 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST THEORY
BY
ERNIE A. SMITH PH.D.
The Transformationalists theory or hypothesis on the origin and
historical development of Black language in America is a view or
perspective that is based on the use of the generative
transformational theory, model and method of grammar analysis. As
a method of grammar analysis, generative transformational grammar
is not comparative. Hence, it does not present a discussion of
the transmission process, the sequential stages or the
evolutionary development of Black language in America. It is not
synchronic(1). Therefore, it does not entail a descriptive
analysis of field work obtained speech samples. Rather, the
Transformationalist view is that underlying what is actually only
superficial variation in the
1 Synchronic: A synchronic statement is a statement about a
language at one period in time. (Wardhaugh, 1970:11) The basic
field in which most (if not all) linguists have been trained is
that which is known as descriptive or synchronic linguistics. As
its names imply, this field focuses upon the systematic
description of a given language in a given time and place. It is
not historical; it is not comparative; it is not prescriptive.
Its emphasis is definitely on spoken language, the assumption
being that written language is both derivative and different from
natural language or speech. (Fishman, 1975:6,7).
world's human languages there is a deep unity that makes all human
languages akin. In their view this deep unity in all human
languages is governed by universal principles or laws that are
followed in the production and interpretation of human speech.
The Transformationalists contend that, by employing the
prerequisite generative phrase structure and transformation rules,
a careful and systematic analysis of any paired syntactical
strings will confirm that there is an identical underlying
grammatical structure in Afro-American "Black English" (BE) and
Euro-American Standard English (SAE). According to the
Transformationalists, the difference in Afro-American and Euro-
American linguistic behavior is superficial and mainly in the
surface structure. In the deep structure(2), they are the same.
In order to understand the basis upon which Transformationalists
have posited the underlying syntactical structure of Afro-American
2 Deep Structure: Deep structure is basically a system of
propositions which interrelate in such a way as to express the
meaning of the sentence, while surface structure is realization of
these propositions in terms of the particular grammatical devices
(e.g., linear ordering, grammatical categories) of the language.
The knowledge of language involves the ability to assign deep and
surface structures to an infinite range of sentences, to relate
these structures appropriately, and to assign a semantic
interpretation and phonetic interpretation to the paired deep and
surface structure. (Wolfram, 1972:31)
and Euro-American speech as being essentially the same, it is
helpful that we first explore and concretize the generative
transformational model and method of grammar analysis. For this
purpose let us consider the sentences:
?1) He is not here.?3) He isn't here.?5) He not here.
?2) He's not here.?4) He ain't here.?6) Hen't here.
According to the Generative Transformationalists, the underlying
deep structure for all six of the above given sentences is one and
the same. In their view, it is only in their surface structure
that these sentences are noticeably different. To more explicitly
detail this, consider for example the first sentence;
1) He is not here
According to the rules of generative transformational grammar, the
underlying kernel string(3) which represents this thought, as a
phrase or constituent structure, is roughly as follows:
? pro + pres + be + adv of location
3 Kernel Sentence: In transformational-generative grammar
originally a sentence which is generated by phrase structure rules
and obligatory transformations, but without optional
transformations. Kernel sentences are usually simple, declarative
indicative statements which can be transformed into more complex,
e.g. passive, sentences, by means of optional transformation
rules. (Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, R.R.K. Hartman and
F.C. Stork (1976:122)
By employing the use of what Generative Grammarians call "lexical
insertion rules" this phrase structure or constituent string is
rewritten as the simple declarative statement;
????He + is + here
As a simple declarative sentence this string does not yet reflect
the fact that, in the deep structure, the idea intended is not
affirmative. That is, the meaning of the sentence to be derived
is negative. According to Generative Grammarians, this is done by
placing a constituent or "dummy node" negative in the front of
the kernal constituent string. This yields the intermediate
structure;
??negative + pro + pres + be + adv of loc
(*)
Via the use of lexical insertion rules the word or constituent
negative is rewritten as "It is not the case that". Hence,
the entire intermediate negative string would have, as its paired
or
corresponding surface structure the lexicon or words:
? It is not the case that + He + is + here
(*) pro => Pronoun (he)
? pres => Present tense (time or temporal aspect)
? be => There are eight forms of the verb "to be" in
English: is, am, are, was, were, be, being and been
? adv => Adverb (manner, location or time)
When the negative transformation is performed on this string the
"negative" constituent is removed from the front of the string and
introduced into the constituent structure, after the verb. Via
lexical insertion rules the negative constituent is converted to
the word "not". This yields the intermediate structure and
lexicon;
(T-Neg)
pro + pres + be + neg + adv of
location
He + is + not + here
Next comes what Generative Grammarians call an "affix hop" or
affix transformation. This transformation shifts the present
tense constituent from the left side to the right of the verbal
"be". As a result the final constituent structure becomes:
? ????(T-Affix)
pro # be + pres # neg # adv of
location (**)
Applying lexical insertion rules, the terminal string or final
surface structure for this constituent structure rewrites as;
He # is # not # here.
????He is not here
** The symbol # (a double cross) indicates word boundaries
Let us consider now the second sentence: "He's not here."
According to the Transformationalists, sentence number (2); "He's
not here" and sentence number (1); "He is not here" are both
derived from the same underlying deep structure or kernel string:
?? pro + pres + be + adv of location
However, posit the Transformationalists, the rules of American
English grammar permits the optional contraction of some verbals
such as the words: is, am, are, will and have etc., to English
pronouns, e.g., he, I, we, they and you. This yields the
contracted forms, he's, I'm, we're, they'll, and you've, etc. The
contraction of the verbs: is, has, do, can and should, to the word
"not" yields of course, the contracted forms: isn't, hasn't,
don't, can't, and shouldn't, etc. The Transformationalists
contend that although sentence number (1); He is not here and
sentence number (2); He's not here, both have the same or an
identical underlying, deep structure, they are noticeably
different in that, in sentence number (1) the full form of the
verb "to be" (is) appears. But, in sentence number (2), via an
(optional) contraction transformation, the verb "to be" (is) has
been contracted and appended to the pronoun constituent (He).
In stepwise progressions let us here apply the phrase structure
rules and transformations that yield sentence number (2).
First, since only simple declarative statements exist in the deep
structure, the kernel string and corresponding lexical insertions
would be;
???pro + pres + be + adv of location
???He + is + here
Next, in order to show that the sentence is negative, the dummy
node "negative" is placed in the front of the kernel string.
This yields as the intermediate structure and corresponding
lexicon; ??negative + pro + pres + be +
adv of location
(It is not the case that) He + is + here.
Repeating initially our negative transformation, the "negative"
constituent is removed from the front of the string and introduced
into the structure to the right of the verb. Via lexical
insertion rules the word negative becomes the word "not". This
yields as the constituent structure and lexicon;
?????(T-Neg)
??pro + pres + be + neg + adv of
location
??He + is + not + here
As stated earlier, contraction transformations are optional. One
option is that the verbal "be" can be contracted to the pronoun
constituent "he". This yields the constituent structure and
lexicon;
? (T-Contract) ?
pro + apos + pres + be + neg + adv of
location
He + ' + s + not + here
Lastly, the affix transformation moves the present tense
constituent to the right of the verbal constituent "be". This
yields the constituent final structure and lexicon:
?????(T-Affix)
??pro + apos be + pres # neg # adv of
location ??He ' s # not # here
?????He's not here
Thus, posit the Transformationalists, although sentences (1) and
(2) are different in their surface structure they mean the same
thing and, as has been shown, both have been derived from the same
underlying deep structure or kernel string. Let us consider now
sentence number (3):
???? He isn't here.
The Transformationalists contend that sentence number (3), He
isn't here, is derived from the same underlying deep structure
or kernel string which has been posited as the underlying
constituent structure of sentences (1) and (2).
??pro + pres + be + adv of location
The Generative Grammarians contend that the only difference in
sentences (1) and (2) is that, in sentence number (1) there was no
contraction transformation performed. But, in sentence number (2)
a "pronoun + verb" contraction transformation has been performed.
In sentence number (3) there has also been a contraction
transformation. However, unlike the "pronoun + verb" contraction
in sentence number (2), in sentence number (3) it is the "neg"
constituent that is contracted. That is, the vowel "o" is removed
from the word "not" and replaced by an apostrophe (') between the
(n) and the (t). The remaining "n" apostrope "t" (n't) is then
appended to the verbal (is). Sometimes called a "negative
adjunction" it is this transformation, that yields the final
surface structure; He isn't here. Let us here, in stepwise
progressions, perform the transformations that yields sentence
number (3); He isn't here, from the kernel string or deep
structure;
? pro?+?pres? + be + adv of location
First, the constituent node "negative" is placed in the front of
the kernel string to yield the underlying negative structure and
lexicon:
??negative + pro + pres + be + adv of
location
(It is not the case that) He + is + here
Next, the negative transformation removes the negative constituent
from the front of the string and introduces it into the structure
after the verb. In constituent structure and via lexical
insertion rules this is rewritten as;
(T-Neg)
?pro + pres + be + neg + adv. of
location
He + is + not + here
The "be + neg" contraction or adjunction transformation yields the
constituent structure and lexicon;
?????(T-Contract)
?pro + pres + be + n'g + adv of location
?He + is + n't + here
Lastly the affix transformation, moves the tense constituent to
the right of the verb. This yields the final constituent
structure and lexicon:
??????(T-Affix)
??pro # be + pres # n'g # adv of
location
?He # is + n't # here
????? He isn't here
Thus, the Transformationalists contend that, since all three of
the foregoing sentences have been derived from the same underlying
kernel string or deep structure:
?????(Deep structure)
?? pro + pres + be + adv of location
this means that in their deep structure sentences (1), (2) and (3)
mean the same thing. It is only in their surface structure that
these three sentences differ. Let us turn now to sentences number
(4) and (5) - He ain't here and He not here.
As stated earlier, according to the Transformationalists sentences
(4) and (5) are both derived from the same deep structure or
kernel string as posited for sentences (1), (2) and (3):
????(Deep structure)
? pro + pres + be + adv of location
However, contend the Transformationalists, both sentences (4) and
(5) differ in a fundamental way from sentences (1) thru (3). For,
whereas in sentences (1) thru (3) above the underlying constituent
structures were rewritten using Standard English lexical insertion
rules (the contraction transformation being the essential
difference in their surface structures) sentences (4) and (5) have
been derived via the application of Black English lexical
insertion and deletion rules. Lets consider first, sentence
number (4):
???? He ain't here:
According to the Transformationalists, in the English language the
lexical item or word "am" is just as much a present tense form of
the verb "to be" as the lexical item or word "is". In fact, as
cited in an earlier footnote, in English grammar, there are eight
forms of the verb to be: is, am, are, was, were, be, being and
been. Some grammarians also include the words become and became
(see Aurbach, Cook, Kaplan et. al. 1968:35,45,46)
Where the verbs "is" and "am" are concerned, the distinction is
that, in Standard English usage, the word "am" is considered to be
the appropriate first person singular present tense usage, while
the word "is" is considered to be the appropriate third person
singular present tense usage. The Generative Grammarians contend
that, although the kernel string or deep structure constituents
for sentence number (4) is:
?? pro + pres + be + adv of location
in Black English the word "am" is selected, as the present tense
form of the verb "to be" instead of the verb "is". Therefore, in
consonnance with the "lexical insertion" rules of Black English
the kernel constituent structure:
?? pro + pres + be + adv of location
is rewritten with the Black English lexical insertions:
?? He + am + here
as opposed to the Standard English lexical insertions:
?? He + is + here.
Let us here in stepwise progression perform the transformations
that yield sentence number (4) He ain't here from the kernel
string or deep structure:
???pro + pres + be + adv of location
First, the placement of the dummy node "negative" in front of the
kernel string would yield the constituent structure;
?negative + pro + pres + be + adv of location
Via Black English lexical insertion rules, this constituent
structure is rewrittten as:
(It is not the case that) He + am + here
The negative transformation would of course yield the intermediate
constituent structure and lexicon:
?????(T-Neg)
?pro + pres + be + neg + adv of
location
?He + am + not + here?
By performing next a contraction transformation, this yields the
constituent structure or syntactic string:
?????(T-Contract)
?pro + pres + be + n'g + adv of
location
Notice that, at this juncture, the constituent structure is in
fact identical to the structure derived earlier for sentence
number (3)
? pro + pres + be + n'g + adv of location
However, as stated above, having applied the Black English instead
of the Standard American English lexical insertion rules this
constituent structure is rewritten:
??He + am + n't + here
The affix transformation yields of course the constituent
structure and lexicon:
??pro?#?be + n'g?+ pres # adv of location
??He?#?am + n't? ? # here
????He ain't here (4)
Of course, the question is immediately posed, how is it that the
contraction "amn't" becomes the word "ain't" when in fact the
contraction and adjunction of the "be + "neg" or "am + n't"
constituents actually rewrites as, "amn't". The explanation
Generative Grammarians offer for this is that, the notion Standard
English has two connotations. One being the conventions or
Standards for speaking English, the other the conventions or
Standards for writing English. The conventions for the correct
spelling of words of a language is called orthography.
4 Ain't: Nonstandard. Contraction of am not. Also extended in
use to mean are not, is not, has not, and have not. Usage: Ain't,
with few exceptions, is strongly condemned by the Usage Panel when
it occurs in writing and speech that is not deliberately
colloquial or that does not employ the contraction to provide
humor, shock, or other special effect. The first person singular
interrogative form ain't I (for am I not or amn't I), considered
as a special case, has somewhat more acceptance than ain't
employed with other pronouns or with nouns. (Ain't I has at least
the virtue of agreement between am and I. With other pronouns, or
nouns, ain't takes the place of isn't and aren't and sometimes of
hasn't and haven't.) But ain't I is unacceptable in writing other
than that which is deliberately colloquial, according to 99 per
cent of the Panel, and unacceptable in speech to 84 per cent. The
example It ain't likely is unacceptable to 99 per cent in both
writing and speech. Aren't I (as a variant of the interrogative
ain't I) is acceptable in writing to only 27 per cent of the
Panel, but approved in speech by 60 per cent. (The American
Heritage Dictionary 1976:27).
