1. Meaning, Sound, and Syntax Relations in Chomsky’s Grammar
In relating sound and meaning, Chomsky does not begin with the meaning of the sentence nor the
sound pattern of the sentence; he begins with the syntax of the sentence. In fact, he starts with the
letter S, which, although one might be tempted to interpret it as meaning ‘sentence’. The
structures that represent the sound or Phonetic Form (PF) and the meaning or Logical Form (LF) of
a sentence are first generated from the syntax, which is activated by the vacuous S. syntax
functions independently (‘autonomously’) of meaning and sound. The meaning and sound pattern
of a sentence is defined by the function of syntax. In this conception, only syntax is ‘generative’.
2. Why Chomsky’s Grammar is not a Performance Model
For speaker production the true process would involve the ideas of what a person wants to
express, and it must end with speech sounds.
In Chomsky’s terminology, this process would begin with something like Logical Form (LF) and end
with the Phonetic Form (PF). While, for speaker understanding the true process would involve a
reverse ordering. In Chomsky’s terminology, the process would begin with the PF and end with the
LF. Chomsky’s grammar could not be used directly as either a model of production or of
understanding. Chomsky is aware of this and has long cautioned readers not to interpret his
grammar as a kind of performance process. Even though it is neither a model of production nor of
understanding, Chomsky has made it an essential part of the performance process. He asserts that
his grammar will be used in both the processes of sentence production and understanding. In this
regard, the speaker must develop some sort of use rules, heuristics, or strategies so that the
grammar can be used for such performance processes.
3. Types of Performance Models
There are two possible basic performance conceptions; the first conception is Resource Grammar
Approach, it is also as a ‘componential’ model. Here, the grammar is used as a sort of resource in
order that a speaker may engage in the process of producing or understanding sentences. The
second conception is Process Grammar Approach. Here, a grammar (or grammars) is itself a
process in the production or understanding of sentences.
a. Chomsky’s resource grammar performance model
There are two performance processes to be explained, two sets of use rules are required: one set
for production, the other for understanding. Essentially, production performance involves meaning
or ideas as input, and speech as output, while understanding involves speech as input and meaning
as output. When given input, one of the sets of use rules will interact with the grammar to provide
an output.
b. A process grammar performance model
There are type of grammars that are part of the process itself - for example, the semantic-based
grammars (Functional Grammar, mainly derived from Generative Semantics Grammar) and
psychological process grammars (Cognitive Grammar). The semantic-based grammars could serve
directly as models of sentence production since they take the meaning of the sentence as input and
provide the sound pattern of the sentence as output. However, to suppose that a speaker would
actually go step by step through such a grammar to produce a sentence is doubtful.
c. No workable performance model yet with Chomsky’s grammar
There are two distinct possibilities why Chomsky’s grammar is no workable performance model.
Either psycholinguists are not smart enough to create a workable model, or, there is something
wrong with Chomsky’s conception of grammar such that a performance model cannot be devised.
4. Some Features of Sentence Production and Understanding
a. Explaining the speed of conversations
Speed is made possible by a speaker or hearer having knowledge and strategies that often enable
one to jump directly from meaning to sound and vice versa without the mediation of syntax in the
process of understanding and producing sentence. For example, in production, because the
production of a sentence involves the output of words in a linier order. In this respect, familiar
phrases and sentence are especially useful.
b. Some features of sentence production
The aim of the production process is to provide a set of sounds for the thought that the speaker
wishes to convey. There are some features of sentence production:
• Thought Process: this universal process use knowledge and a stock of concepts to create
thoughts. It is stimulated by various mental and environmental influences.
• Purpose + proposition: this is the essential thought which a person wishes to communicate to
someone. The purpose of a thought involves such intentions as questioning, asserting, denying, and
warning with respect to a proposition. The proposition consists of two basic types of concepts:
arguments and predicates.
• Pragmatics and Semantic Structure: politeness, persuasions, and other pragmatic factors will
influence what the final meaning of sentence will be.
• Basic Strategies: this component identifies certain properties of the Semantic Structure and
assigns searches to be done of the Stored Items and Transformational rules.
• Phonetic Structure and Acoustic signal: the phonetic Structure is a psychological level which
represents the pronunciation of the sentence. It consists of the discrete speech sounds and
prosodic features (pitch, stress, etc.).
c. Some features of sentence understanding
Fodor, Bever, and Garret have postulated that a string of incoming words are first identified in
terms of their grammatical class (noun, verb, etc) so that for English a syntactic strategy like
A FUNDAMENTAL SYNTACTIC STRATEGY
NP + V + NP → Subject + Verb + Direct Object
can apply. This means that the first NP is identified as the Subject, while the NP that follows the V is
identified as the Direct Object. Such as in the sentence ‘The cat chased the mouse.’
