A COMPARATIVE ROLE OF TRADITIONAL AND
TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE GRAMMAR IN
LANGUAGE DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
BY
NITE, SCHOLAR .U.
REG. NO: PG/MA/04/39217
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
SUPERVISOR: DR. P.A. EZEMA
APRIL 2012
1
TITLE PAGE
A COMPARATIVE ROLE OF TRADITIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONALGENERATIVE GRAMMAR IN LANGUAGE DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
2
APPROVAL PAGE
This project has been approved by the Department of English and Literary Studies,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
By
--------------------------DR P.A EZEMA
SUPERVISOR
----------------------------PROF. A.N. AKWANYA
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
-----------------------------------EXTERNAL EXAMINER
3
CERTIFICATION
I certify that Nite Scholarstica Udoka, a postgraduate student in the Department
of English and Literary Studies with Registration number PG/MA/04/39217 has
satisfactorily completed the requirements for the course and research work for the degree
of Masters of Arts in English as a second language.
The work embodied in this thesis has not been submitted in part or full for
any diploma or degree of this or any other university.
--------------------------Dr P.A. Ezema
Supervisor
----------------------------Prof. A.N. Akwanya
Head of Department
----------------------------External Examiner
4
DEDICATION
This research work is dedicated to my husband, Mr E.C. Nite.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to my project supervisor, Dr P.A. Ezema. He was kind and patient
in correcting all my errors throughout my research work, you are a rare and wonderful
star. I really enjoyed every bit of my encounter with you. They were quite enriching and
rewarding. I pray that God will reward you.
My special thanks go to the entire staff of the department of English and Literary
studies especially Rev. Fr. Prof. A.N. Akwanya, Head, Department of English and
Literary Studies. I am grateful for the cooperation, encouragement and corrections he
has given me throughout the process of this study.
I would like to extend my appreciation to Prof. Sam Onuigbo, Prof. Damian
Opata, Dr. Chibuzo Onunkwo etc. for their professional advice and contribution towards
the successful completion of this work.
My appreciation goes to my husband, Mr. E.C. Nite for his financial support and
encouragement.
I am also indebted to my brother, Mr. Emeka Anthony Obi (Nchedoobi), for his
financial support. He always gives listening ears anytime I call on him for financial
support.
I also acknowledge those whose works were consulted during the course of this
research.
6
Finally, my success would not have been possible without the assistance of God
Almighty, Who kept me fit until the end of the programme. I say to you and you alone
God of power and mighty be all glory and majesty now forever, amen.
7
ABSTRACT
English is very important language for the purpose of education, commerce,
mass media and also the language for interethnic communication. An adequate
knowledge of English is an indispensable requirement for anyone who wishes
to interact with other different English speaking countries.
Consequently, there have been complaints that the teaching of English language
in our school is not very effective. It would seem that it is actually becoming
lower rather than improving. The reason is that the teaching of grammar is deemphasized.
The purpose of this project is to seek for a way of improving on the English
language. This research
evaluates the relevance of traditional and
transformational – generative grammars to language teaching and learning with
particular reference to the English language.
The thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter one is the introduction while
chapter two reviews the works of other experts on the topic of the study.
Chapter three discusses the contributions of traditional grammar to language
teaching and learning. Chapter four examines the roles of transformational –
generative grammar in language teaching and learning. In chapter five, an
evaluation of two grammars is done pedagogically followed by the conclusion.
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Title page
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
Approval page
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ii
Certification -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iii
Dedication
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acknowledgments- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
v
Abstract
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
vi
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
vii
1.1
Brief Definition of Grammar
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1.2
The Roles of Grammar in Language Teaching -
-
-
-
2
1.3
The Status of English in Nigeria -
-
-
-
-
4
1.4
Language Acquisition Versus Language Learning
-
-
-
7
1.5
Statement of the Problems -
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
1.6
Purpose of the Study
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
2.1
Importance of Grammar in Language Teaching -
-
-
-
13
2.2
An Evaluative Study of Traditional Grammar to Language
-
-
-
15
-
-
Table of Contents
-
-
iv
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Teaching and Learning
2.3
-
-
-
An Evaluative Study of Transformational Generative
Grammar
2.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
The Theories of Language Learning
-
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
-
-
-
18
2.4.1 Behaviorists Approach
-
-
-
9
2.4.2 The Nativist View
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
2.4.3 Interactionist View -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
10
2.5
The Influence of Linguistic Theories and Description
on Language Teaching
2.6
-
-
-
Methods of Language Teaching and Learning
-
-
-
-
21
-
-
-
-
24
2.6.1 The Audio Lingual Method -
-
-
-
-
-
2.6.2 Grammar Translation Method
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
2.6.3 Direct Methods
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
14
-
2.6.4 The Eclectic Method
CHAPTER THREE: TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
3.1
Background Information on Traditional Grammar
3.2
The Roles of Traditional Grammar in Language
Description and Analysis -
3.2.1 Parts of Speech
-
-
3.2.2 Phrase and Clausal Analysis
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
3.2.3 Sentence Analysis
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
3.2.4 Case Analysis
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
3.2.5 Tenses and Aspect -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
3.2.6 Phonology
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
Criticism Leveled against Traditional Grammar
-
-
-
21
-
-
-
24
3.3
-
-
CHAPTER FOUR: TRANFORMATION GRAMMAR
4.1
Background Information on Transformational
Generative Grammar
4.2
-
-
-
-
The Roles of Transformational-Generative Grammar
11
in Language Description and Analysis
-
-
-
25
4.2.1 Difference Between Competence and Performance
-
-
-
25
4.2.2 Existence of Deep and Surface Structure -
-
-
-
-
25
4.2.3 Innate Theory of Language Acquisition -
-
-
-
-
27
4.2.4 Resolution of Ambiguity
-
-
-
-
28
4.2.5 Difference Between Grammatically and Ungrammatical
-
-
29
4.2.6 Distinction between L – and E – Languages
-
-
-
-
30
4.2.7 Use of Complex and Abstract Rules
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
36
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Criticism Leveled against Transformational
Generative Grammar
-
-
-
CHAPTER FIVE: EVALUATION OF THE TWO
GRAMMARS ON PEDAGOGIC GROUND
5.1
Evaluation of Traditional Grammar on Pedagogic Ground
5.2
Evaluation of Transformational-Generative
5.3
Grammar of Pedagogic Ground
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
Conclusion -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
39
Works Cited -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BRIEF DEFINITIONS OF GRAMMMAR
Before going into the discussion of the above topic, it may be necessary
to make an effort to get clear in our minds the senses in which the word
„Grammar‟ is used in this thesis since different people have different notions of
the term „Grammar‟. Grammar according to the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol
5: 410), is a set of rules of language governing the sounds, words, sentences and
other elements as well as their combination and interpretation.
Boadi et al (1968: 8), quoting Tomori, observe four different notions of
grammar. The first notion is that of grammar as the quality of linguistic
competence of a speaker of a language, a quality determined from the quality of
the person‟s actual performance in speech. The second notion is that grammar is
seen as a book embodying the morphological and syntactic rules of a particular
language. In the third definition, they see Grammar as a set of descriptive
statement about the syntax and morphology of a language.
Finally, grammar is also understood by them as prescriptive rules about
how a language should be written or spoken.
13
By looking at these definitions carefully, one thing will occur to us; that
is, that language functions as a system based on a set of rules. Our present-day
knowledge of language has convinced us that any speaker of a language
consciously or unconsciously applies these rules (rightly or wrongly) when he
writes or speaks that language. Grammar, as conceived in this paper, therefore,
deals with the rules that govern the internal structure of every language. The
reason for the study of grammar is to make our knowledge of language more
complete.
1.2
THE ROLES OF GRAMMAR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Grammar is the instrument of language teaching. In the grammar of every
language, each utterance is put together according to some principles which
determine what are used, the form and the order of the words. It is in view of
this that De Saussure (1916) observes that languages are interrelated and each
term depends solely upon the other ones. This view of language, as shown by
Saussure, forms the basis of modern linguistics. It is a basic feature of a
language system that the functioning parts hang together and condition one
another. The result is that each part acquires a contrastive value which it derives
from its membership in the system. This is why the concern of linguists is to
14
investigate critically the structure of a language through controlled and
verifiable observations. Commenting on the importance of grammar, Brook
(1964) asserts that we must bear in mind that grammar is to language what
anatomy is to the human body. Every living body and even a dead one are
bound to have anatomy. The same is true of language and grammar. To say that
grammar can be brushed aside as inconsequential or irrelevant is of course
nonsense.
Moreover, grammar helps in the study of the nature of language. Each
language has a grammar and what distinguishes man‟s language from that of
other creatures is that man‟s language is grammatical. Grammar studies the
various characteristics which language displays. Oji (1988) observes that in
language teaching and learning, especially in a second language situation, the
knowledge of grammar is essential in the mastery of any given language.
Crystal (2004) however, sees grammar as the structural foundation of our
ability to express ourselves. The more we are aware of how it works the more
we can monitor the meaning and effectives of the way we and others use
language. It can help foster precision, detect ambiguity and exploit the richness
of expression available in English. It can help everyone, not only teachers of
15
English, but teachers of every subject, for all teaching is ultimately a matter of
coming to grips with meaning.
1.3
THE STATUS OF ENGLISH IN NIGERIA
English is a second language in Nigeria. English is a second language in
the sense that the users have their own indigenous languages but use English
mandatorily in official and public life because of the existence of a multilingual
nature of the country. Most of the African countries belong to these groups that
use English as their second language. Crystal (1985), one of the language
experts estimates that 1400 million people use English as a second language in
the world. Ogbuefi (2003) asserts that the existence of many apparently
unrelated languages in Nigeria makes it imperative for English to be adopted as
the official language in Nigerian environment.
From the time the English language is introduced in Nigeria, its
importance has continued to increase. Bambose (1971) remarks that of all the
heritages left in Nigeria by the British at the end of the colonial administration,
probably none is more important than the English language. Ukwuegbu et al
(2002) also comment on the importance of the English language. They maintain
that the perennial poor level of performance in the English language at the
senior school certificate examination (SSCE) and the University Matriculation
16
Examination (UME) has always been a cause of worry for the linguists. The
education failure is often an indication of language failure. What they are trying
to emphasize is that of all the subjects the candidates take in the Senior School
Certificate Examination, none is as crucial as the English Language. It is a
subject that candidates must pass if their overall success in the examination is to
have any value. Okoro (2003) expresses the same idea this way: For admission
into the university and other higher institutions, a credit pass in the English
Language is essential for any course of study in addition to satisfying the
relevant subject requirements in the chosen area. Use of English is a
compulsory paper at the University Matriculation Examination.
The importance of the English language is not only for the purpose of
education but also for commerce, mass media and as the language for
interethnic communication. An adequate knowledge of English is an
indispensible requirement for anyone who wishes to interact with other
different English speaking countries.
However, Wilking (1990:529), quoting Collinge, submits that it is not
possible to achieve a full competence in a second language situation. According
to him, a less than full competence should be the target of the second language
learner. In the same way, Ikara (1984:9) states that no matter how hard
17
Nigerians try, they cannot speak the English language exactly as the native
speakers of the language, just as no Englishman can speak a Nigerian language
as perfectly as a native speaker of that language. He goes further to say that our
study of English in Nigeria must take account of the socio-cultural condition of
the country.
From these, we can rightly conclude that, first, all the major functions of
language enumerated are performed in varying degrees by the English language
in Nigeria and secondly, the competence in the use of English is necessary for
any Nigerian who wishes to speak the language perfectly as the native speaker
of that language.
18
1.4
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION VERSUS LANGUAGE LEARNING
The two words „acquisition‟ and „learning‟ should be used to reflect the
situation between child language acquisition and adult language learning.
Acquisition is concerned with the question of how children acquire the
grammar of their native languages. It is the gradual development of ability in a
language by using it naturally in a communicative situation. One of the
questions which the acquisition theory seeks to answer is how and when do
children develop the initial grammar of the language they are acquiring and
what are the subsequent stages they go through in their grammatical
development. Krashen (1973) on his part sees acquisition as a sub-conscious
process which results in the knowledge of a language whereas learning results
only in knowing about the language. Children generally produce their first
recognizable word (e.g. mama or daddy) by the age of 12 months. For the next
six months or so, there is little apparent evidence of grammatical development
although the child‟s productive vocabulary typically increases by about three
words a month. This children‟s progress in their language acquisition is
determined by a biologically endowed language faculty for developing a
grammar on the basis of their linguistic experience. Chomsky (1972) notes that
children acquiring a language will observe people around them use the language
19
which they hear and the contexts in which the language is used. This experience
serves as the input in the child‟s language faculty which provides the child with
the grammar of the language being acquired. Radford (1998) quoting Chomsky
states the idea this way:
Whatever evidence we do have seems to me to support the
view that the ability to acquire and use language is a
species… specific… principles that determine the nature of
human language and are rooted in the specific character of
the human mind.
First, language acquisition has been described as natural, natural in the sense
that the strategies for its study are determined by the learner himself. They are
not imposed by any teacher. This process of learning is also referred to as
learning in an informal way.
Language learning on the other hand is the process of learning another
language after the first language (L1) has been acquired. This entails acquiring
a command of a language to the level that is adequate for the communication
purposes of the individual. This means among other things that the learner must
be understood and the members of the speech community must find his speech
acceptable. The process of learning in this situation is quite different from
20
acquiring a mother tongue. According to Obi (1966:47), this type of learning
implies a formal learning situation with a teacher in front of the class, with
feedback and error corrections, rules learning, and artificial environment that
introduces aspects of grammar one at a time. So learning in this situation is
learning in a conscious way.
Another important difference between language acquisition and second
language learning lies in the factor of time. A child acquiring a language is
constantly practicing it, day in and day out, for years, before he acquires the
natural mastery of the adult speaker. The time available for second language
learning on the other hand is measured in hours rather than years.
Some linguists maintain that child language acquisition and adult
language learning are virtually the same. Corder (1973:113), argues that as far
as child language acquisition and adult language learning are concerned, it is
the learner, teacher and the linguistic data in which learning takes place that are
different. He maintains that the process of learning something is not actually
different from the original learning process because the child‟s grammar
constantly changes and develops.
The concept of language universal is used to support the argument in
favour of the similarities between the two language developmental processes.
21
It is argued that with the knowledge of language universal already, a learner‟s
progress in any language, whether his native language or a foreign language,
learning is simply a re-play, a re-enactment or an adaptation of existing skills
and knowledge and not a relearning of any new skill.
Moreover, the two learners, the child acquiring a language and an adult
learning a language make use of rule formation. The child draws his hypothesis
from his native language to formulate rules. An adult language learner also
formulates rules from the data provided by the language he is learning.
1.5
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS
The teaching of the English language in our schools is not very high. Not
only this: it would seem that they are actually becoming lower rather than
improving. The reason is that the teaching of grammar is de-emphasized not
minding the roles it plays in standard education. Grammar is a necessary
condition for the use and is the core of communicative competence. The general
ability to use language is predicted upon the knowledge of grammar of each
particular language. Moreover, the ability to produce and understand any
general and some specific text written in the English language depends solely
on knowledge of grammar. There can be no communicative competence
22
without grammatical competence. The knowledge of grammar is essential for a
competent use of language. Moreover, the teachers of English have been
increasingly abandoning the teaching of grammar at almost every level. In the
early days of teaching English, teachers tend to rely solely on initiation. In the
later years, it seems that they put their trust in God. Significantly, even those
who continue to teach „Grammar‟ of a sort often do so half-heartedly and with
mistaken ideas of what grammar ought to be. Based on this, many linguists
have been challenged to solve completely the staggering complexities of the
language.
1.6
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this research is not to apportion blames but to seek a way
of improving on the English language. Based on this, therefore the research
makes a comparative study of the roles of Traditional and Transformational
Generative Grammars in language description and analysis. This research
therefore evaluates the relative relevance of traditional and TransformationalGenerative Grammars to language teaching and learning with particular
reference to the English language.
The project will throw more light on the contributions and criticisms of
each grammar. Doing this will help us to know the contributions of each
23
grammar to the present–day English grammar and also increase our knowledge
of the language. The significance of this research is to create more awareness of
a grammar that is suitable for teaching and learning, as well as a method that
will embody the good aspects of other grammars that have existed before.
24
CHAPTER TWO
A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1
IMPORTANCE OF GRAMMAR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING
AND LEARNING
When we start to talk about „grammar‟, we have to be very carefully
indeed, because grammar is one of the many words in English which may have
very different meanings for different people according to their educational
background and experiences. It can also be used by same people with quite
different meanings on different occasions. Yule (1985:87) states that grammar
involves the study and analysis of the structures found in a language. Adejare
(1982:92) observes that „Grammar‟ is the basic of communicative competence
and anything that is appropriate in any context must necessarily be
grammatical. According to him, if there is no structure, there will exist no range
of meanings and there will be nothing from which to make choice which is
appropriate for the context.
Gimson (1980), quoting Wallis, says that communication is the heart and
soul of human experience and that communication processes include speaking,
listening and writing. According to him, nobody actually learns grammar to
25
learn his/her own mother tongue. It is a natural phenomenon that we start
speaking what everybody speaks around us. We gradually develop a better
sense of understanding with the passage of time when we come to learning a
new language like the English Language, we need to study its grammar. So the
importance of grammar cannot be neglected. Saussaure (1916), states that in the
lives of individuals and societies, language is a factor of greater importance
than any other thing. It is equally clear that the most revealing theory of
language is the one which follows the form of the grammar. Hodges and Kness
(1973) do not hide their feelings but argue that the grammar of language is its
theory of reality. So language and its grammar are inseparable.
