Generative Grammar (GG)

Karim Nazari Bagha t

This article consists of eight parts: introduction, the organization of a

Generative Grammar, operation of the system of base rules, deep structure,
surface structure and transformational rules, standard theory, extended
standard theory, revised extended standard theory, and minimalism.
According to Chomsky, the grammar of a language establishes a
relationship between sound and meaning, i.e., between phonetic
representation and semantic representation. To discover this grammar is the
primary goal of linguistics. One of Chomsky's attempts to accomplish this
goal is the standard theory grammar, which has been outlined in the article.

We note that the grammar consists of three distinct components: the

syntactic component, which consists of a Lexicon and two types of
syntactic rules, the Base and the Transformational, the phonological
component which consists of phonological rules, and the semantic
component, which consists of Semantic rules.

Introduction are necessarily accurate. Any interesting

To Chomsky, a Generative Grammar
means simply a system of rules that in
some explicit and well-defined ways
assigns structural descriptions to sentences.
Obviously, every speaker of a language
has mastered and internalized a
Generative Grammar that expresses his
knowledge of his language. This is not to
say that he is aware of the rules of the
grammar or even that he can become
aware of them, or that his statements
about his intuitive knowledge of language
Generative Grammar will be dealing, for
the most part, with mental processes that
are far beyond the level of actual or even
potential consciousness; furthermore, it is
quite apparent that a speaker's reports and
viewpoints about his behavior and his
competence may be in error. Thus a
Generative Grammar attempts to specify
what the speaker actually knows, not
what he may report about his knowledge.
Similarly, a theory of visual perception
would attempt to account for what a
person actually sees and the mechanisms

t Karim Nazari Bagha is a Faculty Member at the Islamic Azad University, Astara Branch. Iran,

MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009

 Generative Grammar (GG)
that determine this rather than his
statements about what he sees and why,
though these statements may provide
useful, in fact, compelling evidence for
such a theory.
To avoid what has been a continuing
misunderstanding, it is perhaps
worthwhile to reiterate that a Generative
Grammar is not a model for a speaker
or a hearer. It attempts to characterize in
the most neutral possible terms the
knowledge of the language hearer. When
we speak of a grammar as generating a
sentence with a certain structural
description to the sentence, when we say
that a sentence has a certain derivation
with respect to a particular Generative
Grammar, we say nothing about how the
speaker or hearer might proceed, in
some practical or efficient way, to
cons truct such a deriva-tion. These
questions belong to the theory of
language use - the theory of performance.
No doubt, a reasonable model of
language use will incorporate, as a basic
component, the Generative Grammar that
expresses the speaker-hearer's knowledge
of the language; but the Generative
Grammar does not, in itself, prescribe the
character or functioning of a perceptual
model or a model of speech production.
The Organization of a Generative
Grammar
Knowledge of a language involves the
implicit ability to understand indefinitely
many sentences. Hence, a Generative
Grammar must be a system of rules that
MANAGEMENT ANI:> LABOUR STUDIES
can iterate to generate an indefinitely large
number of structures. This system of
rules can be analyzed into the three major
components of a generative grammar: the
syntactic, phonological, and semantic
components.
The syntactic component specifies an
infinite set of abstract formal objects,
each of which incorporates all
information relevant to a single
interpretation of a particular sentence.
The phonological component of a
grammar determines the phonetic form
of a sentence generated by the syntactic
rules. That is, it relates a structure
generated by the syntactic component to
a phonetically represented signal. The
semantic component determines the
semantic interpretation of a sentence. That
is, it relates a structure generated by the
syntactic component to a certain semantic
representation. Both the phonological and
semantic components are therefore purely
interpretive. Each utilizes information
provided by the syntactic component
concerning formatives lives, their inherent
properties, and their interrelations in a
given sentence. Consequently, the syntactic
component of a grammar must specify,
for each sentence, a deep structure that
determines its semantic interpretation and
a surface structure that determines its
phonetic interpretation. The first of these
is interpreted by the semantic component;
the second, by the phonological
component.
Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009
 Generative Grammar (GG)
Operation of the System of Base
Rules
The rules which have been used to
describe sentence structures are as follows:
S -. NP + VP
1. NP -+ (D) + N + (S)
+ (;JP'I + (Advl' + ... + (.\dvP)
lArV
2. VI' -. \'
4. PrePP -+ prep + NP
4. DEEP STRUCTURE. SllRF.\CE
S-J1{UCTURE .\N D rn. \NSF< )R:\l.\TI< )N.\1.
IUlJ.ES
If, as Chomsky posits, Base rules express
the basic constituent structure of
sentences, how then are such sentences as
(1) Get the money; (2) Be honest; (3)
The tenor drank then sang; (4) John
ordered the beer and Mary the wine;
and (5) The president walked to the
door then to the car to be accounted
for? Sentences (1) and (2) do not have an
explicitly expressed subject NP for the
verbs get and be, nor is there a subject
NP for sang in the second conjoined
sentence in sentence (3). Sentence (4) does
not have a verb for Mary in the second
MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES
conjoined sentence and sentence (5) has
neither a subject nor a verb for the
second conjoined sentence where only an
adverbial phrase to the car follows the
conjunction then.
Chomsky's explanation of what seems to
be counter-examples to his basic S -.
NP + VP formulation is an insightful
one. He holds that all sentences actually
do have an NP + VP structure even
though such a structure may not appear
overtly in speech. Because as speakers of
the language we know that the implied
subject NP of the VPs get the money
and be honest is you, that the implied
subject of sang is the tenor, that the
implied verb for the subject Mary is
ordered, and the implied subject and
verb for to the car is the president
walked, we have the basis for postulating
an underlying structure to these sentences
that is in conformity with the S -. NP
+ VP formulation. Chomsky thus
recognizes two levels of syntactic
structures for sentences, one that is overt,
which he calls Surface Structure; the
other which is underlying, which he calls
Deep Structure.
For example, the sentence The tenor
drank then sang would be analyzed as
follows:
Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009
 Generative Grammar (GG)

