transformational grammar

(redirected from I-language)
Also found in: Encyclopedia.

transformational grammar

n.
A grammar that accounts for the constructions of a language by linguistic transformations and phrase structures, especially a generative grammar.

transformational grammar

n
(Grammar) a grammatical description of a language making essential use of transformational rules. Such grammars are usually but not necessarily generative grammars. Compare systemic grammar, case grammar

transforma′tional gram′mar


n.
a system of grammatical analysis, esp. a form of generative grammar, that posits the existence of deep structure and surface structure and uses a set of transformational rules to derive surface structure forms from deep structure.
[1960–65]

transformational grammar

Grammar that studies ways in which grammatical elements are rearranged to change meaning.
References in periodicals archive ?
I-language is the system of knowledge that resides in the speakers' brains, and which underlies their linguistic performance.
Below, I will present some observations and arguments in favour of this dialogic view of the relation between I-language and E-language in the domain of morphology.
Be inclusive by avoiding "I-language." As a young parent, I remember hearing that it was effective to tell my children, "I need you to do " It was supposed to focus them, and per haps remind them who was boss.
Chomsky redirects the focus of linguistic investigation to the individual mind, (15) developing the notion of I-language, in contradistinction to the external and extensional force of E-language.
The effects of perceptions about using I-language and about assessing their self-image on the assertiveness levels were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe test (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2004).
An I-language cannot exist independently of the human mind (it is a property of the mind--brain).
Minimalist Grammar (MG, hereafter) assumes that I-Language generates mind-internal representations that the conceptual-intentional systems (C-I, hereafter) "interpret." The "generative" role is, therefore, prima facie attributed to I-Language, particularly to its Computational Component (CHL, hereafter), not to the C-I systems, whose participation is a posteriori and merely "interpretive," although what they contribute is a substantial part of the lay view of "meaning." Nevertheless, it is I-Language, its Lexicon and its CHL, particularly "narrow syntax," that generates the "legible" objects that the C-I systems derive interpretations from.
Chapter 1's introduction to E-language and I-language, principles and parameters, structure dependency, and the modular language faculty might seem daunting, but in fact offers a very readable guide to the fundamental premisses of generative linguistics.
Following Chomsky (see Chomsky's The Minimalist Program (1995) and Knowledge of Language (1986)), Ludlow adopts a view of language according to which language is not an external public object established by convention, but is rather an internal system that is part of our biological endowment--"I-language" in Chomsky's terminology.
The parser associates structural descriptions with expressions; the I-language generates structural descriptions for each expression.
Let us tentatively call a state of the cognitive system of Jones's language faculty a "language" - or to use a technical term, an "I-language", "I" to suggest "internal", "individual", since this is a strictly internalist, individualist approach to language, analogous in this respect to studies of the visual system.(9) If the cognitive system of Jones's language faculty is in state L, we will say that Jones has the I-language L.
Language is a species-specific endowment of humans, whereas mental grammars (I-language) are specific to the human mind.