According to the Transformationalists, while in consonance with
rewrite rules of generative grammar the contracted form of the
constituent structure "be + neg" rewrites as "amn't", as shown in
the footnote above, in Black English and other Non-Standard
English dialects this is not what occurs at the phonetic or
pronunciation level. It is then, to account for Non-Standard and
Black English usage that by convention in Standard English
orthography the contraction "amn't" is rewritten "ain't". Thus,
we have here culled a fourth sentence from the kernel string or
deep structure;
? pro + pres + be + adv of location
While on the surface structure sentence (4) is different from
sentences (1) thru (3) above, the fact is sentence number (4) has
been derived from the same kernel string and it means the same
thing. This brings us to sentence number (5); He not here.
According to Generative Grammarians, so long as there derives, as
a consequence, no change in the thought or meaning of the
sentence, there are "optional" (as a matter of style) and
"obligatory" (to preserve grammaticality) deletion rules in
English which permit the complete deletion or removal of
constituent features from a structure or sentence altogether. In
fact there are generally three types of transformations that occur
in all languages. Namely they are; deletion, substitution, and
adjunction (See Lehmann, 1972:141). According to the
Transformationalists, one of the most common transformations
applied in Standard English is the complete deletion or removal
of the verb "to be" to derive a final structure. To illustrate
this consider, for example, the sentence:
?"Three women in the group are wearing make-up."
The Transformationalists contend that this sentence has resulted
from a deep structure conjunction, of two sentences, both of
which
originally contained identical noun phrases and identical forms of
the verb "to be" in their kernel strings.
The first sentence being: a) Three women are in the group.
The second sentence being: b) Three women are wearing make-
up.
The Transformationalists posit that, it has been via:
?(1) An embedding transformation (T-Embed)
?(2) An identical noun phrase deletion transformation,
???(T- Id NP Deletion)??
?(3) A deletion of the identical verbal "be" ??? ???(T-be deletion )
that the sentence;
??"Three women in the group are wearing make-up"
has been derived. Let us in stepwise progression perform the
three transformations cited above and derive the final structure:
?? "Three women in the group are wearing make-up."
from the two sentences:
???Three women are in the group
?????and
???Three women are wearing make-up.
We begin, with the deep structure or kernel string for the first
sentence:??a) Three women are in the group
In constituent structure and corresponding lexicon this is
written;
?det + noun + pres + be + adv of location
Three + women + are + in the group
Next, the deep structure or kernel string for the second
sentence: b) Three women are wearing make-up.
In constituent structure and corresponding lexicon this is
written;
det + noun + pres + affix (5) + be + verb +
noun
Three + women + ing + are + wear + make-up
(5) Generative Grammarians contend that as a rule in English when
the verb "to be" functions as an auxiliary or linking verb, an
"ing" affix accompanies it. Thus, it is, by virtue of the fact
that in sentence (b) the "be" verb is functioning as an auxiliary
verb that the affix "ing" is in the kernel string. (See Aurbach,
Cook, Kaplan et. al. 1968)
By performing initially an embedding transformation, (T-Embed) the
entire first sentence;
???"Three women are in the group"
is inserted or embeded into the second sentence, between the noun
phrase and the verb phrase constituents. This yields the
intermediate syntactic structure and lexicon:
? (T Embed)
b)?det + noun
Three + Women
a) (det + noun + pres + be + adv of location)
(Three + women + + are + in the group)
? pres + affix + be + verb + noun
? + ing + are + wear + make-up
[Three women (three women are in the group) are wear
make-up]
Notice that each sentence contains an identical noun phrase (three
women) and they each contain identical forms of the verb "to be",
i.e., the word "are".
By first employing an identical noun phrase deletion (T-Id NP)
transformation, this deletes the second occurrence of the noun
phrase "Three women". That is, the "det + noun" constituents are
removed from the embedded string. This yields the intermediate
syntactic structure and corresponding lexical insertions;
????(T-Id NP Deletion)
b) Det + Noun
Three + women
a) + pres + be + adv of location
? + are + in the group
pres + affix + be + verb + noun
are + wear + make-up
[Three women, are in the group , are wear make-up]
Notice here that, the structure which now remains still contains
two "pres + be" verbals (rewritten as the word "are"). Note also
that this string is somewhat disjointed. That is, as it stands,
this string is not syntactically grammatical. It is therefore
obligatory that a "be" deletion transformation be performed. By
deleting the embedded verb "to be" (are) from the second string,
this yields the constituent structure or string:
????(T - be deletion)
b) det + noun
Three + women
+ adv of location +
+ in the group +
pres + affix + be + verb + noun
+ ing + are + wear + make-up
[ Three women --- in the group --- are -- wear --
makeup]
Lastly, the affix transformation moves the present tense
constituent to the right of the verbal "be" and appends the suffix
constituent "ing" to the right of the main verb "wear". This
yields the final constituent structure and lexicon;
????(T-Affix)
b) det # noun #
Three # women #
a) adv of location
in # the # group
be + pres # verb + affix # noun
are # wear + ing # make-up
[Three # women # in # the # group # are # wear + ing #
make-up] Three women in the group are wearing make-up
Thus, as shown in the above given example, in the grammar rules of
English, as long as no change results in the meaning intended, it
is perfectly consistent, with the underlying syntactic rules, and
permissible to delete "noun phrases" and the verbal "be" without a
change in the meaning. However, posit the Transformationalists,
in Non-Standard and Black English social dialects, the deletion or
removal of the verbal "be" occurs in accordance with the "be"
deletion rules of Non-Standard English and the Black English
dialect. Let us now, in stepwise progression, perform the
transformations which yield sentence number (5) He not here from
the kernel string or constituent structure;
? pro + pres + be + adv of location.
