Noam Chomsky’s contribution to linguistics

Plan

1. A short Summary of Chomsky’s works

2. Noam Chomsky’s approach to science.

3. the aim of linguistics according to many American linguists.

4. The week points in structural grammar according to Noam Chomsky

A) finite number of phonemes and morphemes, but infinite number of sentences

B) the relations within sentences

C) ambiguous sentences

5. the introduction of the notion “deep structure”

6. Generative grammar

7. The aim of the linguistic theory expressed by Chomsky in Syntactic Structures

8. The full list of Chomsky’s works

Syntactic Structures was a distillation of his book Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75) in which he introduces transformational grammars.

The Principles and Parameters approach (P&P) — developed in his Pisa 1979 Lectures, later published as Lectures on Government and Binding (LGB) — make strong claims regarding universal grammar: that the grammatical principles underlying languages are innate and fixed,

More recently, in his Minimalist Program (1995), while retaining the core concept of "principles and parameters", Chomsky attempts a major overhaul of the linguistic machinery involved in the LGB model, stripping from it all but the barest necessary elements, while advocating a general approach to the architecture of the human language faculty that emphasizes principles of economy and optimal design, reverting to a derivational approach to generation, in contrast with the largely representational approach of classic P&P.

Throughout the history of the study of man there has been a fundamental opposition between those who believe that progress is to be made by a rigorous observation of man's actual behavior and those who believe that such observations are interesting only in so far as they reveal to us hidden laws that only partially reveal themselves to us in behavior. Noam Chomsky, one of the most famous amarican linguists is the searcher of hidden laws.

The accepted model or "paradigm" of linguistics was confronted, largely by Chomsky's work. Chomsky broke the old model altogether and created a completely new one. Before his the publication of his Syntactic Structures in 1957, many, American linguists regarded the aim of their discipline as being the classification of the elements of human languages.

The aim of linguistic theory was to provide the linguist with a set of rigorous methods, a set of discovery procedures which he would use to extract from the "corpus" the phonemes, the morphemes, and so on.

As a graduate student at Pennsylvania, Chomsky attempted to apply the methods of structural linguistics to the study of syntax, but found that the methods that had apparently worked so well with phonemes and morphemes did not work very well with sentences. Each language has a finite number of phonemes and a finite though quite large number of morphemes. It is possible to get a list of each; but the number of sentences in any natural language like French or English is, strictly speaking, infinite. There is no limit to the number of new sentences that can be produced; and for each sentence, no matter how long, it is always possible to produce a longer one. Within structural grammar it is not easy to account for the fact that languages have an infinite number of sentences.

Furthermore the structuralist methods of classification do not seem able to account for all of the internal relations within sentences, or the relations that different sentences have to each other. For example, , "John is easy to please" and "John is eager to please" look as if they had exactly the same grammatical structure. But the grammar of the two is quite different. In the first sentence, "John" functions as the direct object of the verb to please; the sentence means: it is easy for someone to please John. Whereas in the second "John" functions as the subject of the verb to please; the sentence means: John is eager that he please someone. That this is a difference in the syntax of the sentences comes out clearly in the fact that English allows us to form the noun phrase "John's eagerness to please" out of the second, but not "John's easiness to please" out of the first. There is no easy or natural way to account for these facts within structuralist assumptions.

Another set of syntactical facts is the existence of certain types of ambiguous sentences where the ambiguity derives not from the words in the sentence but from the syntactical structure. For example "I like her cooking." It can mean, I like what she cooks, I like the way she cooks, I like the fact that she cooks, even, I like the fact that she is being cooked.

Chomsky was eventually led to claim that these sentences have several different syntactical structures, that the uniform surface structure of, e.g., "I like her cooking" conceals several different underlying structures which he called "deep" structures. The introduction of the notion of the deep structure of sentences, not always visible in the surface structure, is a crucial element of the Chomsky revolution in linguistics.

Chomsky argued that the goal of linguistic description should be to construct a theory that would account for the infinite number of sentences of a natural language. Such a theory would show which strings of words were sentences and which were not, and would provide a description of the grammatical structure of each sentence.

Such descriptions would have to be able to account for such facts as the internal grammatical relations and the ambiguities described above. The description of a natural language would be a formal deductive theory which would contain a set of grammatical rules that could generate the infinite set of sentences of the language, would not generate anything that was not a sentence, and would provide a description of the grammatical structure of each sentence. Such a theory came to be called a "generative grammar" because of its aim of constructing a device that would generate all and only the sentences of a language.

The aim of the linguistic theory expressed by Chomsky in Syntactic Structures (1957) was essentially to describe syntax, that is, to specify the grammatical rules underlying the construction of sentences. In Chomsky's mature theory described in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), the aims become more ambitious: to explain all of the linguistic relationships between the sound system and the meaning system of the language. To achieve this, the complete "grammar" of a language, in Chomsky's technical sense of the word, must have three parts, a syntactical component that generates and describes the internal structure of the infinite number of sentences of the language, a phonological component that describes the sound structure of the sentences generated by the syntactical component, and a semantic component that describes the meaning structure of the sentences. The heart of the grammar is the syntax.

The first application of the approach was to Modern Hebrew, a fairly detailed effort in 1949–50. The second was to the native American language Hidatsa (the first full-scale generative grammar), mid-50s.

Sometimes generative grammar analyses break down when applied to languages which have not previously been studied, and many changes in generative grammar have occurred due to an increase in the number of languages analyzed. It is claimed that linguistic universals in semantics have become stronger rather than weaker over time. The existence of linguistic universals in syntax, which is the core of Chomsky's claim, is still highly disputed. Still, Richard Kayne suggested in the 1990s that all languages have an underlying Subject-Verb-Object word order. One of the prime motivations behind an alternative approach, the functional-typological approach or linguistic typology (often associated with Joseph Greenberg), is to base hypotheses of linguistic universals on the study of as wide a variety of the world's languages as possible, to classify the variation seen, and to form theories based on the results of this classification. The Chomskyan approach is too in-depth and reliant on native speaker knowledge to follow this method, though it has over time been applied to a broad range of languages.

Chomsky's work is one of the most remarkable intellectual achievements of the present era, comparable in scope and coherence to the work of Keynes or Freud. It has done more than simply produce a revolution in linguistics; it has created a new discipline of generative grammar and is having a revolutionary effect on two other subjects, philosophy and psychology. Not the least of its merits is that it provides an extremely powerful tool even for those who disagree with many features of Chomsky's approach to language. In the long run, I believe his greatest contribution will be that he has taken a major step toward restoring the traditional conception of the dignity and uniqueness of man.

Noam Chomsky’s Works:

· Chomsky (1951). Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

· Chomsky (1955). Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory.

· Chomsky (1955). Transformational Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

· Chomsky, Noam, Morris Halle, and Fred Lukoff (1956). "On accent and juncture in English." In For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton

· Chomsky (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Reprint. Berlin and New York (1985).

· Chomsky (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.

· Chomsky (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

· Chomsky (1965). Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper and Row. Reprint. Cartesian Linguistics. A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1986.

· Chomsky (1966). Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar.

· Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.

· Chomsky (1968). Language and Mind.

· Chomsky (1972). Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar.

· Chomsky (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory.

· Chomsky (1975). Reflections on Language.

· Chomsky (1977). Essays on Form and Interpretation.

· Chomsky (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use.

· Chomsky (1998). On Language.

· Chomsky (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind.

· Chomsky (2000). The Architecture of Language (Mukherji, et al, eds.).

· Chomsky (2001). On Nature and Language (Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi, ed.).

1) John R. Searle, Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics, 1972

2) Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.- Cambr., Mass., 1965

Работа 2.

Samuel Johnson

Introduction

The recognized need in its simplest terms was for a dictionary, not merely of hard words, but one which would include all the words in English and a grammar that would detail their proper usage. Together these two would form an authority for settling disputes in usage. People recognized that without a dictionary and a grammar there would be no way of ascertaining what was correct in diction or what constructions were standard. In lieu of an English Academy, the two most important substitutions for it were Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and Robert Lowth's Short Introduction to English grammar (1762).

