But first, we’re gonna take a look at where was the TGG itself originated from.
These are movie whose main actor is the guy who arrange the term TGG.
American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate.
The transformational grammar formed the basis for many subsequent theories of human grammatical knowledge. Since Chomsky's original presentation, many different theories have emerged. Although current theories differ significantly from the original, the notion of a transformation remains a central element in most models.
The simplest way I can explain it is that transformational-generative grammar (TGG) has as its largest unit of analysis the sentence. It does not examine the structure of linguistic utterances above the level of the sentence or clause; that's the realm of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). Systemic functional grammar (SFG), or systemic functional linguistics (SFL), is a model of language that has, as its top-level unit of analysis, not just discourse units, but entire genres of text. You might also say that SFL is more textually oriented than TGG.
Deep structure and surface structure
In 1957, Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure. The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence, and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. Chomsky believed there are considerable similarities between languages' deep structures, and that these structures reveal properties, common to all languages that surface structures conceal. However, this may not have been the central motivation for introducing deep structure. Transformations had been proposed prior to the development of deep structure as a means of increasing the mathematical and descriptive power of context-free grammars. Similarly, deep structure was devised largely for technical reasons relating to early semantic theory. Chomsky emphasizes the importance of modern formal mathematical devices in the development of grammatical theory: But the fundamental reason for [the] inadequacy of traditional grammars is a more technical one. Although it was well understood that linguistic processes are in some sense "creative," the technical devices for expressing a system of recursive processes were simply not available until much more recently. In fact, a real understanding of how a language can (in Humboldt's words) "make infinite use of finite means" has developed only within the last thirty years, in the course of studies in the foundations of mathematics.
Here’s the transformation model
We will now apply the theory of the model of the transformation. Here applies what is called the WH-Movement. What is WH-Movement? Let’s take a look on some examples. John read the book The book was read by John
George saw Mary
However, this is the general way how the transformation applies (or) this is how the transformation applies in general. Actually there are two types of the transformation itself
Basically, there are two ways in analyzing the transformation, two ways how we apprehend the transformation.
This is where the D-structure and S-structure applies. You can answer the question by saying one of these expressions. But no matter how you construct the structure to form your own answer, they are all S-structure, they’re just modifications that you get from transforming its grammar, saya tidak tahu become tidak tahu saya, you switch the position of the subject, saya tidak tahu become tidak tahu, you get rid of the subject, but they’re all S-structure. The point of you answer matters, the point of your answer is that YOU DON’T KNOW. And that’s what we call D-structure.
Instead of saying “Kayaknya warna merah terlalu nge-jreng.”, you say “Biru, kamu terlihat lebih anggun, Sayang.” here, you also apply transformation, but here you are doing it in a more complex way. You switch the subject with another subject, verb with another verb, so that you sentence will become more respectful, and in some way, romantic to your wife. You apply transformation by saying “Biru, kamu terlihat lebih anggun, Sayang.”, However, that is the S-structure. The D-structure is that “red is too eyecatching”.
TG can result in 2 terms, paraphrase and ambiguity.
Transformational Generative Grammar
By group 2
• Firdaus Asas
• Hanri Anggariawan
• Ayu Aprilianti
• Yuni Ningtyas
Difference bet.TG andTGG
Deep Structure and Surface Structure
Ways of Analyzing theTransformation
Definitionof transformational generative grammar
• Transformational grammar or transformational-generative grammar (TG,
TGG) is a generative grammar, especially of a natural language, that
involves the use of defined operations called transformations to produce
new sentences from existing ones. (Wikipedia)
• Generative Grammar is defined as a description in the form of a set of rules
for producing the grammatical sentence of a language. (merriam-
• Transformational generative grammar is a set of grammar rules that are
used when basic clauses are combined to form more complex sentences.
• Transformational grammar is a set of rules that indicates the structure and
interpretation of sentences which native speakers of a language accept as
belonging to the language. (about.com)
• Traditional grammar is based on the descriptive grammar used to teach
Latin for centuries while generative grammar was conceived as a way of
describing language structures.
• Based on the definitions I could actually understand, it looks likeTG focuses
on building language from small parts (subject, verb, etc.) whileTGG
focuses on “linguistic transformations and phrase structures.” (tri.du)
TG : Prescriptive
It prescribes how people
‘should’ produce language.
TGG : Descriptive
It describes the ‘ORDER’ in
which to put words and
phrases. prescribes how
people ‘should’ produce
Deep structure and surface structure
• The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence,
and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the
phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations.
• The surface structure is the structure of a well-formed phrase or sentence in
a language, as opposed to its underlying abstract representation.
John read the book
The book was read by John.
George saw Mary
-”Who did George see?”
-”Who saw Mary?”
types of transformation
•Best of all would be to
get a job in Willingham.
•On long wall hung a row
of van Goghs.
•There is the dog.
•Down came the rain.
•There’s your sister.
•To get a job in Willingham
would be best of all
•A row of van Goghs hung
On long wall
•The dog is there.
•The rain came down.
•Your sister’s there.
•Never again did I think of
•On no account must he
•So badly was he affected by
•Not a word did he say
•Never have I seen it.
•I never thought of
•He must strain on no account
•He was affected by the virus
•He did not say a word
•I have never seen it
Ways of analyzing the transformation
Syntactic and semantic
• If you are asked a question and you do not know what the answer is,
you’d probably say …
Syntactic and semantic (cont.)
• If you are asked by your wife to select her a gown, red or blue, you do not
like the red one because it is too eyecatching,…
merah terlalu nge-
“Biru, kamu terlihat
When several surface
structures relate to one deep
1. John bought the book
2. Mary sold the book to
3. The book was sold to
John by Mary.
One surface structure relate
to several deep structures.
Flying planes can be
1. To fly planes.
2. Planes which are flying.