Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:14:51.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transformational grammar and the layering of structure in Tamil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

T. Kandiah
T. Kandiah
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, Ceylon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In each of the following pairs of sentences, the verb in (a) is intuitively apprehended as being related in some significant way to that in (b): (1) a. The rice grew b. The fanner grew the rice (2) a. The barge sank b. The storm sank the barge (3) a. The coconut dropped b. The man dropped the coconut (4) a. The cart turned b. The driver turned the cart (5) a. The laws changed b. The Government changed the laws (6) a. The mourners collected b. He collected the mourners (7) a. The boat sailed b. The fisherman sailed the boat (8) a. The meeting began b. The Chairman began the meeting For transformational grammarians working on English, the delineation of the kind of relationship illustrated here is vital for the achievement of (at least) descriptive adequacy in their analysis of the language. Deeper investigation of the relationship has, however, revealed that concealed beneath its apparent simplicity there are certain highly complicated problems with fundamental and far-rseaching implications for the theory of transformational grammar itself.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 1968 , pp. 217 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. M. (1968). Ergative and nominative in English. JL 4. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (1964a). An Introduction to Transformational Grammars. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1964b). Subcategories in transformational grammars. In Lunt, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1949). The fundamental syntactic relations. Ćasopis Moderni Filologi.Google Scholar
Caldwell, R. (1875). A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages, 2nd ed.London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1963). Formal properties of grammar. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1965). Proposal concerning English prepositions.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (forthcoming). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Symposium on Language Universals. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. JL 3. 37–81 and 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandiah, T. (1967). The Syntax of the verb in Tamil. Ph.D. dissertation (unpublished), University of London.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1965). On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. (Report No. NSF-16.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Computational Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1964). Limitations of phrase structure grammars. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1959). In defence of WP. TPhS 116–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar