生産文法に於ける文法ルールの研究（英文）北海道教育大学紀...

Hokkaido University of Education

�

�

Title 生産文法に於ける文法ルールの研究（英文）

Author(s) 畑, 雅勝

Citation 北海道教育大学紀要. 第一部. A, 人文科学編, 17(1): 71-94

Issue Date 1966-06

URL http://s-ir.sap.hokkyodai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/123456789/3912

Rights

Vol. 17, No, 1 Journal of Hokkaido University of Education (Section I A) Tune, 1966

A Study on Some Grammatical Rules

in the theory of Generative Grammar

Masakatsu HATA

The Department of English, Sapporo Branch Hokkaido Educational University

TABLE OF CONTENTSI.

n.

INTRODUCTORYPHRASE-STRUCTURE RULESH.

n.

n.

n.

n.

0.

1.

2.

3.

4.

IntroductionSome Basci Notions from ChomskvImmediate Constituents and PhraseMarkersRestriction on Phrase-Structure RulesSome Example of Rewrite Rules andDerivation

II. 5. Some Inadequacies in PS rulesIH. GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

III. 0. Introduction : Transformationsffl. 1. Kernel SentencesM. 2. Types of T Rulesffl. 3. Some T Rules for English

HI. 4. Kernel or Non-Kernel SentencesBIBLIOGRAPHY

I. INTRODUCTORY

I. 0. We aim in this paper to study some grammatical rules which underlie the

•sentence structures of English.

I. 1. When a native speaker of English hears two utterances and judges the one is

English and the other is not, we say that he has an ablility of judging some utterancesto be genuine utterances of his own language. We call his ability of judgement a native

speaker's intuition. In other words, we may say that he knows grammatical rules of

English, because only by his intuition we can test the adequacy of a grammar proposed

for English.

I. 2. The fundamental aim, Chomsky says, in the linguistic analysis of a language

L is to separate the grammatical sequences which are the sentences of L from the

ungrammatical sequences which are not the sentences of L and to study the structure

of the grammatical sequences.1 We shall consider briefly the substance of a grammar

before taking up grammatical rules. According to Bach,2 the linguist begins his study

by segmenting the stream of speech into discrete units of sound. And he continues,

"In fact, this attempt has occupied the energies of linguists over the last few decades

Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, (The Hague. 1957), p. 13.Emmon Bach, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars, (New York, Chicago, San Francisco:Holt, Rinehart and Winstion, 1964), p. 4.

—71 —

Masakatsu Hata

and led to a theory of representation called phonemics. Because phonology is closely

related to the physical side of speech, it is easy to fall into the error of imagining thatphonology is somehow more "objective" or sure than the other parts of linguistic study."

But when we intend to consider the internal states of langaage, these operations such

as segmentation and classification are of no use, for we cannot reveal grammatical

features, given only the phonetic form of speech. Segmentation and classification of

utterances are only the first task of the linguists. Grammar is not a mere description

of physical events but a subject of theory. What we must account for is that certain

sequences are in the language—say, on the rules of the language—and the others are

not.

I. 3. We argued above that the grammar is a subject of theory and it cannot be

revealed by merely stating the observable phonetic forms. For instance, the following

sentence;

The shooting of hunters occurred yesterday.

is a grammatical one in English. But it has two meanings in spite of showing only one

(phonetic) form. This means that in this sentence structure there are two sentence-

formation processes as the following ;

( a ) Hunters shoot something.

( b ) Someone shoots hunters.

and these two sources, (a) and (b), were transformed respectively. After this process,

the sentence;

The shooting of hunters occurred yesterday.

has been generated. This generative process exists in the mind of a native speaker,

therefore he can understand this sentence. This means that he knows rules of his

language completely. As the example above shows, an internal state of language cannot

be explained easily by mere representations of phonetic forms only. If we intend to

reveal the sentence structures by means of merely observable phonetic forms, we will

soon find the limitations of this approach and miss the most important fact, say, gene-

rative process of the sentence structures. We do not deny the importance of the study

of speech sound which is just outside one end of language. But how much we may

study these events, we cannot understand internal states or workings of language. We

also cannot use a language without intellectual capacity which gives phonetic forms of

language deep meanings. This capacity is within the mind of ours. The working of

language is not a physical process but it is based on something more intellectual.3

After we have obtained the ability of using the rules of language, we can comprehend

3 Accordingly, the definition of Bloch-Trager's, "A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbolsby means of which a social group cooperates." is quite an unsatisfactory one, because it emphasizestoo much upon the physical phenomenon, but ignores a native speaker's intuitwn. Barnard Blochand George L. Trager, Outline of Linguistic Analysis, (Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America,

1942), p. 5.

A Study on Some Grammatical Rules in the theory of Generative Grammar

the workings of language,

I. 4. So far, we have discussed that the workings of language cannot be revealed

by mere physical processes. Next, we shall demonstrate that a sentence is not a mere

arrangement of morphemes or words. If sentence structures were made clear by

observing an arrangement of morphemes, the 1C analysis of sentence structures would

offer more clear-cut results. For instance, if we analyze the following phrases;

( 1 ) the growling of lion( 2 ) the raising of flowers,

the result of the 1C analysis of the two phrases is the same like T-N-P-N. This

example shows that the two phrases are analyzed as having the same class-construction,

and we miss the important fact between the two sentences. That is to say, we cannot

make explicit the difference between the two sentences by adopting the analysis like

that,

I. 5. The result above shows that the sentence structures are not revealed by

observing merely an arrangement of \vords and analyzing the sentence into the immediate

constituents. The sentence structures shown as the example above have quite deeper

structures. Some sentences have the same structure even though they are composed

of totally different forms. Some sentences are understood in a certain way parallel to

other sentences of a different structure. Some sentences are related in a definite way

to certain other sentences. Some sentences are ambiguous, and so on.4 These facts

should be explained by a linguistic theory. There are two layers in the sentence

structures. They are surface structures such as phonetic forms, and deep structures.

Grammar must describe deep structures. What we wish to reveal is deep structures of

sentences. A grammar of the language L is essentially a theory of L." The com-

plete theory will offer grammatical rules and explain structural relations between sen-

tences. To describe sentence structures correctly, we should consider the process of

generating sentences, and describe in the shape of grammatical rules. This is an app-

roach to sentence structures. In the following chapters, we shall study phrase-structure

rules and transformational rules of English.

II. PHRASE-STRUCTURE RULES

II. 0. Introduction

English is not a finite state language. Thus it shows all the characteristics which a

natural language contains. First, in Eglish, not all sequences of the elements are

permitted. Hence a theory about English cannot be a mere list of the elements; we

must show how these elements are combined into sentences. Second, the sentences of

English are finite in length, but its members are infinite. Therefore, English is not

explained by a simple theory of linguistic structure based on 'Markov process models'

4 E. Bach, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars, p. 12.° N. Chomsky, Syntaciic Structwes.

— 73 —

Masakatsu Hata

and the like. Although we stated above that English is infinite sets of sentences, a

grammar of the form illustrated will, however, generate only a finite number of terminal

strings. Thus, the restriction that a grammar should meet is recnr&iveness. This is

an important conception of a grammar. We shall study in this chapter a more po-

werful theory what we call Phrase-Structure Rules, considering conditions of this gram-

mar.

II. 1. Some Basic Notions from Chomsky

Here we shall only introduce Chomsky's notions. Chomsky defines his model for a

constituent structure grammar in the following passage.1

"A particular simple assumption about the form of grammars'"would be that each

rule be an instruction of the form rewrite </> as <p (symbolically, ^-»^), where ^ and <p

are strings of symbols. Given such a grammar, we say the tf1 follows for a if (T = • • • <f>

... and ffl = • •• </>••• (that is, if a1 results from substitution of </> for a certain occurrence

of <1> in <r), where </> -> </> is a rule of grammar, we say that a sequence of strings a\,

•••, o-i, is a (A-DERIVATION if </>=ai and for each i, tf,-+i follows from ff,. A (A-derivation

is TERMINATED if its final line contains no substring X such that X—>-w' is a rule.In particular, we will be interested in terminated S S j? derivations ; that is, terminated

derivations that begin with the string S S S. Suppose that each syntactic rule <p—></'

meets the additional condition that there is a single symbol A and a non-null string

w/ such that i^XiAXa and </>=Xi\v /Xa. This rule thus asserts that A can be rewritten

w/ (i. e., w/ is of type A) when in the context Xi—Xa, where Xi or Xa may, of

course, be mull. A set of rules meeting this condition I will call a CONSTITUENTSTRUCTURE GRAMMAR. If in each rule <f>->^, <js is a single symbol, the grammar(and each rule) will be called CONTEXT-FREE; otherwise, CONTEXT-RESTRICTED."2

II. 2. Immediate Constituents and Phrase Markers

The notion of immediate constituents is quite traditional. It is based on the belief

that segmentation and classification of utterances can reveal the sentence structures of

a languafe. Thus Chomsky says ;

Customarily, linguistic description on the syntactic level is formulated in terms of

constituent analysis (parsing). We now ask what form of grammar is presupposed

by description of this sort.3

And, if we are given a sentence like;

( I ) The man hit the ball.we find that the sentence as a whole consists of two parts, The man and hit the ball.

The man in turn consists of The and man ; hit the ball consists of two parts hit and

the ball, and finally the and ball. Ultimately, the sentence consists of as the following

1 N. Chomsky, "On the Notion 'Rule of Gremmar", Structnre of Language and Its MathematicalAspects, Proceedings of the 12th Symposium in Applied Mathematics, (Providence : 1961).

2 This passage is quoted from G. H. Harman, "Generative Grammar without TransformationalRules ; A Defence of Phrase-Structure," Language, 39, No. 4.

3 N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, p. 26.

— 74 —

A Study on Some Grammatical Rules in the theory o£ Generative Grammar

discrete elements, The, man, hit, the and ball. And a more adequate analysis would

be

The man hit the ball

This cafcegorization is what we call 1C analysis. But this categorization is inadequateunless it is associated with labellinig.-* In order to represent the labelling which can

show the grammatical relations of elements, we write the following diagram,

Diagram ( 1)

Sentence

NP VP

N NP

the man

N

hit the ball

We shall call such representations as Diagram ( 1 ) 'Phrase Markers' (P-markers).

Since it is natural to consider that each sentence has at least one P-marker5, we can

write another P-marker, given a sentence like ( 2 ) ;

( 2 ) A boy likes the girl.and we compare these two P-markers and judge certain elements belong to the same

class and some do not. Postal explains as;

The fundamental notion in the P-markers is that certain strings of elements are related

to certain other single elements by the relation 'is a (mamber of the category)'."

Thus, in Diagram ( 2 ),

Diagram ( 2 )

Concerning the labelling, Postal states in Constituent Strnctwe, p. 7 ; "the labelling is necessary,if for no other reason, in order to represent correctly the similarities and differences of elementsin different sentences and different parts of sentences."About the coHstructional homonymity, see Bach's Introduction to Tranfsormational Grammars, p. 40.Paul Postal, Constituent Structure: A Study of Comporary Models of Syntactic Description, (Indiana :The Hague, 1964), p. 7.

— 75 —

B c

we can represent this relation, say 'is a', as the following. Elements B and C are traceable

back to A, so that these elements are said to be an A, or to be constituent of A. A

is said to dominate such strings B and C. Consequently in Diagram ( 1), (NP-VP)is a sentence, and so on.

As explained above, a proper P-marker (when represented in a labelled tree diagram)

IS

a topological structure of lines and nodes comforming to the general requirement

that a unique path be traceable from the termination of every branch to the point

of origin of the whole tree ••••••7

And these diagram shown below are not permitted as a proper P-marker.8

Diagram ( 3 )

Diagram ( 4 )

Diagram ( 5 )

P-markers surely can tell us the grammatical category of words and phrases, but

cannot tell us more. That is to say, the grammatical description of a language cannot

be a mere list of P-markers, But we think it not fruitless to study the principles

which generate the P-markers like above. Next we study what restrictions must be

placed on PS rules,

7 E. Bach, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars, p. 71.8 Ibid., pp. 71

— 76 —


II. 3. Restrictions on Phrase-Structure Rules

Phrase-structure (PS) rules are of the form X-

tions.

( 1 ) They are string-replacement rules (symbolically a-

( 2 ) They are expansion rules (symbolically a—^b+c).( 3 ) No rules of the form a+b—>b+a are permitted.

( 4 ) No rule of the form a—>a+b may be used.

Restriction ( 1) can be shown as;Diagram ( 6 )

x

Y and obey the following restric-

»b).

Restriction ( 2 ) ;If there were in a rule,

C + A—>hit + the + ball

then there would appear in a derivation succeeding lines containing the segments

A+C+AA+hit+the+ball.

If such were the case, then there would be two ways of relating the lines ;

Diagram ( 7 )

C A

hit the ball

or,

Diagram ( 8 )

A

hit/

the ball

in such a derivation, it is impossible to construct a proper P-marker. This is the

reason why restriction ( 2 ) is needed in PS grammBr,

Restriction ( 3 ) ;Regarding to restriction, ( 3 ), Postal states as the following ;

the P-markers which result from permutations cannot correctly represent language

structures because the asymmetry of the relation 'is a(n)' is not preserved. That

is, this relation must hold between, say Noun and NP but not NP and Noun.9

° P. Postal, Constituent Structure : A Study of Comtemporary Models of Syniactic Description, p. 13.

— 77

Masakatsu Hata

and he explains this restriction using the following instances. The sentences like John

will come and will John come are to be derived by ordered rules which are;

S—>Noun+VerbVerb—>Modal+VNoun—>-Modal in Modal

Modal—Woun in ModalNoun—> JohnModal—>will

V—>comeThen the sentence will John come will receive the P-marker ;

Diagram ( 9 )

Noun

will

Modal Modal

John come

As Postal says, the categorization in Diagram ( 9 ) is linguistically absurd. This is thesame to say that John is similar to will and mill is similar to boy, teacher, chalk, etc.Thus whenever permutation a+b—>b+a occurrs, there will be much confusions in PS

grammar.

Restriction ( 4 ) ;Finally, restriction ( 4 ) states there must not be rules which change an element into

itself plus another element. If there is a rule A—>A+B in a derivation to the left of

an element C;

A+CA+B+C

we cannot judge whether B is derived from A or from C.

II. 4. Some Examples of Rewrite Bales and Derivation

In this section, we shall follow the instruction 'rewrite X as Y' and constitute the

grammar of some English sentences. At the beginning, let us suppose the following

simple grammar.

Gi Sentence

rl Sentence—>NP + VP

r2 NP—>T+Nr3 VP—>Verb+NP

— 78 —

A Studyon Some Grammatical Rules in the theory of Generative Grammar

r41-5

r6

T—>tbeN—>cat, rat, etc,

Verb—>caught, took, etc.

Di

1 Sentence

2 NP+VP3 T+N+VP4 T+N+Verb+NP5 the+N+Verb+NP

6 the + cat + Verb +NP7 the 4-cat + caught+NP8 the+cat+caught+T4-N

9 the+cat+caught+the+N

10 the+cat+caught+the+ratWe shall call Di a derivation of the sentence The cat caughi the rat. If the lastline of the derivation cannot be rewritten by the rules of Gi, we call the line a terminal

string (in this case, the+cat+caught + the + rat), and its symbols are called terminalsymbols. Other symbols are non-terminal. Thus, a derivation is a sequence of lines

beginning with Sentence, each obtained from the preceding by application of one and

only one rule to a single element.10

Now we can write the derivation of (Di) as the following P-marker;

Diagran (10)Sentence

NP VP

N Verb NP

N

ratthe cat caught the

But in the grammar (Gi),Now, then, let us consider a more complete type of grammar. We shall take up the

subject-predicate form again."

Ga Initial String SSff

10 Ibid., p. 11.u Robert B. Lees says, "Indeed, except possibly for certain 'pathological' colloquial forms, it is

quite likely that all English sentences are whether of this form (Subject-predicate form) or elsetransforms of it." The Grammar of English Nominalwaticns, (Indiana: The Hague, 1963), p. 4.

— 79 —

Masakatsu Heta

Ri S—>NP+VPSince NP occurrs as a high order constituent of the predicate, objects of transitive verbs

and predicate nominals in the predicate type of sentences, the VP must be developed

first. Moerover, VP develops sentence patterns in various ways as He runs very fast

or He runs a farm.