Deep Structure

s
~1 I
~ the~
/
NP
con)

NP VP

D~N D~N I
v
v

the tenor drank the tenor sang

Surface Structure

s
~1 I
~ the~
/
NP
VP conj
Vp

D~N I
v
v

the tenor drank

Thus, the Surface Structure has the NP
of the second of the conjoined sentences
deleted. Incidentally, consider how a
sentence like the tenor drank then he
sang might be analyzed (assuming that the
person doing the singing is the same
person who was doing the drinking).
What would the Deep Structure be?
According to Chomsky, it would be the
same Deep Structure as shown for the
tenor drank then sang. However, the
Surface Structure would be different. It
would be:

MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009

 Generatice GrtJI11Inar (GG)
Surface Structure
s
~1
~
/
\,P
NP
I)~N
the tenor drank
Thus, while the two different sentences
The tenor drank then sang and The
tenor drank then he sang are assigned
the same Deep Structure, they are
assigned different Surface Structures. It is
by this device that Chomsky is able to
account for synonymy in sentences. He is
able to show how sentences which have
the same meaning may be related to one
another even though the forms of the
sentences may be different.
If the Deep Structure of a sentence
underlies its Surface Structure, the question
arises as to precisely how the Deep and
MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES .
I
_____ NP
thcn
COllI
\'1'
s
I
v
Surface Structures are connected.
Chomsky answers these by postulating a
kind of syntactic process known as a
transformation. In the case of the
sentences the tenor drank then sang
and the tenor drank then he sang there
is a transformation which will delete the
subject NP in the first sentence or change
it to a pronoun (he) in the second
sentence. Such changes are optional (as
opposed to obligatory) for such a
sentence as The tenor drank then the
tenor sang is perfectly acceptable. It is
interesting to note that deletion or
pronominalization can only be applied to
Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009
 Gtnfrafivf Grammar (GG)