Moreover, speaking on the importance of grammar in language teaching
and learning, Palmer (1971) advices also that the best way to define man is to
see him as a grammatical being. He states „„man is not merely homologues: he
is homo gramaticus‟‟ The core part of a language is its grammar. As such,
nobody can wish away the study of grammar nor gainsay its value in language
study.
In summary, we can all agree with Krashen (1987) that the study of the
structure of a language can have general educational advantages and values that
high schools and colleges may want to include in their language programmes.
26
2.2
AN EVALUATIVE STUDY OF TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR TO
LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING
The traditional grammar has been applauded for its knowledge of the
facts and rules of the language. Gimson (1980) remarks that traditional
grammar can be said to be the true precursors of modern scientific phonetician.
Cooper (1685) observes that traditional grammarians provide more specific
information about the pronunciation of English than is to be found in the work
of any other writer of this period. Dineen (1967) opines that traditional
grammar is basically Aristotlean towards the nature of language as exemplified
in the works of Ancient Greeks and Romans. Collinge (1990) notes that the
Traditional Grammar has been assumed to possess knowledge of facts and rules
of the language. He also states that the task of language teaching is then to find
the effective ways of transmitting this knowledge to learners so that they can
make use of it.
However, traditional approach has been questioned for many reasons.
Chomsky (1965) does not hide his feelings concerning inadequacies that
traditional grammarians are deficient in that they leave unexpressed many of the
basic regularities of the language.
27
2.3
AN EVALUATIVE STUDY OF TRANSFORMATIONALGENERATIVE GRAMMAR TO LANGAUGE TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Transformational-Generative Grammar is a brain work of American
mathematician, Noam Chomsky. The structural view of language as a collection
of systematic patterns held away until the publication in 1957 of Syntactic
Structure by Noam Chomsky. Commenting on transformational approach,
Collinge (1990:521) points out that language is immanent in an individual and
that it is not so much conscious knowledge of facts and rules that renders
learning effective as the quality of the linguistic experience that the learner
undergoes. He emphatically states that in using the transformational approach,
great importance is attached to the learner‟s own language performance.
Talking of Chomsky‟s importance in today‟s study of linguistics and the
tremendous impact of his transformational generative grammar on language
study, Smith and Wilson (1979:10) observe that:
…we believe Chomsky‟s contribution has been as a systembuilder, who has constructed a complete picture of the
nature of language and of language user. It is in the
consistency and power of his overall framework, rather than
28
the individual arguments which makes it up, that we make
Chomsky‟s work revolutionary.
Roulet (1975:40) speaking along the same lines says that „„…the
transformational generative model appears as a synthesis of the most interesting
contributions of traditional and structural grammars‟‟.
On the other hand, Chomsky‟s Transformational-Generative Grammar
has attracted a lot of criticism. Some linguists doubt the possibility of
Transformational approach in helping students to improve grammatically, either
in writing or in speaking the language. In fact, some linguists argue that the
goal of Transformational approach is not pedagogical. Ubahakwe quoting
Oluikpe advances this argument as follows:
There are indeed, grammars not suited for the purposes of writing.
For instance, I am still to be convinced on how a competent
adequate grammar like Transformational-Generative Grammar can
help students write grammatically. Students have often asked me in
my lectures on Transformational-Generative Grammar how a
knowledge of phrase structure and Transformational rules can help
them to improve their use of English. I believe that the goal of
29
Transformational-Generative Grammar, although there are zealots
who are trying to make it so, is not pedagogical.
Concluding from the opinions of experts, it is established that different
approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, linguists should dwell more on
their collective strengths by adopting an eclectic approach to the study of
language.
2.4
THE THEORIES OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
There has been a great interest in the study of language by psychologists
and linguists. The various views are as follow.
2.4.1 BEHAVIOURIST APPROACH
The environmentalists posit that a child comes into this world without
any innate predisposition. The process of language learning according to them
can be explained in terms of conditioning. The child begins to hear during 1st
year of his life, a large number of speech sound produced by his parents.
Gradually, he learns to associate these sounds with the situations which
accompany them. For instance, the child learns to recognize the sound of
endearment which his mother produces when she feeds him. After sometimes,
these sounds become pleasurable in themselves even when they are not
30
accompanied by food. The more frequently the child is exposed to this process
of conditioning the stronger its effect. However, its strength of the association
bounds between the sounds and the situations accompanying them depends
upon the satisfaction which the child obtains from the conditioning process.
Before long, the child begins to imitate some of speech sounds that have
been heard from his parents. The child does so in an attempt to control the
environment and to invite the attention of his mother.
The implication of behaviourist view is that language is learnt only
through its practice. The more the learner is exposed to the use, the better the
chances of learning it. The production of language depends on the situation
which makes it use necessary. Language cannot be taught in divorce from
situation: the teacher has to introduce each new pattern of language in a
meaningful situation producing the correct linguistic response also requires
effort. The learner is not called upon to make this effort there is no learning.
Every new item learnt must be reinforced by further practice before further
learning begins.
31
2.4.2 THE NATIVIST VIEW
The
Nativist
perspective
argues
that
humans
are biologically
programmed to gain knowledge. The main theorist associated with this
perspective is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky proposes that all humans have a
language acquisition device (LAD). The LAD contains knowledge of
grammatical rules common to all languages. The LAD also allows children to
understand the rules of whatever language they are listening to. Chomsky also
develops the concepts of Transformational Grammars, surface and deep
structure. The child in this situation has the adult speech as a target he wants to
reach. He has his pre-disposition to speak language and his grammatical
competence that every native speaker of a language has the means of the end.
2.4.3 INTERACTIONIST VIEW
Interactionists posit that language development is both biological and
social. Interactionists argue that language learning is influenced by the desire of
children to communicate with others.
The interactionists maintain that children are born with a powerful brain
that mature slowly and predisposes them to acquire new understanding that they
are motivated to share with others. Shaffer et al (2002:362) citing Bates state
32
that interactionists focus on model of collaborative learning. Collaborative
learning is the idea that conversations with older people can help children both
cognitively and linguistically.
\
2.5
METHODS OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING
Nwegbe (1982) explains that a good method of teaching has a lot to do in
determining the student‟s level of performance in the English language. He
therefore, advises that teacher‟s methodology should be motivating in order to
enhance students‟ learning and subsequent performance. Baldeh (1990) seems
to support the school of thought that believes that, the method used is the cause
of success or failure in language learning. In his words „„it is ultimately the
method that determines what and how of language instruction‟‟. On the other
hand Boadi et al (1981) disagree with the issue of method. They argue that one
of the weaknesses of some current training programmes of language teaching is
that perhaps too much emphasis have been placed on methods of teaching and
not enough on what is taught. They suggest that in language teaching, as in
anything else, a teacher‟s method should arise naturally out of his
understanding of the matter which he is to teach. Williams (1981) holds a
similar view. He objects to the idea of making method the only consideration in
33
language learning he „explains that the teacher who implements the method
should also be put into consideration. In his words.
„A method is no better than the teacher who is required to implement it.
The English teachers like the teacher of any other subject must have adequate
professional knowledge, competence, and experience if he is to function‟‟
On the other hand Craft (1980:50) submits that the ultimate success in
learning a language rests with the students regardless of the method or the
teacher. He advises that one of the ways that a teacher can facilitate learning is
by encouraging the students to develop a positive attitude about themselves and
about the target-language community. Ubahakwe (1979:13) concludes the
argument in these words. „It is therefore important that the relative effectiveness
of the methods be established since pupils‟ performance is affected by a good or
a bad method of language teaching‟‟
In summary the history of language teaching is endowed with chains of
methods. However, Mackey (1965) discusses fifteen methods used in one form
or the other but he does not hesitate to point out that there may be as many
methods as there are people to make them because of the vagueness and
inadequacy of concept of method. Nevertheless, in second language teaching,
there are some methods that are popular than others. The discussion of the
34
language teaching and learning methods should be based on the ones relevant to
language teaching and learning.
2.6.1 THE AUDIO LINGUAL METHOD
The need for audio-lingual arises from the scientific linguistic of
Bloomfield and his followers in the 1930s. According to Yule (1985) the
method involves a systematic presentation of the structures of the L2 moving
from the simple to the more complex, often in form of drill which the students
have to repeat. The emphasis is on everyday spoken conversation, with
particular attention being paid to natural pronunciation.