Basic strategies are better specified in terms of semantic aspects. Thus rather than the strategy of
NP + V + NP → Subject, etc, the strategy would be a semantic strategy, something like
A FUNDAMENTAL SEMANTIC STRATEGY
Living thing + Action + Thing → Agent + Action + Action’s object
Here, with the identification of the individual concepts of ‘living Thing’, ‘Action’ and ‘Thing’, the
semantic roles of ‘Agent’ and ‘Action’s Object’ are assigned with respect to ‘Action’. Thus, given a
sentence like ‘Mary pushed Sally’, the first word of ‘Mary’ (assuming for convenience a single wordby-word analysis) will be immediately identified in the Stored Items as the name of a person,
person being an item that includes the meaning of living thing.
5. The Psychological Unreality of Chomsky’s Grammar
a. The psychological contradiction in Chomsky’s theorizing
The content of the rules of grammar are thus determined by the directional relationship which
Chomsky postulated with respect to the levels of his grammar. But, he declares that it would be
‘absurd’ to propose that in producing a sentence a speaker would start from the initial letter S,
construct a D-structure line by line, then insert lexical items and apply transformations to form a Sstructure, etc. Thus, Chomsky asserts, the process of generating a linguistic derivation is not a
process that a speaker would ever employ in producing a sentence. The same would be true for the
understanding of sentences – a performance process that must begin with sound and not the letter
S and a variety of syntactic principles.
Now, since the direction order in Chomsky’s grammar is psychologically unreal, and since the
content of his grammatical principles and parameters are determined by this directional order, we
can only conclude that Chomsky’s principle and parameters are as the psychologically unreal as the
psychologically unreal order on which they were based. (see more Steinberg, 1976 and 1982, pp.
77-80)
6. The Anti-Mentalist Skeletons in Chomsky’s Closet
How is it that Chomsky’s theorizing has resulted in this internal psychological contradiction? The
facts show that Chomsky was not always a Mentalist and that the psychological theorizing for his
grammar came some years later.
We find that Chomsky supporting Bloomfield, a pro-Behaviorist linguist, in his attack on Mentalist,
ideas and meanings (ideas and meanings are attacked because such abstract entities lead to a
theory of mind). Chomsky, in his work 1955, devoted over a hundred pages to attacking the
relevance of semantics to grammar. Even so, semantics was given only a secondary role. Syntax
continued to be given the primary autonomous role in the grammar. Because Chomsky continued
to give syntax a primary role, mentalistic claims about his grammar, that Chomsky fell into
psychological self-contradiction. Not even his brilliant competence-performance solution was
enough to save the theory, although it did serve to detract critics from focusing psychological
attention on the grammar
Sentence Processing and Psychological Reality
1.
Introduction
Based on Chomsky the fundamental conception, as to how the three basic components of
the grammar (meaning, sound, and syntax) are related to one another. Chomsky claims that the
organizations of his grammar are designed so as to account for the relationship of sound to
meaning through the medium of syntax.
The structures that represent the sound or Phonetic Form (PF) and the meaning or Logical
Form (LF) of a sentence are first generated from the syntax, which is activated by the vacuous
S. syntax functions independently (‘autonomously’) of meaning and sound. The meaning and
sound pattern of a sentence is defined by the function of syntax. In this conception, only syntax
is ‘generative’.
2. The Summary
Why Chomsky’s Grammar is not a Performance Model
For speaker production the true process would involve the ideas of what a person wants to
express, and it must end with speech sounds.
In Chomsky’s terminology, this process would begin with something like Logical Form
(LF) and end with the Phonetic Form (PF). While, for speaker understanding the true process
would involve a reverse ordering. Chomsky is aware of this and has long cautioned readers not
to interpret his grammar as a kind of performance process. Even though it is neither a model of
production nor of understanding, Chomsky has made it an essential part of the performance
process. He asserts that his grammar will be used in both the processes of sentence production
and understanding. In this regard, the speaker must develop some sort of use rules, heuristics,
or strategies so that the grammar can be used for such performance processes.