elements in the second conjoined Chomsky's Syntactic Component

sentence, for, a sentence like Drank then
the tenor sang is ungrammatical as is He
drank then the tenor sang where he Rase Rules Lexicon
and the tenor are intended to refer to the
same person. It is Chomsky's contention .L
Deep Structure
that speakers of English have acquired
such operations, Transformational rules l'
in the course of learning their language. '
Transformational Rules
Transformational rules, should be noted,
are involved in four types of operations: ~
deletion, substitution, addition, and Surface Structure
permutation. The operation of deletion
Chomsky's syntactic component of a
was illustrated in The tenor drank then
grammar thus consists of two distinct
he sang (a pronoun substitution).
se.ts of rules (Base and Transformational)
Addition will occur with certain negations
with two resulting levels of structures
or questions, e.g., the auxiliary do must be
(Deep and Surface). The Base rules
added in sentences like The president did
permit an infinite number of Deep
not lie and Did the president lie? but
Structures to be generated. The
not in ones like The president is not
transformational rules function to render
happy and Is the president happy?
Deep Structures (which underlie
Permutation will occur with adverbials.
sentences) into Surface Structures, which
John sent the message quickly
form the basis of observed speech.
Quickly John sent the message, and
John quickly sent the message arc Transformational rules serve to explain
examples of such shifting or permutation. synonymy, ambiguity, and understood
(deleted) elements in sentences and ensure
Thus, according to the model, Deep
that only well-formed Surface Structures
Structures result from the application of
will result after their application to Deep
Base rules and the insertion of Lexical
Structure. As an infinite number of Deep
(vocabulary) items. While Surface
Structures may be generated by the set of
Structures are the consequence of
Base Rules, so too many an infinite
modifications to those Deep Structures.
number of Surface Structures be
Such modifications are made by
generated through the application of
Transformational rules. The relationship
Transformational rules to Deep
of Deep and Surface Structures with
Structures. It is through these essential
respect to the Base and Transformational
devices, Base Rules, Deep Structure,
rules may be schematized as follows:
Transformational Rules and Surface
Structure that Chomsky attempts to make

MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009

 Generative Grammar (GG)
some contribution in accounting for the
basic abilities of speakers.
At this point, clarification must be made
as to the nature of the representation of
the lexical items which appear in Surface
and Deep Structures. Although
orthographic representations of lexical
items have been shown in the tree
diagrams, what actually should have been
shown is a type of sound representation.
For, the immediate goal of linguistics is a
description of the grammar of speech.
The orthographic representations have
been used for practical rather than
NP
N oats
mares
MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES
theoretical reasons - they are more readily
recognized by novices.
A word of caution should perhaps be
injected here about Chomsky's notion of
Surface Structure. Although the term
surface is involved such a structure is
nonetheless quite abstract. One might
think Surface Structure is observed speech
but this is not the case. It does not
represent the pronunciation of a sentence.
For example, suppose the Surface
Structure of the sentence Mares eat oats
1S:
NI'
v
N
cat
Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009
 Generative Grammar (GG)

Apart from the words mares, eat, and
oats none of the rest of the structure
occurs in speech. That mares is the
subject and eat oats is the predicate, with
oats the direct object of eat is not
explicitly stated for actual speech consists
only of sounds. A syntactic structure
obviously does not appear directly in
speech but is rather an abstract
construction of the mind. 'Surface' and
'Deep' are terms which involve varying
levels of abstraction, one of which is
relatively deeper or more abstract than
the other.
Similarly, a word of caution should be
noted here regarding Deep Structure. For
Chomsky, such a structure is syntactic and
not semantic. Consider, for example, the
sentence The needle hurt John. While a
Deep Structure syntactic analysis would
provide something like

-,
-: <.
VI>

D
/ N
v

needle
hurt

NP NI>

the
N

John

Such an analysis is quite remote from its
meaning or semantic interpretation. For
such a sentence indicates that (1) two
separate events were involved. 'The needle
in some unspecified action' and 'John
experienced pain'; and (2) the two
separate events were related as cause and
effect, the former event being the cause
of the latter.

MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009

 Generative Grammar (GG)

Standard Theory (Aspects Model) (checking to see that there is a match

between subcategorization features of the
The first complete generative
lexical item and the tree). The strict
transformational model is known as the
subcategorization indicates the type and
standard theory. This model is complete
number of the complements a verb
because all components of language such
should have. Violation of
as deep and surface structures,
subcategorization features will produce ill-
competence and performance are formed structures.
included in it. The standard model
includes a Lexicon, which is a 1. He put.
morphological component of the
language. The information about 2. He put the book.
pronunciation of lexical entries 3. He put on the table.
(phonology), their syntactic categories and
subcategories (syntax) and their meaning 4. He put the book on the table.
(semantics) exists in the Lexicon. It also
Only sentence number 4 is well-formed,
includes word formation rules, lexical
because it indicates all the arguments
insertion rules (choosing the appropriate
(names and entities that accompany the
lexical entries to be added under the tree
main 'Verb in a sentence) of the verb put.
generated by phrase structure rules) and
strict subcategorization frame

Chomsky's Standard Theory Grammar

Rase Rules J.cxicon

~
Deep Structure

Semantic Rules

Surface Structure Semantic Representation

Phonological Rules

Phonetic Representation

MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009

 Generative Grammar (GG)