Rs VP—>Aux+MVHere the symbol of Aux represents the verbal auxiliaries, and MV represents the remaining

part of the predicate, i. e., the finite verb and its modifiers, objects, etc.

R., MV—>Verb+NPR.i Aux—>Auxi (Auxa)

where Auxi, containing the tense affixes, is obligatory. Often parentheses are used to

enclose optionally chosen items.

Ro Auxi—>Tns (M)

M is shall, will, may, can, etc.

RB Aux2—>(have+En) (be+Ing)

En represents a past participle. Ing represents a present participle.

Ip res (ent)R7 Tns-

(past

The import of this rule is to demand a choice between pres ent and past. Here we

take present. :

Rg

The import of this rule is to demand a choice between singular and plural for each

NP. Here we take NPaing.

(T+NRO NP,,,,, pro;prop

I etc.

Rio Nprop—>-Mary, John, •••

Rn Verb—>write, read, •••

Ri2 T—>the, this, a, •••

R 13 N—> ball, man, letter, •••

The derivation of the rules from Ri to Ris

D.

1 Sentence

2 NP+VP3 NP+Aux+MV4 NP+Aux+Verb+NP5 NP+Auxi+Auxa+Verb+NP

80 —


6 NP+Tns+Auxa+Verb+NP7 NP+Ths+be+Ing+Verb+NP8 NP+pres+be+Ing+Verb+NP

9 NP»,ng+pres+be+Ing+Verb+NP10 NP8,ng+pres+be+Ing + Verb+NPsi,,s

11 Nprop+pres+be+Ing+VeA+NPa.ng

12 Nprop+pres+be+Ing+Verb+T+N13 John +pres+ be -Hng+ Verb 4-T+N14 John+pres+be+Ing+write 4-T+N

15 John+pres+be + Ing + write+a+N16 John + pres + be + Ing + write + a + letter

Thus the P-marker is as the following ;

Diagram (11)

N'P

prop

John

Auxi

Tns

write a letterpres be Ing

Thus the 'John + pres + be + Ing + write+a+letter' is a proper terminal string of thederivation. We cannot rewrite its symbols further. If we intend to make progress,

much confusion would occur. That is to say, PS grammar would be more complicated

and clumsy one.

II. 5. Some Inadeeuacies in PS Rules

The rules for the phrase-structure of English point up several difficulties in a grammar

conforming to the adopted restrictions. As shown in II. 4, one of the difficulties is the

treatment of the verbal auxiliaries and we recognize that the treatment is beyond the

scope of PS rules. Clearly something besides PS rules must be included in an efficient

grammatical theory. Before going on this theory, let us note some of the inadequacies

of a phrase structure grammar.

First, let us suppose the following two sentences ;12

( a ) What are you looking for ?( b ) What are you running for ?

12 Robert B. Lees, "Review of Syntactic Structures," Language, 33, (1957).

— 81 —

Masakatsu Hata

These two sentences have different sturctures. If we use the simple paraphrase, (a)

contains prepositional phrase for what and (b) contains an interrogative ivhat for

(=====why), but we have no mechanism for associating a sentence with its paraphrase.

Then, the two sentences appear to have identical constituent structures. Secondly, as

we stated in I. 2, there are many instances of sentences which are ambiguous in the

level of the phrase-structure grammar. The sentence below can be justified as having

only one single analysis. Thus the sentences;

The stooting of hunters occurred yesterday, is understood in two ways;

( a ) Hunters shoot something.

( b ) Someone shoot hunters.

There is no way, however, for assigning two different immediate constituent analysis

and there is no word in the sentence which may be said to have two different lexical

meanings, and it is more important that we have no way how to account for its

ambiguity in the phrase-structure grammar. Aud finally, we have no way to show

the following sentences are related each other;

( a ) John hit hill.( b ) Bill was hit by John.

though they show a different constituent structure. And though the sentences;

( a ) John hit Bill.

( b ) Bill hit Jdhn.are not related each other, we analyze them as having the same structure.

III. GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

III. 0. Introduction ; Transformations

Here we shall consider a transformational (T) rule to be a rule of the form ;

X—>YIn PS rules, X and Y stand for single strings, but this time they do not represent

single strings. Thus Bach states as the following;

a transformation is a rule which requires us or allows us to perform certain changes

in the terminal strings of the PS grammar is, and only if the string nas a certain

structure. This structure must be precisely what is represented in the P-marker

of this string as derived in a certain way from a particular set of rules.1

As we have seen in chapter II, PS rules could not provide us a mechanism how to

analyze sentences successfully. But T rules are believed to provide us a powerful tool

for deciding how to analyze sentences.

We state transformational rules in the following way. Each rule must be marked

E. Bach, An I'ntrocliiction to Transformational Grammars, p. 60. Similary H. A. Gleason states asthe following: "A transformation is a statement of the structural relation of a pair of constructionswhich treats that relation as though it were a process." An Introduction to Descriptive Lwguistics,(Revised ecl.; New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 172.

— 82 —


as either optional or obligatory. The first part of the rule is a structural description(SD) which specifies the class of strings to which the rules apply. Thus let us takethe sentence Bill hit John and state a SD of the sentence. The P-marker of the

sentence is as the following ;

Diagram (12)

N'P VP

Np,o,,

Bin

Aux

Tns

MV

prop

Johnpast hit

SD might be as the following;SD: NP-Aux-V-NP

The second part of the rule specifies the strnctitral change (SC), The operation is as

the following;

SD: NP - Aux - V - NP

i iSC: Xi -

IX, -

iXa - X..

Then let us consider the passive transformation.2

Passive optional

SD: NP - Aux - V - NP

SC : Xl — Xa — Xa — X.i

X< - Xs +be+ En- X3 - by+ Xi

Thus 'Bill+past+hit+John' may be transformed into the passive transformation;

John+past+be+En+hit+by+BillThe product of a transformation is referred to as a transform.

As well known by the examples, the relation between PS rules and T rules are quite

interesting. PS rules must be set up in such a way that such and such a string will

undergo such and such a transformation.

Further it is possible to conceive that a transformation has a power of explaining the

relations between structures.

Thus it explains similar connections between John is writing a letter and any of the

following sentences.

N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures.

— 83 —

Masakatsu Hata

Who is writing a letter ?Is John writing a letter?

What is John writing ?John is writing a letter, isn't he?

The most interesting characteristic of T rules is that'they can apply to already trans-

formed structures. Examples are the following;

John hit Bill.

iBill was hit by John.

iWho was hit by John?

iWas Bill hit by John ?

iBill was hit by John, wasn't he?

III. 1. Kernel Sentences

In the preceeding chapter, we studied some grammatical rules in PS grammar. That

is, we followed the rewrite rule and obtained the following terminal strings by a step-

by-step presentations of a set of rules;

( 1 ) John + pres + be + Ing + write + a + letter

And we also pointed out this step was the limitation of PS grammar so far as we were

concerned this grammar. If we intend to make the germinal string to be a appropriate

form, we must add at least the following rules;

Pi, Af==En, Ing, Tns, ••••••

Rig v====M, have, be, Verb

Ru, Af+v—>v+Af

But this rule cannot be permitted in PS grammar, so that we set up an auxiliary

transformation rule.

T,,,,: X-Af-v-Y—>.X-v®Af-Y.3

Thus our terminal string becomes ;

( 2 ) John + be + pres + write + Ing + a + letter

(Taux-two times)

Further, to make ( 2 ) a perfect form, we had better consider a word boundary instead

of a concatenation sign. Thus let us add the following word-boundary transformation.

T,,,b: X-Y=XSY

The effect of the rule is;

( 3 ) S John S be ® pres i? write ® Ing ji a S letter S

© denotes an affix-juncture : see Lees' The Grammar of English Nominaliwtions, p. 48.

84


The morphophonemic rule will convert ( 3 ) into ;

( 4 ) John is writing a letter.'*

The sentence like ( 4 ) is called a kernel sentence. Kernel sentences are defined as

the following by Bach:

Sentences which are derived from terminal strings by the application of obligatorytransformations only and phonological rules are called kernel sentences."

It the kernel sentences are applied by a sequence of one or more transformations, we

can generate many and more complex types of sentences." Examples are given by

Harris.7

Si Mary has a sad fate.

Sa Mary's fate is sad.

Sa Mary's fate is a sad one.

S< Mary's is a sad fate.

These are transformed from some or all of three kernel sentences!

Ki Mary has a fate.

Ks Fate is a fate.

Kg Fate is sad.

The following transformations are involved.

For Si : Kg overlap with Ki

For S-2 : Ki N has N's, overlap with K:i.

For 83 : Ki N has N—>N's N, overlap with Ka (first N) ;Ka Pro-N of second N;

Kg overlap with Ka (second N).

For Si : Ki N has N—>N's N overlap with Ka (first N) ;K..J Zero recurrence of first N;

Ka overlap with Kz (second) N.

Thus the setting up the kernel sentences is an important role for a generative gram-

mar.

III. 2. Types of T Rules

As we have studied in II. 3, PS rules contain only two grammatical operations, namely

they are string replacement rules (a—>b) and expansion rules (a—>b+c). But T

rules can carry out not only these operations but also the other grammatical operations.

These operations which are not permitted in PS grammar will be listed below.

' We shall not treat the morphophonemic rule in this study.6 An Introducion to T'ransformational Grammars, p, 69." Harris says, "Transformations have some particular effects in the over-all structures of the language.

They make possible an unbounded variety and length of sentences out of the stock of kernelsentences, thanks to the unbounded repeatability of various sequential transformations. They givean organized view of complex sentences." ; Co-occurrence and Transformation in LinguisticStructure", Language, 33, 283-340, (1957).

7 1 bid.

- 85 —

Masakatsu Hata

1 A deletion rule (symbolically a+b—>b)

2 A reduction rule (symbolically a+b—>c)3 An addition rule (symbolically a—>a+b)

4 A permutation rule (symbolically a+b—>b+a)

The characteristic of T rules is that they may perform any of the six rules in anycombination.

We shall classify T rules into six types. Before listing each type of them, let us

consider the major differnce between PS rules and T rules. As an example, we shall

take up a replacement rule (a—>b). Suppose that we have the following P-marker ;

Diagram (13)

x

then, if we follow the PS rule a-

Diagram (14)

a c

•b, the resulting P-marker will be as the following ;

This fact shows that PS rules apply only to a simple string. On the other hand T

rules may be regarded as applying to P-markers rather than simple strings.

Therefore, if we apply a T rule a—>b to the P-marker described above, the result

will be shown as follows.

Diagran (15)

x x(by the application of T rule)

b

This is the most important difference between PS rules and T rules.

Now let us classify the types of T rules.