The psychological rationale for the audio-lingual method stems from
Skinner‟s behaviourist theory. Much of this practice involves hours spent in a
language laboratory repeating oral drill until the learners‟ response become
automatic. Rivers, 1985 quoting Yule submits that the method justifies the
claims that foreign-language learning is basically a mechanical process of habit
formation. On the contrary, Yule (1985:193) posits that it will be hard
nowadays to find a psychologist or a linguist who would agree with River‟s
statement, although versions of the method are still in use in language teaching.
Crystal (1985) criticizes the method for paying little or no attention to the
discussion of grammatical rules. In addition, Yule points out that the isolated
35
practice in drilling language pattern bears no resemblance to the interactional
nature of actual language use. He goes further to say that the method can be
incredibly boring.
Again, critics argue that since students are being taught to „parrot‟
patterns using the audio-lingual method they often times become very good at
doing that without really communicating or interacting. The
implication of
this is that even if students learn the entire contact of audio-lingual courses,
they still need to learn how to use the language in a real-life situation.
2.6.2 GRAMMAR TRANSLATION METHOD
This method involves two components-study of grammatical rules and
vocabulary and the use of translation. Translation is believed to be the oldest
teaching method used in the Ancient Greece Rome and elsewhere in the ancient
world. According to Crystal (1987:374) the method is based on the meticulous
analysis of the written language in which translation exercise, reading
comprehension, and the imitation of written texts play a primary role. He
further points out that with the grammar translation method learning involves
the mastery of
grammatical rules and memorization of long lists of literary
vocabulary related texts, which are chosen more for their prestigious reasons
rather than for their interest or level of linguistic difficulty.
36
However, Yule (1996:193) criticizes the method for laying to much
emphasis on learning about language rather than learning how to use a
language. Rivers (1968:17) observes that the method is not demanding on the
teacher and that whenever the teacher is tired, he can always set a written
exercise for the class. In fact, the teacher
does not need to show much
imagination in planning his lessons since he follows the text book page by
page and exercise by exercise.
By the end of 18th century in Europe, grammar had become a full partner
in the method. The growth of the grammatical component continues to the
present-day. Rules are explained by the teacher and then they are memorized,
recited and applied by the students. The aims of the grammar aspect of this
method changed over the centuries in accordance with the emerging linguistic
theories and description. Despite the short comings of grammar translation
method, Crystal (1987) observes that a few expects still find the method
appealing.
2.6.3 DIRECT METHOD
This is developed as a reaction against the Grammar Translation method.
As with the natural method, it emphasizes the learning of speech by acquiring
meaning in environmental content and learning grammar through induction.
37
Crystal (1985) observes that no use is made of the learner‟s mother with this
method. Learners are encouraged to think in the foreign language and not to
translate into or out of it.
This method does not recognize the explicit formulation and teaching of
grammatical rules. The learner is encouraged to acquire grammatical structures
inductively by practising with complete and meaningful utterance. One of the
advantages of the method is that it emphasizes actual communication in
language, resulting inaccurate fluency. Nevertheless, Crystal (1987) points out
that the method is not an easy approach to be used in schools. He maintains that
due to the artificial environment of the classroom, it is difficult to generate
natural learning situation and to provide everyone with sufficient practice. This
method disappeared following the advent of the audio-lingual method.
2.6.4 THE ECLECTIC METHOD
Proponents of eclectic method hold the view that no one method is
complete in itself. Prator (1976) notes that a teacher can lean on any convenient
method or a combination of methods that helps him or her attain the objectives
of instruction, as no method has the whole answer. According to him, such a
method has all the advantages of flexibility and adaptability and also provides a
link between the old and the new methods. Wilkins (1990:521) quoting
38
Collinge has this to say, „„It is of course, perfectly possible to combine elements
from the different methodological traditions and no doubt, this is what often
happens in practice‟‟. Paulston (1974) categorically puts the same idea this way.
It will be interested if the three basic elements in teaching situation, that must
be reflected in any adequate teaching method. These elements include the
teacher, the subject matter, the learner and the aims of instruction. Therefore,
methods of language according to him should be based on at least three
cornerstones.
In addition, the eclectic method has been widely acclaimed because it
believes that there is an inter-disciplinary relationship which can create insights
in problem solving. Since the attainment of objectives is an overriding factor in
language learning, any tested technique can be a resource at the disposal of the
teacher. By using the eclectic method, the needs of the students rank uppermost.
So no teacher will foolishly continue to use a method does meet the needs of the
students. For according to Craft (1980) a „„Instructional methods are devised to
serve the needs of students: students are not devised as subjects to try out
methods on‟‟.
Nevertheless, critics believe that it is only when a teacher practices a
method that he or she can discover the inherent problems associated with the
39
method and then proffer solutions to the problem. For this reason, critics are of
the view that eclectic method encourages methodological prostitution.
In summary, there is no doubt that the eclectic method is constantly
looking for the best in every method in order to use it to achieve pedagogical
objectives which are viewed as an overriding factor. For this reason, it must be
encouraged and admired. Bedsides, most teachers claim to know all about the
eclectic method.
2.6.5 THE COMMUNICATIVE METHOD
The communicative method of language teaching has been introduced as
a result of the widespread reaction against the other methods of language
teaching. Critics argue that most of the methods stress the teaching of
grammatical forms and pay little or no attention to the way language is used in
everything situations.
Communicative method, therefore, focuses on the learners‟ knowledge of
the functions of language and on their ability to select appropriate kinds of
language for use in specific situations. Crystal (1987) writes that
communicative method, lessons are organized around concepts such as
requesting, thanking, complaining, persuasion, evaluation, instructing to
40
mention but a few. Every effort is geared towards enabling students to use the
language in a certain type of communication activity.
The communicative method has been applauded for its influential role in
language learning. The method reduces boredom and makes the class very
interesting. This stems form the fact that the students are free to express their
thoughts and ideas about topics under discussion.
In addition, the method has the possibility of integrating multiple
language skills, speaking, reading, writing and listening for the students. The
teacher can do this by asking the students to undertake exercises that will help
to inculcate those skills based on the topics under discussion.
On the contrary, Anyanwu (1990) observes that the method has its
shortcomings. He explains that the teacher may not know how to prevent
slippage in student‟s handling of morphological, syntactic and physiological
features and on falling back on native language habits. He goes further to say
that it may not be acceptable in junior classes. Finally, he explains that since the
communicative method lays emphasis on meanings rather than form, learners
may manage to get their meanings across even when the structures are ill
formed. This cannot make them competent users of the language.
41
CHAPTER THREE
TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
3.1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON TRADITIONAL
GRAMMAR
Traditional grammar otherwise called classical or Prescriptive is also
referred to by the term „normative grammar‟. The history of this grammar dates
back to Greek philosophers. The methodologies left by these philosophers and
grammarians continue to dominate the study of language throughout the
western world till the early 20th century. The ancient Greek philosophers
subsume the study of language under the general philosophical speculations
about man, the universe and metaphysic. Looking at how orderly the universe
apparently is, some of the Greek philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, the stoics etc)
feel that language must be God given and as such, must be logical. If language
is logical, therefore, it follows that names given to objects must of necessity be
their natural and logical names. Language could therefore be used to unlock
man‟s mysteries. Some other philosophers seeing the contradictions on
language opposed the theory of the divine-gift origin of language, but see
language as a matter of convention. However, Lyons (1968) opines that a
comprehensive history of traditional grammar is yet to be written may be true to
42
this date. To Lyons, an objective and historic view of the general term
traditional grammar is much richer and more diversified than as often suggested
in the cursory references made to it by modern linguistics.
What Greek philosophers who advocate a divine theory origin do is to
argue for the existence of a version of the Greek language that is pure, divine
and incorruptible. It is the function of the grammarians to find this perfect form
and write its grammar. The only way to get at it is through the great literary
masters in print, since they represent the only visible perfect form of the
language.
On contrary, Simpson (1994), disagrees with the view that language is
God given. He says that if language is God-given, there should have been
universal name for all the objects. On the contrary, names are given to objects
because people agree to call them by such names. It is on the basis of such an
argument that Plato classifies the Greek words into Onoma (noun) and Rhema
(verbs) Aristotle adds the third group Syndesmol (conjunction), the Stoics add
the article and Thrax increases the classification to eight. In addition, to
classifying the words into grammatical classes, the Greek grammarians
especially the stoics and Thrax identified tenses and agreement in verbs and
case forms for nouns. They also describe, classify and exemplify these.
43
When Greek civilization collapsed and was replaced by Rome in the 1st
century, Latin grammarians continued the mode of thought of Greek in the
matter concerning language. Latin texts and grammar are modeled after Greek.
Rome‟s influence is felt all over Europe including in matters of language so that
even when vernacular languages of such countries as England, France Germany
etc are written during the middle ages and after the Renaissance, they are still
using Latin as their model. They forced the syntax of these local languages into
the word of Latin, which essentially is normative and prescriptive. In the
English Language such names as Butler, Lowth are among the grammarians
who uphold Latin as their model and write prescriptive grammar.
