Page 387 - DENG504_LINGUISTICS

Unit 29: Transformational and Phrase Structure Rules

Rules of this kind are called rewrite rules, or phrase structures rules. They are called “rewrite rules” Notes
because the symbol on the left-hand side of the arrow is “rewritten” in terms of the symbol(s) on the
right-hand side. They are called “phrase structure rules” because they enable us to diagram the
phrase structure of a phrase or sentence in the form of a tree.
X-bar theory: The problem with phrase structure rules was they could be virtually of any kind, without
any restrictions - whereas in actual linguistic expressions there are rather well-defined constraints on
what can occur on the right-hand side of a phrase structure rule, given a particular node lable on the
left-hand side. Thus, there is no reason why a phrase structure rule like should not be possible.
AP→Det V
This kind of phrase strucrure rule would allow us e.g. to form an adjectival phrase like *that speak
and hence a noun phrase such as *a that speak boy), which is absurd: speakers of English would
dismiss such a phrase (especially such a noun phrase) as nonsensical.
Secondly, the phrase structure rule would allow a verb or a determiner to be the head of an Adjectival
Phrase, which is not only counterintuitive but in fact does not conform to the linguistic facts at all.
The head of an Adjectival Phrase must be an Adjective, not a Verb or Determiner or any other lexical
category of word. However, so far there was no restriction on phrase structure rules to the effect that
a phrase must be rewritten so that at least one lexical category of the same type (nominal, verbal,
adjectival, or prepositional) appears on the right-hand side of the rule.
The notion of phrase structure rules was modified in the late 1960s by Chomsky himself. Chomsky
proposed that phrase structure rules must be specific instants of a simple but well-defined rule scheme
(i.e., a specification of what a phrase structure rules must be specific intants of a simple but well-
defined rule schema (i.e., a specification of what a phrase structure rule must be like), which came to
be known as X-ber theory.
29.5 Summary

• During mid 1950s there was special emphasis on the significance on the study of syntax. Before
mid 1980s structuralism spreads items wing in the field of grammar. According to structuralism
and culture are structured system. With this broader perspective of looking such phenomenon
and structured system, structurallinguistic came in to existence. It was Ferdinan de Saussure
who introduced this approach towards linguistics. This further taken ahead by linguist in
America, though independently like Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield. In Europe it was
popularised by Prague school linguists like Nikolay Sergeyevitch, Trubetzkoy and Roman
Jackobson. Further Claude Levi-Strauss applied this approach in anthropology.
• During the past fifty years modern linguistics has developed an impressive array of procedures
and theories of linguistic or syntactic analysis. What had been in the past of interest mainly to
the pedagogue and linguistic historian, has become a major concern of philosophers,
psychologists, sociologists, logicians, communication theorists and even biologists.
• There are three distinct periods of development in the theory of constituent structure. Bloomfield
only introduced notion and explained it by means of example. His followers, notably Eugene
Nida, Rulon Wells, Zells Harris, formulated the principles of constituent analysis in greater
detail and replaced Bloomfield’s somewhat vague reference to ‘taking account of the meanings,
with explicitly distributional criteria.’ Finally, in the last few years, the theory of constituent
structure has been formalized and subjected to mathematical rigour by Chomsky and other
scholars and has been called ‘Phrase Structure Grammar.’
• Once we start using ‘levels’ we have clearly departed from simple analysis and are undertaking
analysis somewhat similar to traditional phrasing, the division of sentences into already
established grammatical elements. This kind of analysis is today usually called ‘phrase structure
grammar.’ It shows some of the weaknesses of the simple IC analysis. There are sophisticated
versions of phrase structure grammars. The three best known are ‘Scale and Category Grammar’
associated with the name of Michael Halliday of London University. ‘Tagmemics’ is associated
with the name Kenneth Pike of Michigan, and ‘Stratificational Grammar’ associated with Sidney
Lamb of Yale.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 381