PSYC3311 Lecture Notes - Lecture 16: Transformational Grammar, Deep Structure And Surface Structure, Psycholinguistics
Week 8 lec 2
- Yesterday- transformational grammar
- 2 situations where DS → 2 diff SS and opposite.
-
- Active sentence is closer to the abstract
- There can be other transformations eg w questions – does the girl chop the wood?
- Cleft- it is THE GIRL who chops the wood → some part of the sentence is highlighted
- Soe argued the eg girl did ot hop the ood also has the sae DS ut others hae
argued opp
- Mb another- is it the wood that is chopped by the girl
- These all have the same DS
Trend in syntactic theory has been to simplify the rules as much as possible to even just a single
element (single principle).
- E.g. move some element to the underlying structure
- Then one can specify constraints on that simplified rule
- Constraints differ from language to language
- What comes out of the surface is not what u generate in ur head
Coig ak to hosks otio of laguage eig iate
- Hes saig its DEEP STRUCTURE that is innate (when thinking abt grammar)
- DS is based on logical relos between concepts
- Says DS is innate to all human language
- Specific language differs across languages but the DS is universal
- And ppl just have diff constraints on rules to get diff languages
In mor recent times, linguists haver pointed out that theres diff etee laguages regardig
underlying subject, object and verb order
- In english: SVO (subject, verb object) order
- Other languages
o SOV
- Probs other orders too
- This doest support iate DS theor
- So mb it has to b something more abstract like there is a s and o and v or something
Theory of syntactic competence- linguistic structure ^
Now we look at performance
- How we actually make use of language
- Influenced first psycholinguistic experiments
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
2 situations where ds 2 diff ss and opposite. Active sentence is closer to the abstract. Cleft- it is the girl who chops the wood some part of the sentence is highlighted. So(cid:373)e argued the (cid:374)eg (cid:858)girl did (cid:374)ot (cid:272)hop the (cid:449)ood(cid:859) also has the sa(cid:373)e ds (cid:271)ut others ha(cid:448)e argued opp. Mb another- is it the wood that is chopped by the girl. Trend in syntactic theory has been to simplify the rules as much as possible to even just a single element (single principle). E. g. move some element to the underlying structure. Then one can specify constraints on that simplified rule. What comes out of the surface is not what u generate in ur head. Co(cid:373)i(cid:374)g (cid:271)a(cid:272)k to (cid:272)ho(cid:373)sk(cid:455)(cid:859)s (cid:374)otio(cid:374) of la(cid:374)guage (cid:271)ei(cid:374)g i(cid:374)(cid:374)ate. He(cid:859)s sa(cid:455)i(cid:374)g it(cid:859)s deep structure that is innate (when thinking abt grammar) Ds is based on logical relos between concepts. And ppl just have diff constraints on rules to get diff languages.