3.2
THE ROLES OF TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR IN LANGUAGE
TEACHING AND LEARNING
The roles stated refer to the traditional grammarians‟ contributions to
language teaching and learning. Crystal (1980.356) sees traditional grammar as
the one, which refers to a set of attitudes, procedures and prescriptions. In the
same vein, Friend (1974:xi) maintains that the traditional grammarian is a
prescriptivism whose function is to present rules that underlie that form of
language considered prestigious and conventional by educated speakers and
writers. Crystal (1980) admits that several basic concepts of contemporary
44
grammatical analysis have their origin in traditional grammar. Task (1993:280)
adds that traditional grammar represents the fruit of more than two thousand
years of serious grammatical investigations. He adds that many of the
categories and analysis of traditional grammar have been incorporated with
only minor modification into current theories of grammar.
What then are those fundamental concepts from traditional grammar that
have been affected by minor modification? In other words, what has traditional
grammarians contributed to language teaching and learning? The answers are as
follows:
3.2.1 PARTS OF SPEECH
Traditional grammar makes use of the various parts of speech in its analysis. It
treats a „word‟ as a basic grammatical unit. A noun traditionally, is defined as
the name of a person, place, thing, state, activity or quality. A verb is defined as
doing word. An adjective, on the other hand, says something about the noun,
while an adverb qualifies a verb. These definitions are still being used in
teaching pupils in primary school as well as students in secondary schools.
Palmer (1971) argues that these definitions by traditional grammarians are
almost definitions in purely, grammatical terms as they should be, but they are
still not precise enough. On the contrary Oji (1988:3) posits that linguists now
45
define these parts of speech as words that take their inflections as shown in
those inflectional paradigms.
3.2.2 PHRASE AND CLAUSAL ANALYSIS
Traditional Grammarians also extend their study to phrasal and clausal
analysis. Traditionally, Phrase is defined as a unit of words that does not
constitute a finite verb. Traditional Grammarians teach that a clause is a group
of words that has a finite verb. Traditional grammarians classify clauses in two
kinds, namely the main clause and the subordinate clause.
Main Clause: The main clause resembles a sentence. It comprises the essential
parts of a sentence, the subject and predicate, and thus stands alone to convey a
complete meaning.
Subordinate Clause: The subordinate clause contains a subject and a predicate.
Unlike the main clause, a subordinate clause is introduced by subordinating
conjunction, and it can neither stand on its own nor make sense when
considered in isolation. However, Quick et al (1972:722) have modified the
definition of clauses to include the non-finite and verb less clauses.
46
3.2.3 SENTENCE ANALYSIS
Another contribution of traditional grammar is in the area of sentence
analysis. The way traditional grammarian analyses the various sentence types is
still in use. Traditional grammarians start their sentence analysis from word. For
them, word is the smallest meaningful unit of speech. They teach the
components of sentences by parsing of words in tabular form. First, it breaks
the grammatical unit into its constituent parts called subject and predicate.
While the subject consists of a noun, the predicate consists of a verb with one
object or more objects. It goes further to indicate the parts of speech to which
each belongs. It is essential for us to know that in parsing, the part of speech of
a particular word depends completely upon its grammatical function in that
sentence. This means that a single word may belong to different parts of speech
according to its use in a number of sentences or construction examples:
A.
I will watch the ball (verb)
B.
My watch is not good (noun).
3.2.4 TENSE AND ASPECTS
Traditional grammarians make a clear cut distinction between tense and
aspects. Traditional grammarians equate tense with time. According to Quick et
47
al (1972:84), English adopts two tenses only: the present and the past tense.
About the future tense, Quick et al (1972:84) argue that the future and modals
cannot be separated. So modals are used to show futurity in English. This does
not mean that English has a future tense comparable to present and past tense
conversely, aspect shows the beginning, duration, continuity and completion of
an action. Tense and aspect should, therefore, not be mistaken for each other.
3.2.4 CASE ANALYSIS
Case analysis is another area where traditional grammarians contributed
heavily. By case they refer to the form taken by a noun or pronoun in a
sentence to show the relationship between nouns or pronouns and other words
in a given sentence. The subjective case indicates that the noun acts as subject
of the verb. The objective case indicates that a noun can be used as one of the
following: the direct object of a verb, indirect object of a verb, and the object of
a preposition. Nouns that belong to possessive case indicate possession.
Students studying grammar can now evaluate more objectively the
argument of the traditional grammarians when they prescribe the rule: one
should say or write „it is I‟ and not „it is me‟. This is because the verb „be‟ is
followed by a subjective case in Latin and, not the objective case. One the
contrary, traditional grammarians have forgotten that the Latin rule is not
48
universal. In English, me is the educated informal norm. „I‟ is seen to be very
formal. But all the same, both forms are correct. However, some modifications
have been made in the case forms. Oji (1988:9) observes that it is only the
pronoun, through its various forms, that indicates the category of case in the
English Language.
3.2.5 TENSE AND ASPECT
Traditional grammarians make a clear cut distinction between tense and
aspects. Traditional grammarians equate tense with time. According to Quick et
al (1972:82), English adopts two tenses only: the present and the past tense.
About the future tense, Quick et al (1972: 84) argue that the future and modals
cannot be separated. So modals are used to show futurity in English. This does
not mean that English has a future tense comparable to present and past tense.
Conversely, aspect shows the beginning, duration, continuity and completion of
an action. Tense and aspect should, therefore, not be mistaken for each other.
3.2.6 MEANINGS
Traditional grammarians see meaning in terms of lexical or grammatical
meanings. Lexical meaning is the essential meaning of words classified as
major aprts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Grammatical
49
meaning shows the relationship that exists between words that have lexical
meaning. Articles, prepositions and conjuctions are said to have grammatical
meanings. It should be noted that where only lexical meanings are accepted or
used, the message will be largely but not entirely clear. Words such as „a‟, „the‟,
„and‟, „with‟ are essential to the gramatically of the sentence. Friend (1974:xii)
adds that it is not to suggest that some classes of words have different functions
in the language. Using this as a base, today‟s English grammar has come to
analyze meaning in more objectives, systematic and scientific manner.
3.2.7 PHONOLOGY
Traditional grammarians also make a lot of contributions in the area of
phonology. Many nomenclatures that abide in our modern handbook on
phonology originated from the traditional school. They are the first that coin
and use them in their technical terms. Lyons (1968) in particular observes that
Roman grammarians attempt a definition of the scope of grammar as the act of
correct speech. They went as far as looking into the concept of symbols in the
classical languages.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. (14:282) the Greeks are
primarily responsible for the greatest phonetic invention of all time i.e. the
development of writing system (sound invention) in which syllables are
50
represented in terms of their component parts. Thus the realization that each
vowel and each consonant could be represented by a separate symbol makes it
possible to write any word that is said with inventory symbols.
Another thing to mark is the description of individual sounds that lay the
foundation of the distinction between vowels and consonants and the distinctive
features of sound segments. Also William Salisbury‟s (1547) Dictionary of
Englyske contributions are relevant today as the grammars of foreign languages
often make use of this approximate method of stimulated pronunciation.
Another contribution is that of 17th century traditionalist towards
comparative phonological analysis. There was awakening towards speech
analysis and language for their own sake during this period. Their
preoccupation with detailed analysis of speech activity, the comparative study
of the sounds of various languages, the classification of sounds types and the
establishment of systematic relationship between the English sounds made
considerable contributions to phonology. We also know from Dineen (1967)
that providing dictionary to give the meaning of difficult words and to stabilize
spelling also form part of traditional grammarian‟s contribution.
Moreover, traditional grammarians discover the lack of consistency in
spelling sound system of English words. The 16th century traditional
51
grammarians in Europe are initially concerned over the increasing inconsistency
of the relationships of Latin letters and sounds which they represent especially
in English. In their attempts to bring order into English spelling, they delved
into phonology. Their attempts contributed significantly to phonology,
especially in providing a universal system of sounds.
3.3
CRITICISMS LEVELLED AGAINST TRADITIONAL
GRAMMAR
Modern Linguists tend to criticize traditional grammar for some
weaknesses. Some of the criticisms against the traditional grammars are as
follows:
3.3.1 THE CRITICISM THAT TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR IS
PRESCRIPTIVE IN NATURE
Traditional grammar is normative and prescriptive rather than explicit and
descriptive. Its‟ rules are illogical, it is inconsistent and inadequate as a
description of actual language in use. Moreover in English, for a sample,
traditional grammarians prescribe on how words as „shall‟ and „will‟ should be
used. They condemn ending a sentence with a preposition in such sentences as
follows;
52
1. What did you do that for?
2. I have no money to buy the book with.
Yule (1985:72) observes that generations of English teachers have attempted to
instill in their pupils such prescriptive rules. The fact is that the existence of
prescriptive rules or students knowledge of them may not improve students‟
ability to communicate their thoughts and ideas effectively. Again, because
traditional grammarians start with definition they unconsciously assume that the
speaker knows the entire grammar of the language. Hence, they put the cat
before the horse.