Johnson's Dictionary

The goals of a dictionary as Johnson originally planned it sounded much like those of an academy: to ascertain, refine, and fix the language. Johnson thought to maintain the purity of English, at what stage of its development he did not make clear, and to ascertain primarily the meaning of English words (Johnson 1747: 4). He was also interested in making the pronunciation of English permanent and thus, he hoped, to promote the longevity of the language. At the same time he realized that it might be as impossible to change the language of a nation as it is to change the morals of a people through books, yet he hoped to accomplish this at least in part so that "it may contribute to the preservation of antient, and the improvement of modern writers" (Johnson 1747: 33). This was his purpose at the outset as given in his book The Plan of a Dictionary. By the time the dictionary was published eight years later, his purpose had become somewhat more modest. In the Preface to his Dictionary, it can be seen that the number of goals Johnson set himself have been reduced to two, both essentially concerned with words only: to collect the words of the language and to correct words that are correctable and proscribe those that are not. Johnson realized that not all words are correctable, since language is a reflection of its imperfect human origin. By registering these “anomalies”, Johnson hoped that they could be curtailed and prevented from increasing. He felt that it was the duty of the lexicographer to assume the role of arbiter of what was correct and what was incorrect in English (Johnson 1755: [1]). Johnson was quite ready to assume this role.

The public was hungry for an authoritative source. Johnson gave it to them, to such an extent that even today when a lexicographer tries to abdicate this position of authority to become only a recorder of language, public outcry is tremendous. People of Johnson’s era looked to the lexicographer as a kind of superior being who had the right to rule on what words were acceptable and what pronunciation words were to be given. Baugh and Cable state that "this attitude was well-nigh universal in Johnson's day and was not repugnant to the lexicographer himself" (1978: 271). One way in which this authoritarian role of the lexicographer reveals itself in the dictionary is in the labels which Johnson provides for the propriety of the words. He uses such labels as “proper”, "improper", “corrupt", “cant", "barbarous", and "vulgar”, all clearly judgmental descriptions.

In describing the method by hich he compiled the dictionary, Johnson drew upon dictionaries for foreigners, dictionaries of "hard words", noting that they were woefully deficient. When these obvious sources had been exhausted, Johnson proceeded to glean more words of English from books of the best writers of the day, using, as he puts it, "fortuitous and unguided excursions into books” (Johnson 1755: [3]). What is important to note in this process is the fact that Johnson firmly established the principle of induction for ascertaining the eaning of words by recording the usage of words encountered in his reading. In fact, in the Preface to the Dictionary, he notes that the "sense may easily be collected entire from the examples" (Johnson 1755: [6]). An interesting report of the method Johnson used is as follows: "Johnson...had, for the purpose of carrying on this arduous work…taken a handsome house in Gough Square, and fitted up a room in it with desks and other accommodations for amanuenses, who, to the number of five or six, he kept constantly under his eye. An interleaved copy of Bailey's dictionary in folio he made the repository of the several articles, and these he collected by incessant reading of the best authors in our language, in the practice whereof, his method was to score with a black-lead pencil the word by him selected, and give them over to his assistants to insert in their places. The books he used for this purpose were what he had in his own collection, a copious but miserably ragged one, and all such as he could borrow; which latter, if ever they came back to those that lent them, were so defaced as to be scarce worth owning, and yet, some of his friends were glad to receive and entertain them as curiosities” (Hawkins 1961:77). As a common practice, Johnson tried to collect words that were in general use or in the works of "polite" writers. He did not include the specific words of particular professions (Johnson 1747, 4).

Another way in which Johnson curtailed his goals since the publication of Plan may be seen in the amount of discussion given to structure of English in the Preface of the Dictionary. Although the Preface includes fifteen pages of what would be called grammar, only twelve lines are given to syntax. This was apparently quite a disappointment for those who had hoped a more comprehensive treatment of the structure of English would be included. Johnson found dealing with the words of English to be a sufficiently arduous task. Another way in which the finished dictionary was less that what had been planned relates to the matter of pronunciation. Johnson had originally thought that a dictionary could help arbitrate between variation in pronunciation. He had intended to use the pronunciation of the best speakers whose pronunciation showed the least variation from the written form of the word. However, when the Dictionary was published without a guide to pronunciation and the question of variation remained unresolved, Johnson pointed out that "the best speaker of the House of Lords (Chesterfield) and the best speaker of the House of Commons differed in the pronunciation of the word great. Johnson felt he could not arbitrate between equally reputable speakers of the mother tongue" (Bambas 1980: 92). Other lexicographers in years since have, however, taken this task upon their shoulders.

