Ｃｈｏｍｓｋｙａｎ Ｒｅｖｏｌｕｔｉｏｎ

Abstract: since 1960s， Chomsky’s TG grammar has become more and more influential. And in 1979， Neil Smith and Deirdre Wilson published a book entitled “Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomskyan Revolution”. From then on， it became a controversial topic about whether TG grammar was a revolution or not. This paper defends that Chomskyan theory represents a revolutionary approach to the study of language， which was mainly contained in Syntactic Structure.

Key Words: Chomskyan Revolution， Syntactic Structure， TG grammar

作者簡介：孫樂，女 出生年月：1985年 漢族 籍貫：山東濰坊人，河海大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院研究生，主要研究方向：語義學(xué)，語用學(xué)， 英語語言文學(xué)方向

1.0 Introduction

Noam Chomsky has great influence on the development of linguistics. His Transformational-Generative Grammar has been called “Chomskyan Revolution” in linguistics. Chomsky published in 1957 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax， and Lectures on Government and Binding in 1981， etc. as an establishment and development to his Transformational-Generative Grammar at a later time. Now the TG grammar is still in its development.

From 1957， when Syntactic Structure was published， it became uncontroversial to consider that was a 'Chomskyan revolution' in linguistics. Commentators took it for granted that it ushered in an intellectual and sociological revolution in the field which deepened with the following decade's work by Chomsky and his associates. R. Longacre， an individual who has a quite different orientation to grammar from Chomsky's， writes (1979:247) that “the field was profoundly shaken by him”， and has identified the essence of the Chomskyan revolution (a term which he uses without surrounding quotes) as its commitment to the construction of an explanatory linguistic theory. From these words， we can see the special position of Syntactic Structure in linguistics.

2.0 Chomskyan Revolution

2.1 Structuralism vs. TG

Before the publication of Syntactic Structure， the dominant school of linguistic study is structuralism， which insists on objective method of verification and precisely specified techniques of discovery， and is also largely a consequence of the philosophical assumption of logical positivism.

However， during that period， there appeared such American linguistics as Chomsky， who defined the task of linguistics as collecting language elements and classifying them. The approach was the mechanic procedure to find the language truth and discipline. In their mind， Linguistics was a kind of verbal botany. At first， linguists at that time were just giving a description of a language by collecting “data”， collecting a large number of utterances of language which were always recorded on a tape recorder or in a phonetic script. The second step was to classify these elements of language at different linguistic levels， from the units of sounds， the phonemes， to the morphemes， then to the sequences of word classes. The study target was the rich language elements， while structuralism was inductive with a word-grammar.

Therefore， with the language ability as the study target， TG aims to establish some theories， by means of which we can make sure which rules from the basis of language structure. The aim of linguistic theory was to provide the linguist with a set of rigorous methods， a set of discovery procedures which he would use to extract from the “corpus” the phonemes， the morphemes， and so on. Its approach is putting forward hypothesis which is to be tested by native language speakers. Therefore， TG is a deductive language-category grammar which can explain infinites sentences with finite analyses.

2.2 Linguistics as an Independent Science

The second aspect of Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics was his gift to the field of a truly scientific perspective. It is Chomsky who makes a challenge that linguistics is an independent science because it can provide not only explicit descriptions but also explanations for the classification. At first， linguistics has provided a general theory to explain why languages are the way they are， that is， each language is a particular example of a universal faculty of mind， whose basic properties are innate. Secondly， the linguist controls the environment experimentally to see what happens. Moreover， Chomsky proposed such terms as “Finite State Grammar”， “Phrase Structure Grammar” and “Transformational Grammar” and some concepts， such as， “kernel sentence”， “optional rules” and “selective rules”. At the same time， he drew the distinction between the sentences generated by the grammar (the langue) and a sample of the utterances produced by native speakers (the parole) in terms of the notion of competence and performance.

2.3 Competence vs. Performance

Making the distinction between competence and performance is the third aspect of Chomsky’s revolution on linguistics. According to him， universal grammar is crucial to language acquisition， however， universal grammar is an inborn system. And then， he proposed such a question as “does acquired experience explain the acquisition of a particular language?” He asserts that acquired experience is important in language acquisition， because the transformation from universal grammar to a certain particular grammar needs the triggering of experience. The relationship is like the following illustrated formulas， PG=a*UG (“PG” refers to a particular language， and “a” refers to a specific language， while “UG” refers to universal grammar). It is the particular grammar that is the internalized language rules after the child being exposed to the specific language environment. This is what Chomsky called “competence”， which is contrast to performance and plays a more important role. According to Chomsky， competence is best described as our tacit， internalized knowledge of a language， and is usage on particular occasions when， crucially， factors other than our linguistic competence may affect its form. Competence both explains and characterizes a speaker's knowledge of a language. Performance， however， is a poor mirror of competence. Usually a person’s performance is influenced by many non-linguistic factors， such as， nervousness， shyness， distraction and so on. Even a very good speaker may make mistake in his speech， like 1 starts， ungrammatical sentences. Generally speaking， man’s performance can’t match his competence. Therefore， Chomsky thinks that the object of investigation in linguistics is the ideal speaker’s competence， not his performance.

3.0 Interdisciplinary Revolution

Syntactic Structure as a revolutionary event still lies on its interdisciplinary revolution， especially on psychology. Psychologists had certainly taken an interest in pre-Chomskyan structural linguistics. As J.B Carroll had written: ‘ from linguistic theory we get the notion of a hierarchy of units…It may be suggested that stretches of any kind of behavior may be organized in some what the same fashion.’ According to the approach to which Carroll referred， we can see that he takes phonology and morphology as primary position and offers little understanding of language processing while more general aspects of verbal behavior. As a result， the structural linguistics were completely ignored in Skinner’s Verbal Behavior at that time， and were given only limited attention in the major pre-Chomskyan survey of psycholinguistics. However， from 1960， Miller had revealed to the community of psychologists the implications for the structure of human behavior latent in Chomsky’s theory of syntax， the ‘psycholinguistic revolution’ was well under

way.

4.0 Conclusion

In a word， on the one hand， Chomsky’s distinction between the implicit and explicit， or competence and performance， have thrown light on all these perplexing issues. Besides， his theory is undoubtedly a theoretical and a methodological success in linguistics and all other related sciences. On the other hand， his research on the formalization of syntactic theory constitutes his most original and most enduring contribution to the scientific investigation of language. However， as the prior schools of linguistics which has been found many limitations in their theory through later study， Chomsky also is no exception. At later time， his theory was criticized due to his highly formalized approaches to linguistics analysis are too abstract and there are too many changes and modifications. In spite of the fact that generative grammar was not predominant institutionally at his times， there really exists abundant evidence that there has been a successful “Chomskyan revolution”， especially after the publication of Syntactic Structure in 1957.

References

[1] Chen Youliang. The Transition of Chomsky’s Formal Syntactic Inference [J]. Foreign Language Education， 2006(2).

[2] Cook， V. Newson. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction [M]. Btijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press， 2000.

[3] Hu Zhuanglin. Linguistics: An advanced Course Book. Beijing: Peking University Press， 2002.

[4] 劉潤清. 西方語言學(xué)流派[M]. 北京：外語教學(xué)與研究出版社，2002.11.

[5] 劉潤清，封宗信. 語言學(xué)理論與流派[M]. 南京：南京師范大學(xué)出版社，2002.3.

[6] 徐志民. 歐美語言學(xué)簡史[M]. 上海：學(xué)林出版社，2005.8.