Types of Performance Models
There are two possible basic performance conceptions; the first conception is Resource
Grammar Approach, it is also as a ‘componential’ model. Here, the grammar is used as a sort
of resource in order that a speaker may engage in the process of producing or understanding
sentences. The second conception is Process Grammar Approach. Here, a grammar (or
grammars) is itself a process in the production or understanding of sentences.
a. Chomsky’s resource grammar performance model
There are two performance processes to be explained, two sets of use rules are required:
one set for production, the other for understanding. Essentially, production performance
involves meaning or ideas as input, and speech as output, while understanding involves
speech as input and meaning as output. When given input, one of the sets of use rules will
interact with the grammar to provide an output.
b.
A process grammar performance model
There are type of grammars that are part of the process itself - for example, the semanticbased grammars (Functional Grammar, mainly derived from Generative Semantics
Grammar) and psychological process grammars (Cognitive Grammar). The semantic-based
grammars could serve directly as models of sentence production since they take the
meaning of the sentence as input and provide the sound pattern of the sentence as output.
However, to suppose that a speaker would actually go step by step through such a grammar
to produce a sentence is doubtful.
c. No workable performance model yet with Chomsky’s grammar
There are two distinct possibilities why Chomsky’s grammar is no workable performance
model. Either psycholinguists are not smart enough to create a workable model, or, there is
something wrong with Chomsky’s conception of grammar such that a performance model
cannot be devised.
Some Features of Sentence Production and Understanding
a. Explaining the speed of conversations
Speed is made possible by a speaker or hearer having knowledge and strategies that often
enable one to jump directly from meaning to sound and vice versa without the mediation of
syntax in the process of understanding and producing sentence. In this respect, familiar
phrases and sentence are especially useful.
b. Some features of sentence production
The aim of the production process is to provide a set of sounds for the thought that the
speaker wishes to convey. There are some features of sentence production:
-
Thought Process: this universal process use knowledge and a stock of concepts to create
thoughts. It is stimulated by various mental and environmental influences.
-
Purpose + proposition: this is the essential thought which a person wishes to
communicate to someone. The purpose of a thought involves such intentions as
questioning, asserting, denying, and warning with respect to a proposition.
-
Pragmatics and Semantic Structure: politeness, persuasions, and other pragmatic factors
will influence what the final meaning of sentence will be.
-
Basic Strategies: this component identifies certain properties of the Semantic Structure
and assigns searches to be done of the Stored Items and Transformational rules.
-
Phonetic Structure and Acoustic signal: the phonetic Structure is a psychological level
which represents the pronunciation of the sentence.
c. Some features of sentence understanding
Fodor, Bever, and Garret have postulated that a string of incoming words are first identified
in terms of their grammatical class (noun, verb, etc) so that for English a syntactic strategy
like;
A FUNDAMENTAL SYNTACTIC STRATEGY
NP + V + NP → Subject + Verb + Direct Object
can be apply. This means that the first NP is identified as the Subject, while the NP that
follows the V is identified as the Direct Object. Such as in the sentence ‘The cat chased the
mouse.’ Basic strategies are better specified in terms of semantic aspects. Thus rather than
the strategy of NP + V + NP → Subject, etc, the strategy would be a semantic strategy,
something like;
A FUNDAMENTAL SEMANTIC STRATEGY
Living thing + Action + Thing → Agent + Action + Action’s object
Here, with the identification of the individual concepts of ‘living Thing’, ‘Action’ and
‘Thing’, the semantic roles of ‘Agent’ and ‘Action’s Object’ are assigned with respect to
‘Action’. Thus, given a sentence like ‘Mary pushed Sally’, the first word of ‘Mary’
(assuming for convenience a single word-by-word analysis) will be immediately identified
in the Stored Items as the name of a person, person being an item that includes the meaning
of living thing.
The Psychological Unreality of Chomsky’s Grammar
a. The psychological contradiction in Chomsky’s theorizing
The content of the rules of grammar are thus determined by the directional relationship
which Chomsky postulated with respect to the levels of his grammar. But, he declares that
it would be ‘absurd’ to propose that in producing a sentence a speaker would start from the
initial letter S, construct a D-structure line by line, then insert lexical items and apply
transformations to form a S-structure, etc. Thus, Chomsky asserts, the process of generating
a linguistic derivation is not a process that a speaker would ever employ in producing a
sentence
b. The Anti-Mentalist Skeletons in Chomsky’s Closet
Chomsky, in his work 1955, devoted over a hundred pages to attacking the relevance of
semantics to grammar. Even so, semantics was given only a secondary role. Syntax
continued to be given the primary autonomous role in the grammar. Because Chomsky
continued to give syntax a primary role, mentalistic claims about his grammar, that
Chomsky fell into psychological self-contradiction.
Summary of
Sentence Processing and Psychological Reality
By:
Prilia Rahmadina
Universitas Islam Malang