Johnson's Dictionary was immensely successful in the matter of spelling standardization. He did not go so far as to try to reform spelling, although people would have been willing for him to use his authority to introduce a better system. But his dictionary did promote an attitude in favor of traditional spelling. He says as much. "The present usage of spelling, where the present usage can be distinguished, will therefore in this work be generally followed, yet there will be often occasion to observe, that it is in itself inaccurate, and tolerated rather than chosen; particularly, when by a change of one letter, or more, the meaning of a word is obscured, as in farrier, for ferrier, as it was formerly written, from ferrum or fer" (Johnson 1747: 11).

Johnson also reconsidered his goal of fixing the English language once and for all. It had been stated in the Plan that one of the purposes for writing a dictionary was to fix the language; however, when the Dictionary was published, the Preface stated that it was impossible for a lexicographer to "embalm" the language and keep it from "corruption" and "decay". Johnson states his opinion that academies which were founded with this goal have done their work in vain. "Sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desire by its strength" (Johnson 1755: [10]). He remarks that he had flattered himself at first into thinking that he could indeed do this, but that he came to realize that it was an expectation "which neither reason nor experience can justify" (Johnson 1755: [10]).

In Johnson's dictionary, for the first time in English, the meanings of words were given along with examples of their usage from well-selected authorities. This had been done before in dictionaries of other languages, notably the dictionary of the Academia della Crusca, which probably Johnson knew, but this was the first time that this method had been used in English. Another valuable innovation in Johnson's dictionary was the enumeration of various meanings for each word. And it was the first time that a dictionary could by any means be called a standard, rather than a mere list of hit-and-miss words. It truly exhibited the vocabulary of the English language for the first time ever, it was replete with examples from notable writers, it offered a spelling which, if not always correct, at least was fixed and could be used as a reference. There were some defects. The chance for a reformed spelling was missed, as was mentioned above. The words themselves weren't always clearly English words. Some examples of words that Johnson put forward as English words are these: denominable, opiniatry, ariolation, assation, ataraxy, clancular, comminuible, conclusible, incompossible, indigitate. The right of these words to be included in an English dictionary was questionable at best. Prejudice and caprice mar some of the definitions. Others can only be called Johnsonian, for example: "Network: Any thing reticulated or decussated, at equal distance, with interstices between the intersections". Its etymologies are often inventive rather than accurate (Baugh and Cable 1978: 270).

It was, however, an extraordinary accomplishment, the more so when one considers that other dictionaries of similar size and content were being produced by academies. It is only natural that Johnson's dictionary was compared with the ones being produced by the Italian and French academies. His friend Garrick wrote an epigram, commenting on the fact that Johnson had accomplished what took the whole French Academy to do: And Johnson, well arm'd like a hero of yore, /Has beat forty French, and will beat forty more.

Boswell remarks that Johnson was "complacent" over a report that the Italian academy found it hard to believe that he alone had produced the dictionary (Bambas 1980: 189). A notice in Europe notes that Johnson could boast of being an academy all by himself. And it is true that he did conceive of his dictionary as performing at least part of the work of an academy, since which time the suggestion of an English academy has never seriously been put forward again. It was indeed a great achievement, especially when one considers that it was the work of one man, laboring almost alone for seven short years.

Bibliography

1. Johnson, Samuel. 1747. The Plan of Dictionary. In R.C. Alston (ed.) English Linguistics 1500 – 1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, No. 223. Menston, England: The Scolar Press, 1970.

2. Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language: in which the words are deduced from their originals. London: F. and C. Rivington, et al.

3. Hawkins, Sir John. 1961. The Life of Samuel Johnson. In Wells 1973.

4. Bambas, Rudolph C. 1980. The English Language: Its Origin and History. Norman, OK: the University of Oklahoma Press.

5. Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas. 1978. A History of English Language, third edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice – Hall, Inc.

Работа 3.

Henry Sweet

Contents:

Introduction: Henry Sweet and “The New English Grammar”…………… 3

“The New English Grammar” and traditional grammar…………………… 3

Sweet’s formal approach to grammar……………………………………… 4

Content and function words……………………………………………….… 4

Henry Sweet’s groups of the parts of speech…………………………………5

Conclusion: Sweet’s works and his contribution to the world’s linguistics…. 5