintain, or in other words, the syntactic structure of relationships to the semantic interpretation with ( More information: criticism in the field of linguistics ).

Effects

The generative idea Chomsky was also taken up by Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff to describe the musical grammar. The French composer Philippe Manoury transferred the system of generative grammar to the field of music. In the field of computer-aided algorithmic composition is the generative grammar of their application, for example in the order of musical syntax in Lisp - based languages ​​such as Open Music or patchwork.