Beginning initially with the placement of the "negative"
constituent in the front of the string, this yields the
constituent structure and lexicon:
?negative pro + pres + be + adv of location
(it is not the case that) He + is/am + here
Applying next the negative transformation, we move the "negative"
constituent from the front of the string and introduce it into the
structure after the verb. Via lexical insertion rules, the "neg"
constituent is rewritten as the word "not". This yields once
again the intermediate constituent structure and lexicon;
??(T-Neg)
?pro + pres + be + not + adv of
location
?He + is/am + not + here
Now, at this juncture, by performing a Black English "be" deletion
transformation, this yields the constituent structure and lexicon:
????(T-be Deletion)
?pro + pres + neg + adv of location
?He + not + here
Note that, as a result of the "be" deletion transformation, in the
deep structure, there is no constituent to which the "pres" or
"present tense" constituent can be affixed and hence, there is no
verbal left upon which an affix transformation can be applied.
The Generative Grammarians posit that, just as in the Standard
English "be" deletion transformation, when the "be" verb is
deleted the "present tense" constituent is also deleted, in Black
English, the "be deletion" transformation is the same. In Black
English the be deletion transformation not only removes the verbal
"be", it deletes the "present tense" constituent also. The
removal of the "pres" constituent from the structure yields the
terminal syntactic structure and lexicon:
??pro # neg # adv of location
??He + not + here
????He not here.
This brings us to our last sentence. Number (6):
???? Hen't here
As has been shown, the Generative Transformationalists contend
that, whereas it is either a contraction transformation, a
contraction and a "Black English lexical insertion" rule, or the
application of a Black English "be" deletion transformation, that
accounts for the differences in sentences (1) thru (5) above,
sentence (6) has been derived via both a "contraction" and a Black
English "be deletion" transformation.
According the Generative Grammarians, in some varieties of Black
English and other Non-Standard dialects of English, what occurs is
not a contraction of the "be" + " neg" constituents to yield the
word "ain't". In some BE dialects, the verb "to be" is deleted
altogether. The remaining "neg" constituent (the word "not") is
then contracted (n't) and appended to the pronoun constituent
"He", with the result being; He + n't here. Let us here, in
stepwise progression, perform the transformations which yield
sentence number (6) Hen't here from the constituent structure;
? pro + pres + be + adv of location
First, the dummy node "negative" is placed in the front of the
string. This yields the constituent structure and lexicon:
?negative + pro + pres + be + adv of
location
(it is not the case that) He + is + here
Next, the negative transformation removes the "negative"
constituent from the front and introduces it into the string after
the verb to be. This yields the constituent structure and
lexicon; ?????(T-Neg)
?pro + pres + be + not + adv of
location
?He + + is/am + not + here
Here instead of a contraction transformation appending the "be"
verbal (am) to the word "not", a Black English "be" deletion
transformation removes the constituent "be" and the "pres"
constituent from the string entirely. This yields the constituent
structure and lexicon;
????(T-be Deletion)
???pro + not + adv of location ?
??He + not + here
Note that, as shown in sentence number (4) because the "pres"
constituent gets removed simultaneously as part of the "be
deletion transformation the application of an affix transformation
is precluded. Generative Grammarians contend that it is here
(after the "be deletion") that, in some dialects of Black English,
a negative (n't) contraction and adjunction transformation is also
performed. This yields the final constituent structure and
lexicon:
? ???(T-Contract)
??pro + n'g # adv of location
??He + n't + here
??? ?Hen't here
And so, here again, as in the case of sentences (1) thru (5), we
have been able to cull yet another sentence that, although
different on the surface structure, is derived from the same
underlying kernel string or deep structure;
??pro + pres + be + adv of location
The critics of the Transformationalist view contend that, being in
fact a method of grammar analysis that does not entail a
comparative analysis of language samples over different periods of
time, clearly the question of historical development, in terms of
how the deep structure of Afro-American Black English and Euro-
American English became one and the same, is not answered or even
addressed by the generative method. That is, historians trace
Afro-American and Euro-American people to two different linguistic
continua - the Africans to Africa and the English Europeans to
Europe. This genesis in Africa is incongruent with the thesis
that in the "deep structure" African American speech is English.
The critics contend that when Generative Transformationalists
employ phrase structure rules, lexical insertion rules, and
transformational derivations to produce sentences that correspond
with contemporary English language events, they are not describing
or comparing Black and White American speech. What they do
instead is construct a hypothetical model of what they propose is
the native speaker of English's competence. Using their
hypothetical model which is not based on actual speech samples and
does not necessarily reflect the grammar that is in an English
speaker's mind, they then propose hypothetical lexical insertion
and transformational rules that are supposed to produce the same
results as the internalized grammar within the minds of English
speakers. The critics contend that when, based solely on their
analysis of hypothetical sentences, produced entirely by
hypothetical generative phrase structure, lexical insertion, and
transformation rules, the Generative grammarians posit the
underlying deep structure of contemporary Afro-American speech as
being a mere Non-Standard social dialect of English, they actually
deny the existence of an African antecedent and beg the question
of genesis. This in that, despite the fact that they acknowledge
that, prior to any contact with English speaking people, the
African ancestors of African American people spoke languages which
had their own "particular grammars", the Generative grammarians
ignore the real world history of a non-English African "particular
grammar" as the base from which African American speech
originates.
A second argument that critics of the Generative Transformational
theory pose is that, even though the grammar of all human
languages consists of a phonetic component, a phonological
component, a morphological component, as well as a syntactic and a
semantic component (see O'Grady et. al. 1993:4), the Generative
Grammarians ask us to blithely assume that syntax is the most
basic level of language and that "the sentence is the basic unit
of grammar that states the rules that will account for a native
speaker's intuitive knowledge of his language (see Bornstein,
1977:20).
The incongruence in this is that, there is not the slightest
justification for the assumption that the speaker of a language
selects the syntactic, lexical and phonetic properties of
structure before selecting the topic, i.e., before deciding what
he is going to talk about (see Chomsky 1972:157). Yet the
Generative Grammarians would have us believe that, "to produce a
sentence, the speaker goes through the successive steps of
constructing a base-derivation, line by line from the initial S,
then inserting lexical items and applying grammatical
transformations to form a surface structure, and finally applying
the phonological rules in their given order" (Chomsky ibid,
1972:156,157).
The fact is, posit the critics, if indeed "underlying the use of
words and sentences to express meaning in human language (there)
is a conceptual system capable of organizing and classifying every
imaginable aspect of our experience, from inner feelings and
perceptions, to cultural and social phenomena" (O'Grady, et. al.
ibid, 1993:217), then only part of the information needed to
determine the meaning of a sentence is provided by syntactic
structures. Therefore, although generative grammars do address
the grammaticized semantic concepts or meanings entailed in
lexical affixes and the functional semantic categories, generative
grammars do not address, "the speaker's and addressee's background
attitudes and beliefs, their understanding of the context in which
a sentence is uttered.." (O'Grady, et. al. ibid, 1993:234). The
essential incongruence is that, the generative transformational
model can only explain the nuances of sentences generated and
transformed by generative transformational rules.
The critics of the generative method contend that relevant to the
interpretation of a sentence is knowledge of "how language can be
used to inform, to persuade, to mislead and so forth" i.e.,
pragmatics (O'Grady, et.al ibid:234). Thus, posit the critics, a
vital weakness of the generative method is its inability to
address "the setting" (the physical environment in which the
sentence is uttered) and "the discourse" (other utterances made in
the speech event). In other words, the "deep semantic" component
of grammar.
In response to their critic's contention that, because their
method of grammar analysis is not based on analysis of corpus
uttrances or actual speech samples, their theory is not valid, the
Generative Grammarians point out that they have never made any
claim that their method of linguistic analysis was synchronic.
Nor have they claimed that the generative method is diachronic
(6). To the contrary, they explain, the concern of generative
theory is with the nature of a persons knowledge of his language,
and the structure in the mind that enables it to construct a
grammar from sense data. As stated earlier, Generative
Transformationalists presuppose the existence of an, "internalized
system of rules that relate sound and meaning in a particular way"
(Chomsky, 1972:26). In their view generative theory "aims, on the
one hand, to determine the systems of rules that constitute
knowledge of a language, and on the other, to reveal the
principles that govern these systems" (Chomsky, ibid:28). The
idealized constructs or models of competence (the hypothesized
underlying generative
6 Diachronic: A diachronic statement is a statement about a
change or changes that took place over a period of time.
(Wardhaugh, 1972:11) Historical (diachronic) linguistics, for
example, in studying the changes that occur in a given code over
time (sound changes, grammatical changes, and word changes) has of
necessity been interested in human migrations, intergroup contacts
(conquest, trade)...Historical linguistics (also known as
comparative linguistics) focuses on tracing how one, earlier,
parent ("proto") code subsequently divided into several related
but separate ("sister" or "daughter") codes. (Fishman, 1972:13,14)
process in human language) i.e., generative grammar "attempts to
characterize in an explicit way the intrinsic association of
phonetic form and semantic content in a particular language" (see
Chomsky, ibid:126).
The Transformationalists contend that, notwithstanding the fact
that their method does not attempt to trace and establish specific
historical linguistic processes and events, the rules and
procedures of generative transformational grammar provide
substantial illumination and very insightful information about the
principles that enable a native speaker of English to produce and
understand an infinite number of English sentences. According to
the Transformationalists, since they have never claimed that their
method of analysis was historical nor that their task was to
account for and explain historical linguistic events, criticisms
of their method as not being historical or descriptive are absurd.
In their view, in as much as the task of the generative
transformational method has always and only been to precisely
analyze and correctly describe what native speakers of English
intuitively know about the underlying rules of English grammar,
their postulation, that Black and White American speech has the
same "deep structure", is empirically valid. As for the process
by which Afro-American and Euro-American speech became one and the
same, the Generative Transformationalists view is that, all human
beings belong to the same species (homo sapiens). They reason
that, language being a specie specific attribute of homo sapiens
(see Chomsky, ibid:79, 102) all human languages emanate from a
common or specie specific base. In their view, if all human
languages emanate from a common or species specific base then, in
their underlying deep structure, all human languages are akin.
The Transformationalists reason that, if all human languages are
akin, then the universal base of African languages and European
languages has always been the same. As for the manifest
differences that define and distinguish human languages one from
the other, the Generative Grammarians contend that the differences
that exist is only in their "particular grammars", not in their
universal base or underlying "universal grammar". In other words,
as evidenced by properties found universally in the grammars of
all human languages, the "specie specific" deep structure of all
human languages is the same.
But then, posit the Africanists critics of the
Transformationalists view, if this is so, i.e., if all human
languages have a common universal base and it is only in their so-
called "particular grammars" that human languages differ, then the
postulation that all human languages have a common underlying deep
structure (universal base) assumes to be fact that which has not
been proved. That is, there is no empirical evidence that the
proto language of all homo sapiens was a single unitary system.
Moreover, if all human languages have a common universal base and
it is only in their "particular grammars" that all human languages
differ, then assuming the Generative Grammarians regard Africans
as being human, the conclusion is inescapable that before any
contact with English speaking Europeans, captive Niger-Congo
African slaves spoke Niger-Congo African languages that contained
their own "particular grammars". Now, if the "particular grammar"
of the native language of slave descendants of African origin
today is English, then what the Transformationalists in fact posit
is that, African slaves broke with or discontinued their Niger-
Congo African "particular grammars". That is, African slaves
internalized the underlying "particular grammar" rules of English
and adopted the "particular grammar" rules of English as their
native language.
According to the Africanists, if indeed Africans internalized the
"particular grammar" rules of English, then what is inferred also
is that, having given up the "particular grammars" of their Niger-
Congo African languages and accepted the "particular grammar" of
English as their mother tongue, as a result of this, today, in
both their universal base and in their "particular grammars", the
underlying deep structure of Black and White American speech is
the same (English). As for the differences that exist, the
Generative Grammarians' explanation is that these are surface
deviations made by Blacks, from the Standard or ideally competent
English usage.
Thus, even though the Transformationalist concede that Africans
had languages in Africa and that the Niger-Congo African languages
contained their own "particular grammars", rather than acknowledge
that the undeniable differences that exist in Standard American
English and the so-called Black English of African Americans is
directly related to and derived from the postulated "particular
grammars" of the West and Niger-Congo languages of Africa, the
Transformationalist deny the African antecedant.
Like their Euro-centric and white supremacist Pidgin/Creolist
counterparts, the Transformationalists put forth a white
supremacist thesis of Black linguistic deviance. That is, the
Generative Grammarians contend that Black American speech is
indeed English, but then they contend that Black speech deviates
from the "norm", i.e., the "Standard" or the "ideally compentent"
usage. The clear implication is that, even though the African
captives had the cortical capacity to grasp and internalize the
underlying "deep structure" of the "particular grammar" of English
(at least sufficiently to make English their native language) the
African captives and their descendants were cortically limited in
their ability to comprehend the higher cortical subtleties and
nuances of the ideally competent usage, - Standard American
English. Thus Black English is deviant in its "surface
structure".
The Africanist critics contend that it is in their positing the
existence of an "ideal competence" in human language that
Transformationalists reveal their white supremacists bent.
Standard American English does not exist. It is a mental fiction.
Yet, the Transformationalists act as if SAE does exist and as if
their generative method of grammar analysis presents a very exact
model of SAE competence. The problem or incongruence being, as
Fromkin and Rodman attest; (ibid 1975:259)
"SAE is an idealization. Nobody speaks this dialect, and if
somebody did, we wouldn't know it because SAE is not defined
precisely. Several years ago there actually was an entire
conference devoted to one subject: a precise definition of
SAE. This convocation of scholars did not succeed in
satisfying everyone as to what SAE should be..".
The Africanist critics of the generative theory ask, if SAE is
merely an idealization that nobody speaks and it is not precisely
defined, then to what is African American so-called "Black
English" being compared when the Generative Grammarians posit it
as being just a different dialect of English?
The Africanist critics contend that, in their use of generative
phrase structure rules and lexical insertion rules to generate
syntactical patterns that they deemed to be the "ideally"
competent usage, in essence what the Generative Grammarians
attempt to do is reify a White vs Black American linguistic
diglossia (7). That is, from a purely linguistic standpoint there
is no dialect of any language that is inherently superior or
inferior to another. Therefore, even if we assume that Black
American speech is a dialect of English, the Black dialect of
English should not be viewed as being less valid as a dialect than
the dialect of Whites.
Yet, when we look at what the Generative Grammarians produce via
generative rules and regard as being the "ideally competent"
(Standard English) usage, it is not the patterns that more closely
approximates the African American's usage but the patterns of the
Euro-American's English dialect that is the "Standard or 'high'
English variety. Thus, the Africanist critics ask, how and by
what criteria did the Generative Grammarians decide what is and is
(7) Diglossia: The presence in a language of two standards, a
'high' language used for formal occasions and in written texts,
and a 'low' language used in colloquial conversation...(Hartmann
and Stork, 1976:67)
not "Standard" English? The fact of the matter is, contend the
Africanist critics, because of their Euro-centric and ipso facto
white supremacist bent, what the Transformationalists actually
infer is that, even though Black English is a dialect of English,
the African's capacity to comprehend and perform in its ideally
competent usage has been only slightly above that of "Gua",
"Viki", "Washoe", "Sarah" "Koko", "Nim Chimpsky" and "Kanzi" - the
various chimpanzees and gorillas, that have been taught systems of
communication that somewhat resemble human language. (see Fromkin,
Rodman 1993:424)
In sum, the only difference in the Pidgin/Creole theory and the
Transformationalists view is that whereas, the Pidgin/Creolists
view is that, on the evolutionary scale, at best the cortical
capacity of an African to grasp and emulate real human speech has
been on a par with that of a mynah bird or parrot, the Generative
Transformationalists are a bit more generous. They posit the
Niger-Congo African people and their descendants as having had the
cortical capacity to have internalized the "particular grammars"
of the European languages with competence on a par with a human.
But, in terms of their generative or mimicry skills, their
performance is not much better than that of the lower primates.
References
Ambrose-Grillet (1978) Glossary of Tranformational Grammar
Rowley, Massachusetts. Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1976)
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. (p.27, 572).
Aurbach, Joseph; Cook, Phillip H; Kaplan, Robert B; Tufte,
Virginia J. (1968) Transformational Grammar: A Guide for Teachers,
Rockville, Maryland. English Language Services.
Bornstein, Diane D. (1977). An Introduction to Transformational
Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers, Inc.
Brosnahan, L.F., Malmberg, Bertil (1970). Introduction to
Phonetics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1972) Language And Mind New York. Harcourt Brace
Janovich,
Dillard, J.L. (1973) Black English: It History and Usage In the
United States New York (P:303) Random House Vintage Press.
Fishman, Joshua (1975) Sociolinguistics: A brief Introduction.
Rowley, Massachusetts. Newbury House Language Series.
Fromkin, Victoria and Rodman Robert (1978) An Introduction to
Language New York; Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Hartmann, R.R.K., Stork, F.C. (1976). Dictionary of Language and
Linguistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Jacobs, Roderick A., Rosenbaum, Peter S., Postal, Paul M. (1968).
English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Massachusetts:
Blaisdell Publishing Company.
Lehman, Winfred P. (1972). Descriptive Linguistics: An
Introduction. New York: Random House, Inc.
O'Grady, W. Dobrovolsky, M. and Arnoff, M. (1993) Contemporary
Linguistics an Introduction New York: St Martins Press.
Smith, Ernie A. (1994). The Historical Development of African
African American Language Los Angeles CA. Watts Collage Press.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. (1972). Introduction to Linguistics. New York
San Francisco (P:121). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Wolfram, Walt. (1972) Sociolinguistic Premises and the Nature of
Non-Standard Dialects In Molefi Asante (Arthur Smith) Edited
Language Communication and Rhetoric in Black America (P:31). New
York; Harper and Row.
About ASCAC | Conferences & Events | African World View | African Market Place | Links