A Reconstruction of the “Classical” Linguistic Transformational Theory CLT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48160/18532330me2.72Keywords:
formal reconstruction, scientific theory, classical transformational linguistics, structuralist viewAbstract
We reconstruct “the classical transformational theory” of Chomsky, and fit it into the structuralist theory of science. We describe both the formal and the empirical features of this classical account, so that one basic hypothesis of this theory – where central notions are used – can be formulated, and in which Chomsky’s “classical” distinction between surface structure and deep structure is clarified. In the empirical claim of this theory are words, sentences and high-structured entities in an inseparable way intertwined. We claim that the formal structure of a natural language is not approximately the same as that of an empirical theory in general. We clarify two special points which affect the structure of the notion of an empirical theory, namely: the delineation of intended applications and the fit between data and models. We hold that the concept of the empirical claim for a linguistic theory should be generalized in comparison with the “standard” structuralist approach.References
Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U. and J. D. Sneed (1987), An Architectonic for Science, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Balzer, W., Lauth, B. and G. Zoubek (1993), “A Model for Science Kinematics”, Studia Logi-ca 52: 519-548.
Balzer, W., Sneed J. D. and C. U. Moulines (eds.) (2000), Structuralist Knowledge Representa-tion. Paradigmatic Examples, Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
Balzer, W. and G. Zoubek (1994), “Structuralist Aspects of Idealization”, in Kuokkanen, M. (ed.), Idealization VII: Structuralism, Idealization and Approximation, Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 42, Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 57-79.
Bar-Hillel, Y., Kasher, A. and E. Shamir (1963), Measures of Syntactic Complexity, Report for U.S. Office of Naval Research, Jerusalem: Information Systems Branch.
Bartelborth, T. (1996), Begründungsstrategien, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Bloomfield, L. (1933), Language, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bourbaki, N. (1968), Theory of Sets, Berlin - Heidelberg: Springer.
Chomsky, N. (1953), “Systems of Syntactic Analysis”, The Journal of Symbol Logic 18: 242-256.
Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures, Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2nd ed. 2002.
Chomsky, N. (1961), “On the Notion of Grammar”, Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied Mathematics XII: 6-24; reprinted in Fodor & Katz (1965), pp. 119-136.
Chomsky, N. (1962), “Current Issues in Linguistic Theory”, Ninth International Congress of Linguists; reprinted in Fodor & Katz (1965), pp. 50-118.
Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
Chomsky, N. (1975), The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, New York and London: Plenum Press.
Clark, R. (1992), “The Selection of Syntactic Knowledge”, Language Acquisition 2: 83-149.
Diederich, W., Ibarra, A. and T. Mormann (1989), “Bibliography of Structuralism 1971-1988”, Erkenntnis 30: 387-407.
Diederich, W., Ibarra, A. and T. Mormann (1994), “Bibliography of Structuralism II 1989-1994 and Additions”, Erkenntnis 41: 403-418.
Fodor, J. A. and J. J. Katz (eds.) (1965), The Structure of Language, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ginsburg, S. and B. Partee (1969), “A Mathematical Model of Transformational Grammars”, Information and Control 15: 297-34.
Gonzalo, A. (2001), “Cambios modeloteóricos en la lingüística chomskiana. Una reconstrucción desde la concepción estructural de la ciencia”, Dissertation, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Halle, M. (1962), “Phonology in Generative Grammar”, Word 18: 54-72.
Harris, Z. (1951), Methods in Structural Linguistics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harris, Z. (1954), “Distributional Structure”, Word 10: 146-162; reprinted in Fodor & Katz (1965), pp. 34-49.
Ho, R. (2006), Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS, London-New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Hockett, C. F. (1954), “Two Models of Grammatical Description”, Word 10: 210- 231.
Hornby A. S. et al. (eds.) (1974), Oxford Dictionary. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moulines, C. U. (1985), “Theoretical Terms and Bridge Principles: A Critique of Hempel’s (Self-)Criticisms”, Erkenntnis 22: 97-117.
Peris-Viñé, L. M. (1990), “First Steps on the Reconstruction of Chomskyan Grammar”, in Díez, A., Etcheverrìa, J. & A. Ibarra (eds.), Structures in Mathematical Theories, San Sebastián: Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 83-87.
Peris-Viñé, L. M. (1996), “Caracterización de las nociones básicas de la Gramática de Chomsky”, Ágora 15(2): 105-124.
Peris-Viñé, L. M. (2010), “Estructura parcial de la gramática estándar del castellano”, in Peris-Viñé, L. M. (ed.), Filosofía de la Ciencia en Iberoamérica: Metateoría Estructural, Madrid: Tecnos, pp. 223-256.
Peris-Viñé, L. M. (2011), “Actual Models of the Chomsky Grammar”, Metatheoria 1: 195-225.
Quesada, D. (1993), “Grammar as a Theory. An Analysis of the Standard Model of Syntax within the Structural Program”, in Díez, A., Etcheverrìa, J. & A. Ibarra (eds.), Structures in Mathematical Theories, San Sebastián: Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 175-182.
Sneed, J. D. (1971), The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Stanley Peters Jr., P. and R. W. Ritchie (1973), “On the Generative Power of Transforma-tional Grammars”, Information Sciences 6: 49-83.Wells, R. S. (1947), “Immediate Constituents”, Language 23: 81-117 and 169-180.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
LicenseThe documents published here are governed by the licensing criteria
Creative Commons Argentina.Atribución - No Comercial - Sin Obra Derivada 2.5 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