1. Deletion T rule

SD : X - Y - Z

SC ; Xl — Xa — Xg—^Xi — Xa

2. Replacement T rule

SD : X - Y - Z

86


SC : Xi - X^ - Xs—>Xi - W - Xa

3. Expansion T rule

SD : X - Y - Z

SC : Xi - Xs - Xs—>Xi - P + S - Xs

4. Reduction T rule

SD:X - R +

1 — ^2 ~ A^ — ^V.l—7'Al ~ 1 — yv.l

5. Additition T ruleSD : X - Y

1 ~ X2 ~ XB—^Xi ~- Xa — R — Xa

6. Permutation T rule

SD : X - Y - Z

1 ~ As ~ A3—T'A.2 ~ ^Vl ~ AS

III. 3. Some T Rules for English8

In the beginning, let us suppose the following terminal string which is derived byPS rules.

( 1 ) John + pres + have + En + write + a + letterTo make this string pronounceable, we must set up rules as the following.

Af===En, Ing, Tns (Tns—> <fPres]>)Lpastj

v====M, have, be, V---"-

sX,

zXa-

zX.,

>x,

(A) X-Af-v-Y—>X-v+Af-Y

(B) X-Y—>X?Y (X+v or, Y+Af)We call (A) an auxiliary transformational rule (henceforth Tuux) and (B) a wordboundary transformational rule (henceforth Twb). Both of them are obligatory T rules.

Thus ( 1) is applied by Taiix ;

( 2 ) John + have @ p res + write ® En+a+letter(Taiix-two times)

then applied by T,vb ;

( 3) <? John j? have ® pres S write ® En S a S letter {?Ultimately the morphonemic rules will convert this line of derivation into;

( 4 ) John has written a letter

in phonemic transcription.

These rules, as the examples shown above, play an important rule in a transformational

grammar.

Now let us consider the rule which generates the sentence

( 5 ) John hasn't written a letter.

In this section we shall follow Chomsky's approach, accordingly most of the examples are takenfrom Chomsky's Synlacdc Structures, especially pp. 61-84.

87 —

Masakatsu Hata

The rule which makes a negation introduces not or n'i into the auxiliary verb phrase.

Henceforth we shall state this rule as Tnoi. In the case of a negation, not or n't must

be introduced immediately after the second morpheme of the auxiliary phrase if the

phrase contains at least two morphemes. If the phrase contains only one morpheme,

T,,ot introduces not or n't just after the morpheme. But T,n,i must be applied before

Taux. Thus Tnnt operates on the string;

(6) John+pres+have+En+write+a+letterand gives

( 7 ) John+pres+have+n't+En+write+a+letter(Ultimately, John hasn't written a letter.)

Next, let us consider how Tuot operates on the following string;

( 8 ) John + pres 4- write + a + letter

we can write;

( q ) John+pres+n't+write+a+letterBut we defined Tnoi should be applied before Taux, and this string does not contain a

sequence Af+v. So that we must add to the grammar the following obligatory T rule

which applies after Taux and T,,.i>;

X S Af S Y—>X S do © Af S YWe shall call the rule above Tdo. Thus ( 9 ) becomes

(10) S John f, do © pres+n't j? write S a » letter S(Ultimately, John doesn't write a letter.)

Thus we can formulate Tnot as the following;

Tnot—optional

fNP-Tns-V.--..-

iNP-Tns+M-----.-SD : {

NP-Tns+have-••••••

(.NP-Tns+be-••••••

SC : Xi-Xa-Xa—>Xi-X2+n'fc-X3

Next we shall consider the class of 'Yes-or-No' questions such as 'has John written

a letter' 'can John write a letter' 'did John write a letter'. This time we set up Tq which

operates on strings that are analyzed into three segments in one of the following ways ;

NP-Tns-V-----'

NP-Tns+M-----..

NP-Tns+have--.....

NP-Tns+be-••••••

Notice these strings are just the same as in the case of T,,oi. T,| has the effect of

interchanging the first segment and the second segment of these strings. The requirement

That Tq should meet is that it applies after'pres}

Tns-past;


and before Txni.

(11) ( i ) John—pres—write+a+letter( ii ) John — pres + can - write + a + letter

(iii) John—pret+have-En + write+a+letter(iv ) John — pres + be — In g + write + a + letter

'pres(By Tns—»•<;'"_"';>)

jiastjThen we apply Tq ;

(12) (i) pres-John—write+a+letter( ii ) pres + can — John - write + a + letter

(iii) pres+ have — John — En + write + a + letter(iv ) pres + be — John — Ing+ write + a + letter

Next we apply Tnux and Tao;

(13) ( i ) ff do ® pres ff John <? write ff a » letter j?( ii ) S can CD pres S John S write ff a ff letter {?(iii) S have ® pres {? John S write ® Enff a ff letter S(iv ) <? be ® pres {? John S write ® Ing j? a S letter S

Ultimatly applying morphonemic rules, we derive;

(14) ( i ) does John write a letter(ii) can John write a lefcter(iii) has John written a letter(iv) is John writing a letter

in phonemic transcription.

If we apply Taiix and T,vb to (11) and don't apply Tq, we may derive the following

sentences;

(15) ( i ) John writes a letter( ii) John candwrite a letter(iii) John has written a letter

(iv) John is writing a letterThus (13 i-iv) are the interogative counterparts to (15 i-iv). As the examples have

shown, "Transformational analysis brings out the fact that negatives and interogatives

have fundamentally the same 'structure".9

Fourthly, we shall take up the problem of irregular behavior of 'have'. The terminal

string which underlies the kernel sentence 'John has a book' is as the following;

(16) John+pres+have+a+bookIn this case 'have' is a fimite verb and not an auxiliary verb. Now let us consider

how T,,ot and Tq operate on the terminal string (16). Tnoi applies to the string ;

NP-Tns-V--NP-Tns+have-••••••

9 N. Chnmsky, Syntaclic Structures, p. 64.

— 89 —

Masakatsu Hata

But (16) contains the both structural descriptions. Hence if we apply Tnoi to (16),

the results may be ;

(17) (i) John-pres+n't-have+a+book( ii ) John — pres + have + n't— a + book

applying T,vi, to (17 i)

(18) ( i ) John—do+pres+n't—have 4-abook

(Ultimately, John doesn't have a book.)

applying Taiix to (17 ii)

(18) (ii) John—have+pres+n't—a + book(Ultimately, John hasm't a book.)

Similary, if we apply Tq on (16), the results may be;

(19) ( i ) does John have a book( ii) has John a book

But in the case of the other verbs except 'be', such forms as (18 ii) and (19 ii) are

impossible. Thus we can say 'have you a book ?' and cannot say 'read you a book ?'

This difference can be explained as the following ; 'have you a book' is derived from a

kernel sentence 'you have a book' by applying Tq, bufc even if we apply Tq to a kernel

sentence 'you read a book ', we cannot derive 'read you a book' from the kernel

sentence. This means that the difference between two sentences is decided whether

they are generated from the kernel sentences by any transformational rules or not.

And if we consider the following P-marker;

Diagram (16)

s s »

NP

prop

VP

Aux

Auxi Auxa

ATns / \

John\

MV

V NP

Verbtr T N

write a letterpres have En

We can not write ;

(20) ( i ) John—pres—have + En + write 4-a + letter

but(20) (ii) John-pres+have-En + write+a+letter

The reason is explained by showing that 'have' can not be traceable back to a node V.

90 —


By this fact, the un-grammatical10 sentence 'John doesn't have written a letter' can not

be derived. Now let us take up another types of interogatives. That is to say, we

shall set up a ne\v rule which can generate the following sentences.

(21) ( i ) What did John write?(ii ) Who wrote a letter ?

These sentences, of course, do not receive Yes—or—No answers.

The terminal string underlies (21 i) and (21 ii) is ;

(22) John -Tns- write +a+ letter

To generate (21 i) and (21 ii) we must set up a new optional transformation Tw.

Concerning T,y, Chomsky explains as in the following;

T,y operates on any string of the form X—NP—Y where X and Y stand for any

string (including, in particular, the 'null' string-i. e., the first or third position may

be empty) T,v then operates in two steps. ( i ) Twi converts the string of the form

X—NP—Y into the corresponding string of the form NP—X—Y; i. e., it inverts

the first and second segments of X—NP—Y. It has the same transformational

effects as Tq. (ii) Twz converts the resulting string NP-X—Y into who—X—Y

if NP is an animate NP or into what-X-Y if NP is inanimate.""

Moerover he adds the requirement that T,, can apply only to which Tq has already

applied. Thus the order of applying the rules to the terminal string which underlies

(20 i) and (20 ii) is;

Tns—> jpres{ =^ T, ==> T,,i ==^ T,.. =^^ '}.pasd ' " ' ^_^_,-_^ ' ^Tdo

w

==^ TW b :==^' Morphophophonemic rules

For example, the terminal string

(22) John-Tns-write+a+letter

is applied by;Tns—>past •••-> (John—past-write+a+letter)^ ' ; . J. ... 1Tq ............... _> (past—John—write+a+letter)

^']['„! ..............._> (John—past—write+a+letter)

_^T^ ...............--> (who—past-write+a+letter)

T̂aux •••••••••••• —> (who—write © past+a+letter)J-T,,b ...............-> (s who ff write ® past S a ft letter S)

m̂orphophonemic rule"--> (who wrote a letter)

Thus (21 ii) can be given.

10 On the notinn of wtgrammatical and non-grammatical, see C. E. Bazell. "Three Misconceptionsof Grammaticalness," Retport of the Fifteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Luignistics andLanguage Studies, (Washington : C. I. J. M. Stuart, 1964), p. 4.

11 Syntaclic Structures, p. 69.

- 91 —

Masakatsu Hata

But in the case of (21 i), the result will be;(Omitting the initial steps.)

Tq ...............-^. (past+John+write-a+letter)

T,,i ..............._> ( a+lefctsr—past + John + write)

T,^ ..•.•.•........-> (what-past+John+write)

(There is no substring Af+v, so that we apply Tdo.)Tdo ...............-> (what-do © past + John + write)

Ultimately 'what did John write' can be generated.

As we defined in III. 1, a kernel sentence is derived from a terminal string by applyingobligatory T rules only. Thus the sentence;

(23) ( i ) John wrote a letteris a kernel sentence, because (23 i) was derived from the terminal string 'John+past

+ write+a+leter' by applying Tnu.x and T,,.b. But the following sentences;

(23) ( ii ) did John write a letter(iii) what did John write(iv) who wrote a letter

are not kernel sentences. Because they are derived by applying not only obligatory

but also optional T rules on the terminal string. The method to decide which sentences

are kernel is an interesting problem. Generally speaking, if we require that the theory

of grammar be as simple as possible, we had better let kernel sentences be simple,

declarative and active sentences. Consequently, all the other sentences may be regarded

as transforms of kernel sentences.

In this section we have only treated Tnoi, Tq and T,,. all of which are based on

obligatory T rules such as Taux, Tivi,, and Tjo. While we have not described T rules

in sufficient detail but we can understand the grammar of English becomes much more

simple and explicit by these rules.

III. 4. Kernel or Non-Kernel Sentences

Up to this point we have been concerned primarily with describing part of the

apparatus of rules in a grammatical theory.

First we provided PS rules for kernel sentences, that is to say, by PS rules we are

given the terminal strminal strings which underlie kernel sentences. Thus we omitted

(be + En) from the PS rule

Ro Auxs—>(have+En) (be+Ing)

If we add (be+En) to R(|, our grammar will be more complicated. If we do so, we

must add special rules indicating that in the case of VinirunaitivB.) it cannot have tlie

auxiliary (be+En), whereas in the case of Vtrane.tivo, it must have (be+En).

Now compare the following two P-markers.

Diagram (17)NPi+Aux+V+NPz (active SD)

— 92 —


s s s

NPi

NPi Tns Vt NP.

Diagram (18)

NP^+Aux+be+En+V+by+NPi (Passive SD)

s s %

NPi

NPs

VP

MV PPh

Auxi Aux2

Tns be Vt. by

NPi

NPi

Only by comparing these two P-markers, we are forced to recognize the complexity of

passive sentences. Accordingly, we chose actives as kernel sentences instead of passives.12

Passives can be derived from actives by applying a passive transformation, A passive

transformation is formulated as the following.

Passive-optional

SD : NP - Aux - V - NP

SC : Xi — Xa — X3 — x,i

»X< - X, + be + En Xs — by Xi

By doing this, we can simplify the description of English. To summarize, given, a

terminal strings by PS rules, then we apply obligatory T rules on it and gain a kernel

12 If we chose passives as kernel sentences, there arise many difficulfies. Chomsky explains as thefollowing ; The active transformations would have to apply to strings of the form

(100) NPi-Aux+be+En-V-by+NPaConverting them to NPa—Auz—V—NPi. For example, it would convert

(101) the wine was drunk by the guestsinto "the guests drank the wine',••••••It thus appears that it is the simplest system of phrasestructure for English; the sentence

(102) John was drunk by midnightis also based on an underlying terminal string that can be analyzed in accordance with(lOO)"""But application of the 'active' transformation to (102) does not give a grammatical sentence.

— 93 —

Masakatsu Hata

sentence. If we apply proper T rules on this kernel sentence we can generate gram-

matical sentences. Thus all sentences belong to either kernel sentences or transforms.

Accordingly, if we combine PS rules and T rules properly we can gain all the gram-

matical sentences of English and reject ungrammatical sentences.

BIBLIOGRAPHYAnTAL LAsZLO. "A Review of Harris, String Analysis of Sentence Structure", Lingtlislics I, 97-104.Bach, Emmon. An Introduction to Tranceformatwnal Grammars. New York, Chicago, San Erancisco :

Holt, Rinehart and Winstion, 1964.Bazell, C. E. "Three Misconceptions of Grammaticalness", Report of the Fifteenth Annual Round Table

Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington : C. I. J. M. Stuart, 3-9, 1964.Bloch, Barnard, and Trager, Goei-ge L. Olltlme of Linguistic Analysts. Baltimore: the Linguistic

Society of America, 1942.Bloomfield, Leonard. Language, London : George Alien & Unwin LTD, 1935.

Chomsky, Noam. Synlactic Structures. Indiana: The Hague, 1957.-. "On the Notion 'Rule of Grammar'", Strncture of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects,

Proceedings of the 12th Symposium in Applied Mathematics. Providence, 1961.Gammon, E. R. "On Representing Syntactic Structure", Language 39. 369-397.Gleason, H. A. Jr. An Introduction to Descripfive Lmgttistics. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winstion,

1955, Revised ed., 1961.Harman, G. H. "Generative Grammar without Tsansformation Rules: A Defence of Phrase Structure",Language 39. 597-616.Harris, Zellig S. "Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure", Language 33, (1957).

283-340.-. "From Morpheme to Utterance", Readings in Lmgiustics. Washington : Martin Joos, 142-153.

1957.-. String Analysis of Sentence Structure. 2d ed. The Netherlands by Mouton & Co.: The Hague,

1964.-. Structural Linguistics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Hill, Archbald A. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. New York : Harcourt, Brach & World, INC,

1958.Hiz, H. "The Role of Paraphrare in Grammar", Report of the Fifteenth Annual Round Table Meeting

on Lingutstics and Language Studies. Washington : C. I. J. M. Stuart, 97-104, 1964.Hockett, Charles F. Problems of Morphemic Analysis", Readings in Linguistics. Washington : Martin

Joos, 229-242.Hockett, Charles F. "Two Models of Grammatical Description", Reading in Lingnistics. Washington:

Martin Joos, 286-339. 1957.Lees, Robert B. The Grammar of English NommaUwtwn. Indiana : C. F. Voegelin, 1963.

-. "Review of Syatactic Structures" Language 33, (1957). 375-408.Nida, Eugen A. Morphology : The Descriptive Analyiss of Words, 2d ed. Chicago : Ann Arbor, 1949.Postal, Paul. .Constituent Structure: A Study of Contemporary Models of Syntactic. Indiana University :

C. P. Voegelin, 1964.Wells, Rulon. "Immediate Conttituents", Redmgs in Lrugnisties. Washington: Martin Joos, 186-207.

1957.

94 —

生産文法に於ける文法ルールの研究（英文） 北海道教育大学紀...

Documents

生産文法に於ける文法ルールの研究（英文）北海道教育大学紀...