Comparing Generative Grammar by George Yule, and Andrew Radford - Coursework Example

? George Yule’s and Andrew Radford’s Generative Grammar George Yule’s and Andrew Radford’s Generative Grammar Introduction Generative grammar is an approach to the study of syntax that uses a set of rules to effectively predict which particular word combinations are likely to form grammatical sentences of a language. Generally, most approaches also employ the use of rules to predict the morphology of sentences. According Chomsky (2000), properties of generative grammar often arise from the innate universal grammar and this makes generative grammar to be remarkably different from the functional, cognitive grammar and behaviorist theories. There are a number of various kinds of generative grammar most of which have their roots in the transformational grammar developed in the 1950s by Noam Chomsky, a linguist who tried to produce a certain type of grammar that has a very clear system of rules stipulating and verifying the combination of basic elements that would result out of a well-shaped sentence. Both George Yule and Andrew Radford have attempted to present a survey of all the information about a language particularly with regard to the internal structures of a language. Inspired by Noam Chomsky,Yule attempted to develop a generative grammar based on a system of rules that can effectively specify the combination of elements required to form sentences. Although both Yule (2006) and Radford (2006) were heavily influenced and inspired by Chomsky, there are a number of differences in their approach of generative grammar.This paper critically analyzes the similarities as well as the differences in George Yule’s and Andrew Radford’s generative grammar. Differences between Yule’s and Radford’s Generative Grammar George Yule and Andrew Radford were both influenced and inspired by Noam Chomsky, throughout his book, Andrew’s book was particularly focused on the various aspects of grammar including, morphology and syntax. Radford’s minimalist Syntax Revisited aims to give an introduction to current application in syntactic theory particularly by showing how the program operates within the model of grammar presumed in the current application within the framework of Chomsky’s minimalist program. The second aim makes use of minimalist concepts and assumptions as well, provides a description of a range phenomena in English syntax. It avoids the excessive complex technicalities in English syntax and intends to be appropriate for people with only minimal grammatical information, and those who have already done fairly with syntax but desire to be familiar with more about simplicity. It is neither comparative in orientation, nor assume knowledge of alternative models of grammar. An important similarity between the two approaches however is that the two proponents of generative grammar focus more on meaning brought about by the sentences other than the structural organization of the sentence. As such it does not focus more on correctness of the grammar but the overall meaning intended in the sentence therefore highlighting the importance of language as a tool of communication rather than structural organization of a given sentence. Radford believed that in making interrogative sentences, preceding sentences can be easy to teach and learn. An important area of contrast is that Yule (2006) violated binary branching by attempting to produce a perfect description or ordering arrangements of elements in a linear structure borrowed from the original work of Noam Chomsky. On the other hand, Radford illustrates the syntax of a sentence using a tree diagram which is binary branching. It is however worth noting that Radford and Yule have used a similar approach while exploring on the rules of wh-movement in English in order to make interrogative sentences and relative sentences easier to demonstrate and learn. According to Yule, syntactic breakdown has taken rather a dissimilar approach and direction in trying to account for the types of organization we observe in the edifice of different sentences. Andrew analyses generative grammar differently by providing syntactic arrangements of interrogative sentences and relative clauses and brings out clearly on how to brand interrogative sentences such as what do you need? and modifying sentences such as easier to teach and absorb. George attempted by all means to create a certain type of grammar of a very clear system of rules stipulating the combinations of basic elements that would eventually bring out well organised and assortment of well-structured sentences. He, in contrast to Andrew, went ahead in elucidating the explicit system of guidelines in generative grammar that had a lot of conjoint rules found in mathematics (Radford, 2006). Andrew on the other hand conveyed out the provision of nouns in generative grammar by transforming TG which is the operation of subject-auxiliary inversion in answering questions. Chomsky, as a role model whose grammar provided guideline for the two seem to have taken the view that the essential structure of a language could be expressed in mathematical terms that is either finite and infinite which was captured by Yule as well in his generative grammar. Similarly, Andrew while dealing with wh-movement while analysing generative grammar where a wh-word starts at a place in a sentence and changes to the front according to code and parameter theory (Chomsky, 2000). The rule of (SAI) that is subject auxiliary interchange takes as its input a declarative sentence with an auxiliary according to Radford and in addition these rules are stated as rules that held up strings of either terminal or component symbols or both of the two. According to Yule, the syntax of language could be analyzed critically using the mathematical perspective that helps to explain the meaning of the word generative which is in most cases used to describe the type of grammar relating to algebraic expressions which generate a wholesomely endless set of values by following simple arithmetic rules. This therefore resulted in Yule’s generative grammar following directly and probably from applying these simple explicit arithmetic rules. One of the major differences is related to earlier understanding of grammar where George Yule's conceptualization emphasizes on the correctness or incorrectness of the grammar. On the other hand, Andrew Radford's view of generative grammar is only based on the descriptive aspect with little emphasis on grammatical correctness. It has been also argued by George Yule's that generative grammar is centered on a head or body that informs the basis of all other sentences. Therefore it involves knowledge of the language and its applicability in actual sense. Which is argued by Andrew Radford's that actual spoken grammar differs from written grammar. The theories of generative grammar claim that human beings have innate instincts that allow us to communicate producing either grammatically correct or incorrect sentences. According to Yule Generative grammar uses specific guidelines to generate indefinite number of grammatically correct sentences. In Yule’s view of generative grammar he articulates that grammar should be made up of sentences that are semantically, phonetically as well as syntactically related so that such sentences can be viewed to be grammatically valid. This in essence differs from the views of his critiques whose major focus is not the correctness of sentences but the overall aim and objective of the sentences. Therefore there is no need to base grammatical sentences on structural organization of the sentences and rules that are required to formulate proper grammar as put forward by Yule’s views. On the contrary Radford’s view is that these rules have to be applied with restrictions as the overall aim of such in a sentence is the intended message to be passed (Radford, 2006). The arguments that have been put forward surrounding classical deep structure approach to understanding and construction of grammatically correct sentences in relation to generative approach which tries to establish meaning from the sentences without a deeper analysis of the same continues to be a major source of difference among many linguistics. Although Yule’s approach to generative grammar is centered on accounting for linguistics phenomena in terms of syntax and their linkages, Radford’s view is on the final aspects of the sentences is communication (Radford, 2006). Additionally, Wh-interrogative sentences by Radford could be grammatically explained by moving the wh-word to the left to bring out clearly the interrogative nature of the sentence. These sentences must also have an auxiliary which bears the tense of the sentence. Wh-movement in indirect questions, sometimes need to describe other questions or question of our own to others which is to say indirect questions. According to Radford, it is always a statement as there is no question mark at the end and the questions are independent sentences inside the statement. Finally, the appositive relative sentences are well brought out by Radford and he explains that sometimes we do not have to say the clause in the sentence but the meaning of it. However, such a kind of modifier cannot be placed in the end of a sentence as restrictive relative clauses do. Similarly, both Radford and Yule critically analyses transformational approaches to syntax. Generative grammar can be used to determine the kind of words that could be combined to form correct grammatical sentences. Although most scholars have agreed on this aspects there have been varying differences as seen by George Yule’ and Andrew Radford’s approaches to generative grammar. There have been a number of remarkable differences related to Morphology, syntax, phonology and semantics. Therefore the differences have originated from the structural orientation of words and the linkage of these words to establish their intended meaning (Radford, 1988). Conclusion In conclusion, there are a significant number of differences between George Yule’s and Andrew Radford’s generative grammar. Linguists have however continued to disagree on which kind of generative grammar can be used as the best model for describing various word structures. It is however worth noting that generative grammars can not only be used to distinguish the grammatical sentences from the ungrammatical sentences of the same language, but can also provide both syntactic analysis and structural description for grammatical sentences. References Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. New York: Cambridge University Press Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, A. (2006). Minimalist Syntax Revisited: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell Read More