Syntactic Structures Revisited: Contemporary Lectures on Classic Transformational Theory

Current Studies in Linguistics

by Howard Lasnik

with Marcela Depiante and Arthur Stepanov

This book provides an introduction to some classic ideas and analyses of transformational generative grammar, viewed both on their own terms and from a more modern, or minimalist perspective. The major focus is on the set of analyses treating English verbal morphology. The book shows how the analyses in Chomsky's classic Syntactic Structures actually work, filling in underlying assumptions and often unstated formal particulars. From there the book moves to successive theoretical developments and revisions--both in general and in particular as they pertain to inflectional verbal morphology. After comparing Chomsky's economy-based account with his later minimalist approach, the book concludes with a hybrid theory of English verbal morphology that includes elements of both Syntactic Structures and A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.

Current Studies in Linguistics No. 33

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 28, 2000

Reviews

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best introduction to theoretical syntax that has yet been written.

[Tato Antadze · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to get into Chomsky's Minimalist program or study some other variant of Generative Linguistics, this book is essential. If you just follow a textbook like Carnie's Syntax or Adger's Core Syntax, you'll have a sense that linguists reason about the nature of language by constructing some arbitrary rules that sort of capture the structure of Language. You might try to read about some philosophical background to understand why this approach to the study of Language is interesting and how it is motivated, but probably you'll still not be certain about what is it exactly that you and all these great linguists are doing. Lasnik's lectures on Syntactic Structures gives the reader, (even a layperson interested in Linguistics) a much needed context. Modern Generative Grammars are possible because of very important developements in Mathematics in the early 20th century. Chomsky was one of the first scientists who started thinking about describing language with these new tools. He also was the first one to claim that Context free grammars and other formal tools used in Formal Languages, can not give real insight into the nature of Human language, hence he and others developed transformational Grammar, which then lead to some very interesting discoveries. Lasnik's book shows how the early Transformational Grammar was motivated and how the ideas from the 50s evolved over a couple of decades. It's amazing how Lasnik is able to cover so much, so simply in such a short book.

[Alex Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

I used to really enjoy universal grammar.

I thought it a very meaningful activity when I was in grad school. Now, it's a little over a decade later. I find this work insular, and pedantic. Academic. Really, functional categorization is used to overlay what words are. According to these categorizations, we then expect certain syntactic regularities to follow. This is what is universal about all humans, so Chomsky's work goes.

This is problematic though, because there is no predictive qualities about this grammar, only the consistency of whatever rational assumptions/rules we have decided. Tests often yield a messiness that needs to be calibrated for, so new rules are made and realigned.

What is the point of finding UG? What is the point of having a perfect generative syntax? Artificial intelligence? Political alignment that we are no different from each other? Easier learning of different languages? It's unclear. But this rationalism is an outgrowth that originates from the excesses of scientisim.

There are plenty of very intelligent people who participate in these kinds of studies. The attempt to create a rational mirror to language really only highlights how irrational we really are. The adaptation of specific contexts is what determines rational consistency. Any particular organization as a generative binding can provide this consistency. This seems to me to be very telling of the kind of spontaneous and creative creatures we are.