So, the standard theory of interpretive
semantics hypothesizes that semantic
interpretation takes place at the level of
deep structure not at the surface
structure, and the analysis of semantics
must be done through semantic rules,
because, the syntactic component is prior
to the semantic component. According to
this theory, the deep structure of a
sentence contains elements that may be
deleted through the application of
different transformations without altering
the original meaning of the sentence.
Extended Standard Theory
(Interpretive Semantics)
Semantic Representation and the function
of Transformational rules in introducing
new meaning. Chomsky now sees Surface
Structure serving as input to the semantic
component as well as continuing to serve
as input to the phonological component.
Thus, the following schematic relations
obtain:
Surface Structure -.... Semantic Rules
~
Phonological Rules

This theory, which is based on a

All other relationships among the various
modification of the standard theory, was
components remain unchanged. The
developed by Chomsky (1971) and
resulting grammar, termed Interpretive
elaborated by Jackendoff (1972). The
Semantics may be represented by the
change involves a revision of the
following schema:
relationship of Surface Structure to
Chomsky's Interpretive Semantics Grammar

Base Rules Lexicon

~
Deep Structure

-----
Transformational Rules

Surface Structure Semantic Representation

Phonological Rules

Phonetic Representation

MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 34 No.2. May 2009

 Generative Grammar (GG)

One principle reason that the Standard
Theory was modified was to
accommodate differences in meaning that
are exhibited by emphasis.
Revised Extended Standard Theory
(Trace Grammar)
Chomsky's most recent theorizing
(Chomsky, 1975a; 1975b) abolishes the
connection between Deep Structure and
the semantic component. Instead, we find
that Surface Structure alone determines
how the meaning of a sentence is to be
interpreted. As Chomsky (1975b: 82) puts
it, 'all semantic information is determined
by a somewhat enriched notion of
surface structure.' Because the meaning -
determining role now rests solely with
Surface Structure, we find that Surface
Structure is no longer as simple as it once
was. For, included in such a structure are
now traces. A notation of traces ensures
that Surface Structure will be sufficiently
detailed so that all of the meaning of the
original sen tence can be derived.
Essen tially, traces are markers which
identify Transformational rules which
have been applied to Deep Structure. By
'enriching' Surface Structure with Deep
Structure traces, for semantic
interpretation, Chomsky no longer
requires Deep Structure to serve as input
to the semantic component as was
necessary in his Interpretive Semantics
Theory. A schema of Chomsky's Trace
Grammar follows:

Chomsky's Trace Grammar

Base Rules Lexicon

,
Initial Phrase Maker
(Deep Structure)

~
Transformational Rules

Final Phrase Maker

(Surface Structure)

