Is Transformational Theory Unassailable?  

Oleh:

Ney, James W.

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Language Sciences (Full Text) vol. 2 no. 2 (1980), page 186-204.
Fulltext: 02_02_Ney.pdf (748.43KB)

Isi artikel

Bennison Gray, in a recent survey of book-length works which purport to demolish transformational theory, concludes that transformational theory at the present is unassailable. The reason for this is that Gray sees two constructs as being the sine qua non of transformational theory. The first of these requires a "deep structure" for each sentence in a language which relates form and meaning exactly. The second of these centers on the well-known idealization construct of Chomskyan methodology. If the crux of transformational theory can be encapsulated by these two constructs, then, Gray may have made his point. But, if it cannot, then, there is reason to question his conclusion since transformationalists such as Chomsky have not set these principles as the sine qua non of transformational theory. The present paper examines transformational theory, discussing various propositions which may be central to the existence of the theory in an attempt to determine the truth or falsity of Gray's assertion. In doing this, three types of constructs, which appear to be important within the theory, are discussed: (I) those which have proved to be false in the past and which have been discarded by the transformational theorists themselves, (2) those which appear to be false from the viewpoint of critics of various aspects of transformational theory; and (3) those constructs which are axiomatic in nature and which are adopted or discarded as a matter of preference. Among the first type are those which required belief in kernel sentences or the "evaluation metric." Among the second type is one that has as its primary substance the fact that children learn language from an essentially "degenerate corpus" (Chomsky 1965). Also among this type are the assumptions within transformational grammar which require separate listings for polysemous forms. Among the third type are those which form the very basis of the theory such as the espousal of rationalist philosophy as a basis for linguistic study. Whether any of these positions are crucial to the existence of transformational theory cannot be determined unless transformational theory is clearly delineated and some method is provided for determining which constructs are crucial and which are not. In any case, a single journal article is not able to do this. It can, however, answer the question "Is transformational theory unassailable?", and suggest directions which can be pursued in search of better solutions, a task that Gray would deem urmecessary in the light of his conclusions.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali