Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T18:19:21.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Arbitrary Basis of Transformational Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

George Lakoff
George Lakoff*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Baker & Brame, in this issue of Language, correctly observe that, in three of the cases cited in my paper on global rules (Lakoff 1970), the effect of global rules can be obtained by the use of ad hoc coding mechanisms using arbitrary grammatical elements, in one case an infinite number of such elements. This raises the question of whether the elements used in grammatical descriptions should be arbitrary or whether they should have a natural basis. In addition, Baker & Brame incorrectly claim in three other cases to be able to handle global phenomena within the Aspects theory. In each case they use apparatus that goes beyond that theory. Moreover, they claim that a theory of global grammar is necessarily ‘more powerful’ than the Aspects theory and their proposed extensions. This is shown to be false.*

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 76 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Linguistic Society of America 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Paul Postal for reading an earlier version of this paper and making valuable suggestions for improvement. This work was partially supported by grant GS-2939 from the NSF to the University of Michigan, by a grant from the American Council of Learned Societies, and by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where I am in residence during 1971–72.

References

Baker, C. L., and Brame, M. K. 1972. ‘Global rules’: a rejoinder. Lg. 48. 51–75.Google Scholar
Borkin, Ann, et al. ms. Appendix to the 3rd edition of From deep to surface structure, by Burt, Marina K. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. ms. Contraction and the transformational cycle in English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Topics in the theory of generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. To appear in The goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, P. Stanley. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and structure preserving transformations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael. ms. A derivational constraint on simplification of certain comparative constructions. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Grinder, John. 1971. On deletion phenomena in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1963. Generative grammars without transformational rules: a defense of phrase structure. Lg. 39.597–616.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles. msa. A global rule in Klamath phonology. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles. msb. Is rule ordering necessary in phonology? To appear in Papers in Linguistics presented to Henry and Renee Kahane, ed. by Kachru, B. Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Lg. 46.627–639.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D., and Postal, P. ms. The passive-deletion constraint.Google Scholar
Peters, P. Stanley Jr., and Ritchie, R. W. ms. The generative power of transformational grammars. To appear in Information Sciences.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1972. A global constraint on pronominalization. Linguistic Inquiry. 3.35–60.Google Scholar