Phonological Rules Semantic Rules

Phonetic Representation Logica! Form

~
Semantic Rules 2 & rules of
other cognitive systems

Semantic Representation

MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 34 NO.2. May 2009

 Gnuralivt Grammar (GG)
As an illustration of a trace, t, consider
one of Chomsky's own examples:
Sentence: John seems to be a nice
fellow.
Deep Structure: Y (someone) seems [john to
be a nice fellow]s
Surface Structure: John seems It to be a nice
fcllow]s
For the correct semantic interpretation of
the sentence, it is essential that the Surface
structure hdi:ate that John is the subject
of the embedded sentence s, to he a
nice fellow. According to Chomsky
(1975b: 96), 'the position of the bound
trace [t] in the Surface Structure allows us
to determine the grammatical relation of
"John" as subject of the embedded
sentence.' Presumably, traces and
Transformational Rules would have to be
numbered, so that the traces would be
able to relate to the proper
Transformational Rules.
As an additional change, Chomsky breaks
up his original semantic component into
two parts. The first part, semantic ru1es 1,
functions to provide an output which
Chomsky terms 'logical form.' This
output structure in turn serves as input to
the second part of the semantic
component, Semantic rules 2. The output
of this set of rules is Semantic
Representation. Semantic rules 1 consist
of rules principally which determine
semantic relations (agent, instrument, etc),
subject-predicate relations, assign the
scope of logical operators (not, each,
who, etc.) and fix their meaning, assign
antecedents to certain types of anaphora
MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES
(e.g., reciprocal anaphora such as each
other and bound anaphora such as his in
John lost his way where his must refer
to John), and interpret focus and
semantic presupposition.
%ile Semantic rules 1 are considered as
part of linguistics proper, i.e., of
'sentence grammar,' the rules of 2 are
considered as part of performance.
Semantic rules 2 are said to consist of
two main types, one which is essentially
linguistic in nature and another which is
not. The linguistic rules are concerned
with determining reference in sentence
level cases of unbound anaphora (e.g., in
John found his book, his may refer to
any male, inc1udingJohn), and in dfscourse
and situational level cases where the
referent occurs in other sentences or
appears in the world. The non-linguistic
rules are rules of cognitive systems other
than language, e.g., the speaker's beliefs
and expectations. It is the interaction of
the two types of rules, the linguistic and
non-linguistic, which' yields the full
meaning of the sentence, i.e., its semantic.
representation.
Minimalizm
Much current research in
Transformational-Generative Grammar
(TGG) is inspired by Chomsky's
Minimalist Program. The new research
direction involves the further
development of ideas involving
economy of derivation and economy
of representation, which had started to
become significant in the early 1990s, but
were still rather peripheral aspects of
Vol. 34 No.2. May 2009
 Generative Grammar (GG)
TGG Theory. Economy of derivation is
a principle stating that movements (i.e.,
transformations) only occur in order to
match interpretable features with
uninterpretable features. An example
of an interpretable feature is the plural
inflection or regular English nouns, e.g.
dogs. The word dogs can only be used
to refer to several dogs, not a single dog,
and so this inflection contributes to
meaning, making it interpretable. English
verbs are inflected according to the
grammatical number of their subject (e.g.,
"Dogs bite" vs, "A dog bites") , but in
mos t sen tences this in flection jus t
duplicates the information about number
that the subject noun already has, and it is
therefore uninterpretable. Economy of
representation is the principle that
grammatical structures must exist for a
purpose, i.e., the structure of a sentence
should be no larger or more complex
than required to satisfy constraints on
grammaticalness.
An additional aspect of minimalist
thought is the idea that the derivation of
syntactic structures should be uniform;
that is, rules should not be stipulated as
applying at arbitrary points in a derivation,
but instead apply throughout derivations.
Minimalist approaches to phrase structure
have resulted in Bare Phrase Structure, an
attempt to eliminate X - bar theory.
Recently, it has been suggested that
derivations proceed in phrases. Deep
Structure and Surface Structure are not
present in minimalist theories of syntax,
and the most recent phase-based theories
MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES
also eliminate LF (Logical Form) and PF
(Phonetic Form) as unitary levels of
representation.
Conclusions
The essential issue dividing Chomsky's type
of grammatical theorizing and those of
his opponents concerns the relationship
and primacy of syntax and semantics.
Chomsky and his proponents believe that
basic syntactic structures can be specified
independently of semantic considerations.
His opponents, such as the Generative
Semanticists and the Semantic Case
theorists, disagree, holding that only
semantic structure Can be specified
independently and that the selection of
syntactic structure is governed by semantic
determinations.
While over the years, support for the
Chomskyan position has waned
somewhat, that viewpoint continues to
remain dominant. Chomsky s supporters
are more disciplined and devoted to
developing and working within the
essential paradigm that has been set. Their
publication output has been prodigious.
In contrast, the semantic based grammar
view has been inadequately developed.
While one might argue that this is because
it is a more difficult task to specify
underlying semantic representations than it
is to specify Chomskyan Deep Structures
(and it undoubtedly is), this does not
provide a sufficient explanation. Semantic
based theorists seem to have been less
devoted to developing their paradigm.
Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009
 Generative Grammar (GG)
Sources
• Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic
Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the
Theory of Syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep
Structure, Surface Structure, and
Semantic Interpretation, in Steinbergs
Danny D. and Jakobovits, Leon A.
(eds) (1, 71).
• Chomsky, N. (1975a). Conditions or
Rules of Grammar, Article based
on Lectures presented at the
Linguistic Institute, University of
South Florida.
• Chomsky, N. (1975b). Reflections
on Language. Pantheon: New York.
• Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic
Interpretation in Generative
Grammar. Cambridge,' Mass: MIT
Press.
MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES
• Razmjoo, S. A. (2004). Fundamental
Concepts in Linguistics. Tehran:
Rahnama Press.
• Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, R.
(2002). Longman Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics (3rd ed.). England:
Pearson Education Limited.
• Steinberg, Danny D. (1991).
PsycholingUistics: Language, Mind
and World. London: Longman
Group UK Limited.
• Syal, P. and Jindal, D.v. (2007). An
Introduction to Linguistics:
Language, Grammar and Semantics
(2nd ed.), New Delhi: Prentice Hall
of India Private Limited.
• Yule, G. (2006). The Study of
Language (3rd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
• http://en . wikipedia. Org/wiki: /
Transformational- Generative
Grammar
Vol. 34 No.2, May 2009