3.3.2 PREFERENCE OF WRITTEN TO SPOKEN FORMS
Traditional grammar is also criticized because it gives priority to the written
form of language and ignores the importance of the spoken form. Leith
(1983:11) observes that the prestige attached to written variety is associated
with the belief that it is the most correct form and perhaps the most “beautiful”.
Jesperson (1954:4) quotes Queen Elizabeth to have written „dipe‟ for „deep‟,
„hiresay‟ for „hearsay‟ „nid‟ for „need‟, „spiche‟ for „speech‟, and „swit‟ for
„sweet‟. However, as the traditional grammarian envisaged, pronunciation
eventually changed and the written form remained unaltered. If one looks at the
53
silent „gh‟ in „height‟ „though‟ and „ought‟ one discovers that in their old
English forms, these words were pronounced with sounds were no longer
appeared in the phonological inventory of the modern English. In other words,
the „gh‟ has changed to /f/ as in „tough‟ and „cough‟. In brief, the correlation
between the spoken and the written form of a language is not often one to one.
For example, „knot‟, „knife‟, „island‟, „solemn‟, „wrestle‟, and „phenomena‟ to
mention these few words. This is not to say that the written form should be
separated from the spoken form or one should be preferred to the other.
3.3.3 FALSE NOTION ON SUPERIORITY OF SOME LANGUAGES
Traditional grammar is criticized for its‟ false notion that some languages are
superior to others and that the models of other languages should be based on the
superior ones. Traditional grammarians tend to forget that the language is
universal as well as dynamic. So, the idea of modeling English grammar after
Latin or Greek as inflectional languages may not work.
3.3.4 CRITICISM ON ABSENCE OF CONSISTENCE THEORY
Another criticism labeled against this grammar today, however, is the absence
of a standard and consistent comprehensive theoretical basis to explain
grammatical practices. Added to this, is the habit of using definitions and sub54
categorization. The definitions for example are inconsistent in English. A noun
is defined by what it is and pronoun by what it does (A noun is a name of any
person, place or thing, a pronoun is a word that performs the function of a noun
etc.).
Roulet (1975:3) observes that traditional grammar is also criticized for its
incompleteness. He illustrates this with a metaphor in a surgery. Traditional
grammarians are like a surgeon who can etherize and carefully open up and
dissect the patient, showing us every bone, arteries, nerves and cells in the
body, but cannot tell us the relationship existing between these intricate organs
and how, say, the actions of walking (which we see) is related to psychomotor,
co-ordination of muscle and the brain (deep structure) in a systematic way or
how food we have taken is converted into energy for working, speaking.
With all their contributions, traditional grammarians are unable to explain
- How a child of three to eight years could have mastered his language.
- How what we say is related to what we mean.
- How we can use limited linguistic rules and sound (phonemes) to create
novel sentences of infinite number and infinite length.
55
In summary therefore, we agree that although some of the features of traditional
grammar such as the use of vague and the notional definitions, insistence on the
written form of the language basing their grammar on the word as the basic
level of analysis, looking down on the spoken form of the language etc. have
proved unhelpful, or even misleading, still traditional grammarians have
provided a standard English that is acceptable by most speakers of the language.
56
CHAPTER FOUR
TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR
4.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON TRANSFORMATIONAL
GENERATIVE GRAMMAR
Transformational - Generative Grammar is term used to refer to the
recent development in linguistics in America. The first type of Transformational
Generative Grammar in modern day linguistics was formulated by Zelling
Harris in 1951.
Chomsky himself was trained by the structuralist, Zelling Harris. But
Chomsky propounded a different and more comprehensive formulation after his
doctoral dissertation in the 50‟s. As a professor of modern language, he
elaborated his desertion into a book, Syntactic Structures, in which he attacked
both traditional and structural grammars for their inadequacies to account for
native speaker-hearer
competence and the relationship existing between
competence (the native speaker‟s intuitive knowledge of the grammar of his
mother tongue), and performance (his actual language behaviour). For this
reason Chomsky‟s name is more closely associated with this grammar than with
any other linguist. Tomori (1976:65) adds that a different and a more
57
comprehensive formulation was propounded by Noam Chomsky in 1957 and
extensively revised in 1965.
Noam Chomsky (1957) maintains that the grammar of any language
should be one that accounts for native speaker/learner competence. Simply put,
given a limited number of symbols, and a set of finite rules operating in a
language, the native speaker should be able to generate an infinite set of
grammatical sentences by applying the rules over and over again.
The purpose of this chapter is to look at the roles Transformational
Generative Grammar plays in language description and analysis. Effort will be
made to highlight some of the criticisms leveled against Transformational
Generative Grammar.
4.2 THE ROLES OF TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE
GRAMMAR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING
4.2.1 DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPETENCE AND
PERFORMANCE
One of the contributions of Transformational Generative Grammar in
language description is making a distinction between competence and
performance. Chomsky (1965:4) sees competence as the speaker‟s/hearer‟s
58
knowledge of his language while performance is the actual use of language in
concrete situations. He states that although the rules of the language are in the
brain of the native speaker, he may at times make mistakes in speech or writing
due to extra-linguistic factors such as stress.
Based on this, he advises that language learning should not only be
concerned with performance but also be interested in competence. An
interesting implication of this fact is that if grammars model competence, a
grammar of a language must tell you not only what you can say in the language,
but also what you cannot say, since native speaker competence includes not
only the ability to make the judgment that certain types of sentences are
grammatical, but also the ability to judge that others are not grammatical.
Therefore, his grammar is not as interested in speech or writing
(performance) of the native speaker like as intuitions which help in
interpretation of words, phrases and the sentences in their native language.
Chomsky believes that by studying the native speaker‟s usage, it is possible to
arrive at these underlying rules that guide the use of the language.
A simple way of seeing the distinction between competence and
performance is in our capacity to understand the meaning of word we have
never encountered before. For example, the expression multitangular tower
59
occurs in a widely used English text. It is an expression that people may have
never seen. Conversely, if the hearer knows the meaning of the prefix „multi‟
and the basic word formation rule in English, then, it is easier to understand that
multitangular tower is a tower having many sides, tower that is not a round or a
square one. This process of interpretation will not be possible unless there is an
underlying competence which can operate separately from the performance
feature of the language. Similarly, Hymens (1972) adds that competence should
not just consist of knowledge of rules for formulating grammatically correct
sentences. It should include the knowledge of when, what and where to speak.
This he calls communicative competence.
4.2.2 THE CONCEPTS OF DEEP AND SURFACE STRUCTURE
Transformational-Generative Grammar also posits the existence of deep
and surface structure form existing in any human language. This is reflected in
the native speaker/hearer‟s ability to understand and to produce novel
grammatical structures in his language and he is able to correct them. Chomsky
(1965) argues that structural description is too superficial because it only
describes the surface structure of the language and thus could not explain the
relationship of meaning which is quite clearly there but which is not realized in
the surface structure. The surface structure of a sentence does not reveal
60
everything we should know about a sentence. It is through the underlying
structure or the „deep‟ structure of a sentence that we get its full meaning.
Transformational grammar is known as psychological grammar because it tires
to find out what goes on in the mind of the native speaker. In the deep structure,
the apparently simple sentence such as, “The boy may have been killing a
goat”. This would in a very simplified term be like this in the deep structure.
S
NP
Aux
Tense
N
VP
No
Det
Mod
The boy + singular +present
may
Perf.
.
Pro.
have + en being
++
V
NP
KIll
a goat
61
goat
According to Chomsky (1965:16) the deep structure is abstract and deals
with meaning and the surface structure deals with the actual sounds (utterances)
in the language. The deep and surface structures are linked by linguistic
transformations capable of adding, detecting, changing, attaching, etc, one at a
time, until the surface structure is reached.
Chomsky (1957) accuses structural grammarians of being unable to
explain the difference between:
1. John is easy to please.
2. John is eager to please.
Using structural description, the sentences will indicate the same
relationship between the words in the sentences. Obviously, the relationship is
not the same. In the first sentence, John is the receiver of the pleasing, while in
the second sentence he is doing the pleasing.
4.2.3 THE CONCEPTS OF THE INNATE THEORY OF LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
Another contribution of Transformational Generative Grammar to
language teaching and learning is in the innate theory of language acquisition.
Chomsky (1965:25) is of the view that a child is born with an innate ability to
62
acquire a language; this he calls the language Acquisition Device (LAD). It
means that the course of acquisition is determined by a biologically endowed
innate language faculty (or language acquisition program, to borrow a computer
software metaphor) within the brain, which provides children with a
(genetically transmitted) algorithm (i.e., set of procedures) for developing a
grammar, on the basis of their linguistic experience (i.e. on the basis of speech
input they receive).
Chomsky maintains that the language device takes primary linguistic
data as input and yields grammar as an output. He insists that all children
possess this language acquisition Device. He contradicted all the views of the
behaviourists by insisting that the human mind is not an empty slate to which
language is introduced for stimulation to which a response is expected to be
followed by a reward.
For Chomsky, language is not learnt because the leaner is subjected to
some conditioning process, but because the learner possesses imprints of
language in form of inborn capacity which permits him to acquire a language as
a normal maturational process. This capacity is universal in the sense that a
Chinese child has it as well as a Nigerian child. This is also referred to as the
inherited knowledge of the structure of natural language. The imprints or latent
63
structures of language are activated when a child is exposed to a linguistic
environment through listening. The usefulness of the innate theory for language
acquisition is that teachers of language are made to know how languages are
learnt. It is also intended as a model for the processes through which the human
mind constructs and understands sentences.
4.2.4 RESOLUTION OF AMBIGUITY
Transformational Generative Grammar is the only Grammar that has
provided a means of resolving structural ambiguity in a sentence through a
system of rules Crystal (1980: 17) makes a distinction between an ambiguous
sentence and a vague sentence. According to him, an ambiguous sentence is
analyzed as having more than one distinct structure. On the other hand a vague
sentence permits an unspecifiable range of possible interpretations. In
Transformational Generative Grammar, the resolution of ambiguity is not just
done on the “surface” as attempted by structural grammarian; rather, it involves
a much deeper analysis.
Chomsky (1965:21) illustrates with a few examples thus:
Flying planes can be dangerous.
64
He says that if this sentence is presented in an appropriately constructed
context, the listener will interpret it immediately in a unique way, and will fail
to detect the ambiguity. In fact, he may reject the second interpretation. What
Chomsky is saying is that two interpretations can be possible with this sentence
such as:
1. The act of flying planes can be dangerous (destructive).
2. Planes flying on the sky can be dangerous. Example 2,
I will visit the bank.
In analyzing this sentence, two distinct meanings are suggested.
1. I will pay a visit to a financial institution
2. I will pay a visit to bank of a river
65
The deep structure for the above sentence can be interpreted thus;
S
NP
Aux
N
VP
V
NP
Tense
Det
N
Present
I
will
wisit
the
bank
Example 3:Sam loves you more than James.
This is ambiguous and has two different interpretations, which can be
interpreted as:
66
1. Sam loves you more than James loves you.
2. Sam loves you more than Sam loves James.
Similarly, the identity of meaning between active and passive sentences is
explained by Transformational Generative Grammar. For example:
(a) The city bank has taken over ACME holding
(b) Acme holding has been taken over by the city bank
The first sentence is in active voice while the second sentence is in passive.
But the relationship of meanings within the two sentences is identical but in
structural description this cannot be shown structurally, they are different and
there is no way of indicating the identity of meaning since the surface structure
may not be always the same with the underlying meaning.
4.2.5 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL AND
UNGRAMMATICAL SENTENCES
Transformational Generative Grammar has also contributed immensely
by differentiating between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences Chomsky
shows that grammatical and ungrammatical sentences could be defined in a
meaningful and useful way. Grammaticality is a function of syntax or surface
67
structure, well formed, while meaningfulness is a function of deep structure.
For Chomsky, a sentence is grammatically correct if it follows the rules of a
native-speaker‟s competence. It is possible for a sentence to be both
grammatical and meaningless, as in Chomsky‟s (1965) famous example.
„Colourless green ideas sleep furiously‟.
Here, this sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless. What
Chomsky is teaching is that a sentence can be grammatically correct without
necessarily being meaningful. As a result, it cannot be acceptable because it is
not semantically well formed. Let us look at these three sentences.
(SI) My five golden laughter‟s are strolling in the jiving clouds.
(S2) We comes to yours house yesterday.
(S3) Your to house come but.
S1 is grammatical but meaningless. S2 is ungrammatical but not
meaningless. S3 is ungrammatical and meaningless. Chomsky‟s work has a
great influence in the world of linguistics.
4.2.6 DISTINCTION BETWEEN L-AND E-LANGUAGE
68
Moreover, Chomsky proposes a distinction between L-language and Elanguage, similar but not identical to competence and performance distinction.
L language refers to internal language and is contrasted with External language
(or E- language). L language is taken to be the object of study in linguistic
theory; it is the mentally represented linguistic knowledge that a native speaker
of a language has and is therefore, a mental object. E language encompasses all
other notions of what a language is; for example, that is a body of knowledge or
behavioral habits shared by a community.
4.3
CRITICISM LEVELLED AGAINST TRANSFORMATIONAL –
GENERATIVE GRAMMAR
Transformational-Generative
Grammar
has
made
a
tremendous
contribution in the field of linguistics. The grammar has presented an overall
conception of the system of language which is more accurate and more
complete, yet not without some criticisms.
Transformational-Generative Grammar is criticized on the ground that it
causes confusion. Chomsky is accused of resorting to such abstract and
complex description that teachers ask themselves with some justification how
desirable, let alone possible, it is for them to apply such models of grammar to
the teaching of modern languages. Some teachers are frustrated by this
69
unprecedented shift in the theoretical wind which blows them in a variety of
directions, and are irritated by the grammatical models couched in abstract and
complex descriptions which their inadequate linguistic training prevents them
from understanding and evaluating.
Another criticism about its claims is that, while it may be true that every
human being is innately endowed with the capacity to learn and speak a natural
language Smith and Wilson (1979:26) insist that the grammar that a speaker
actually possesses will depend, at least in part, on the utterance he has heard
from the adult in the past-mainly as a child learning his language for the first
time.
Transformational-Generative Grammar is, however, criticized because it
studied language for its own sake and its use of logic and mathematical symbols
has pushed this schematization and abstraction to a point where the whole
theory loses touch with reality. In fact, because transformational – generative
grammar has pushed language study to abstraction, its analysis has generated a
lot of controversy. As Yule (1985:103) puts it, „unfortunately, almost
everything involved in the analysis of generative grammar remains
controversial‟.
70
Moreover, in spite of Chomsky‟s apparent format precision and his
claims for his theory, still the grammar is based on one hypothetical or actual
respondent or subject who supplies the data. Chomsky needs not any other
person than a native speaker of English to write his T.G. There are still doubts
as to who the native speaker-hearer of a language is. Based on this, it is
doubtful if a grammar based on one single subject is adequate to study grammar
as it has been shown how native speakers of the same language disagree on
many points of grammar and meanings in their language.
Moreover, Transformational-Generative Grammar is criticized for paying
less attention to performance. Chomsky posits that linguistic study should be
concerned with competence instead of performance. On the contrary, critics
doubt the possibility of studying language outside the actual language use.
Hymns (1972) also observes that “no theory of language (not just a theory of
Grammar)… needs to investigate directly outside the context of a “speech
situation”. He maintains that no matter how plausible an abstract theory of
language is, or can be, its success outside the closed circle of language will be
measured against how well it has provided a model for performance in every
day use of language and solving language problems. Language is used to give
information; it is used to make promises; people use language to threaten;
71
language is used to make excuses; users of a particular language use it to seek
information. Indeed, paying attention to competence alone may not make
people better users of the language, at least, in a second language situation.
In summary, we have seen how and why Transformational-Generative
Grammar came into existence and what has been said about it. Moreover,
72
transformational generative grammar has helped in language analysis and
its efforts in solving grammatical problems should not be over looked. It is true
that the grammar is criticized yet it has been demonstrated clearly that the
grammar has a lot of relevance to language teaching and learning.
73
CHAPTER FIVE
EVALUATION OF THE TWO GRAMMARS ON PEDAGOGIC
GROUND
5.1 EVALUATION OF TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR ON PEDAGOGIC
GROUND
The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the two grammars used in the
study on pedagogic grounds. We should bear in mind that one of the good
qualities of a grammar meant to be used in teaching a Language in schools is
that it should be a grammar of performance, not an idealized grammar.
Traditional grammar starts its analysis of a sentence with a different parts
of speech. From there It moves to sentence components and finally to the
discussion of the sentences proper. Traditional Grammarian insists that „word‟
is the smallest meaningful grammatical unit. Description of English and Other
languages is based on the grammars of classical languages, Greeks and Latin.
These descriptions are based on analysis of the roles played by each word in the
sentence.
74
Languages are described in this way because the classical languages are
case-based languages, where the grammatical function of each word in the
sentence is made apparent by the use of appropriate inflections. Thus the form
of a word would change according to whether it is a subject, object, indirect
object and so on. The prestige of the old classical languages ensures the
survival of this form of description even after English has lost most of its case
markers and become a largely word-order based language. From the sketch
given of traditional grammar above, it looks as if this type of grammar has
nothing to offer us today. This is not true at all. Traditional grammar has given
useful ventures into many areas as to nature and functioning of language. For
example, their word-classifications are more or less still being used by language
teachers. Such terms as „noun‟, „verb‟, „noun phrase‟ „pronoun‟, „agreement‟,
„tense‟, aspect, „mood‟ etc are terms invented by the Traditionalists and still
form part of the metalanguage of linguistics. Chomsky (1965) realizes this fact
When he says that „within traditional linguistic theory… it is clearly understood
that one of the qualities that all languages have in common is their creative
aspect‟.
75
Moreover, traditional grammar continues to provide teachers with a
useful indirect source of
guidance. Register analysis, for example, draws
heavily upon its terminology. Allen and Widdowson (1975) observe that:
Teachers who wish to maintain a balanced view of linguistics
should not overlook the fact that traditional grammar has many
useful virtues. The traditional handbooks provide an array of
terms and distinctions which most of us used in learning to talk
about our own language, and which people continue to find
serviceable throughout their lives.
Fillmore (1968) also adds that knowledge of classical description can still
deepen our knowledge of how language operates. Speaking on the same on
relevance of traditional grammar on pedagogy, Tomori (1977:6) quoting
Clobett, advises that to be able to choose words that ought to be employed, or to
be Placed where they ought to be placed, we must be very acquainted with
certain principles and rules. In the same way Crystal (1980:356) maintains that
traditional grammarians lay emphasis on correctness, linquistic purism and
literacy excellence. Traditional grammar has given useful ventures into the
nature and function of language. It has provided a Standard English that is
acceptable for most speakers. Its prescriptive nature makes it possible to be
76
understood by the greatest possible number of individuals. Croft (1980)
supports this idea when he says “traditional grammar is the best understood
method of discussing Indo-European languages which is not likely to be
replaced in the foreseeable future.
Considering what has been said about traditional grammar, it seems that
the grammar has been incorporated with only minor modifications into our
current theories of grammar. Chomsky (1965:194) has this to say of traditional
grammar “whatever evidence is available to day seems to me to show that by
and large the traditional views are basically correct so far as they go…..”
5.2
EVALUATION OF TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE
GRAMMAR ON PEDAGOGIC GROUND
One of the good qualities of grammar is that the grammar must have a
quality that will be used in teaching a language in schools, so it must be a
grammar of performance. With this a language teacher ensures that his student
understands those areas that have practical value to them. On the contrary,
transformational-generative grammar is an explicit description of the implicit
knowledge of the native speaker. Its primary purpose is not to serve as a model
to guide the performance of anyone using a language. Moreover, according to
Herriot (1970:57) Chomsky himself has categorically stated that he has not
77
constructed a grammar of performance but that of competence in the following
words.
To avoid what has been a continuing misunderstanding, it is
perhaps worthwhile to reiterate that generative grammar is not a
model for a speaker or a hearer. Its attempt to characterize in the
most neutral possible terms the knowledge of the language that
provides the basis for actual use of language by a speaker/hearer.
Looking at these views, it is well understood that his intention is not to device a
pedagogic grammar. It can be observed that Chomsky has not made provisions
for a second language learner but bases his theory on a native speaker. In most
countries, the English language is being taught as a second language; Chomsky
posits that the intuition of a native speaker is adequate to describe a
grammatically correct sentence. But a second language leaner lacks such
ability. The second language learner needs to master the structures of the
English language before he can use the language effectively. It is clear
therefore, that Chomsky never considered the second language learner in the
theory of transformational-generative grammar. Though transformationalgenerative grammar is not a pedagogic grammar, there are some aspects of it
that are relevant to language teaching and learning. There is no doubt that this
78
grammar can increase the awareness of language teachers about the nature of
language. This can be done by providing him with an insight into the nature of
grammar and hence the language by bringing him into the center of the picture.
The grammar has also been of tremendous help to the language teacher
by making available to him description of newly studied aspects of languageand
better analysis of more familiar areas.
Another aspect of transformational-generative grammar that is relevant to
language teaching and learning is that, with the knowledge of this grammar, a
language teacher becomes aware of how a child acquires language. Lewis
(1971:203) is of the view that one of the most revealing ideas expressed by
Chomsky in this area is that the linquistic development of a child is a process of
maturation and not imposition upon him of the form of the mother tongue by
the authority from above through conditioning, reinforcement or any other
means.
With the knowledge of this grammar, a language teacher is in a better
position to evaluate the language textbooks he is to use. He is also in a better
position to distinguish between those textbooks that are based on syntax and
are, therefore a matter of subjective judgement.
79
5.3
CONCLUSION
This project report will be concluded by rehearsing what has been achieved
in it. The report has made
us understand that when we come to learning a new language like English, we
need to study the grammar because the importance of grammar cannot be
neglected. we should also remember that the English language is learnt in
Nigeria as a second language. This is where the study of English grammar
comes into view. Moreover, we should know that we do not study grammar of
our own mother tongue, we have to study its grammar. Quirk (1972) observes
that there is a sharp difference between foreign language teaching (where one
certainly has to learn the grammar before being able to use the language) and
the teaching of English as a mother tongue (where the whole grammar has been
acquired before the teaching begins).
The project report has reviewed different methods of teaching grammar
so as to help the teachers of English as second language vary their methods.
Newton (1979) seems to show a trend toward eclecticism- that is, toward
choosing what appears to be the best form diverse sources, system or style. An
approach that is truly eclectic requires the teachers to know enough about the
80
various sources, systems, and the styles of teaching, to choose wisely between
what is good for their particular purposes and is not useful.
The project report has studied the traditional and transformational
generative grammars, the two grammars that have helped in teaching the
English language in Nigerian situations. We also noticed that each grammar has
its contributions and weakness. In this regard therefore, teachers of English
should be wise enough to vary their methods on every given situation. Again,
teachers who are knowledgeable in these values should be allowed to teach the
English Langauge.
In summary, this project has gone a long way by providing us with the
contributions of these two grammars. It is suggested that the method of
language analysis as presented by traditional grammar can be used as a teaching
model in primary, secondary and even in universities. The method of analysis
used in transformational-generative grammar can be taught to advanced
students of grammar in the universities. From the evaluations, it is clear that
these grammars have their strenghts and their weaknesses. In other words, each
of these grammars is as important as the other in language teaching. It is the
researcher‟s view that an eclectic approach in language teaching and learning,
as far as the two grammars are concerned should be considered.
81
WORKS CITED
Adetugbo, Abiodun, Nigerian English and Communicative Competence,
WASE Vol. XII No 1 p. 97. 1979.
Bamgbose, A. English Language in Nigeria. In J. Spencer (Ed) The English
Language in West African. London: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Boadi, L.A. et al. Grammatical Structures and its Teaching. Ibadan: African
University Press, 2004.
Campbell, R. and Wales R. The Study of Language Acquisition. London:
Pengun, 1970.
Chomsky Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: Mass, The MIT.
Press, 1965.
Corder, S.P. Error Analysis and Inter-Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1976.
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Dineen, F. An Introduction to General Linguistics. Winston: Rinebsit 1967.
Hodge, R. and Kress, G. Language as Odeology (2nd ed) London: Routledge,
1973.
82
Hymes, D. towards Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsyivania Press 1972.
Ikara, B A. English as a Communicative Medium and a Cultural Dilemma in
Nigeria‟ London: British Council and NESA 1984.
Krashen, Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning. Prentice Hall International, 1988.
Loyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cup, 1980.
Obi, O. „Theories of Language and Language Learning Applied to J.S.S. Level
of English Language teaching and Learning‟.
Ogbuehi Cordelia. English as a Second Language in Nigeria: Magnet Nigeria
2003.
Oji, N. English Grammar for Advanced Students. Obosi: Pacific College Press,
1994.
Palmer, F. Grammar. London: Penguin, 1971.
Prator, C. In search of a method form: A Journal for the Teacher of English
course outside the United States. Vol.
Radford Andrew. Syntactic Theory and The Structure of English, Cambridge
University Press, USA 1997.
83
Roulet, E. Linguistic Theory, Linguistic Description and Language Teaching.)
London: Longman, 1975.
Saussure F. de. Cours de Linguistigue Generala Course in general Linguistics.
Trans, Peter Owen, 1960.
Tomori, S.H. The Morphology and Syntax of Present-day English: An
Introduction. Ibadan: Heineman Educational Books 1977.
Ubahakwe, E. The Teaching of English Studies; Readings for Colleges and
Universities. Ibadan: Ibadan University press 1979.
Ubahakwe, Ebo, Bookish English Among Nigerian Students, JNESA Vol 6 No
1. 1974.
Umaru, F.C. Issues in Applied English Linguistics Nsukka: Chika Educational
Publisher, 2005.
Widdowson, H.G. The Teaching of English as Communication ELT Documents
1 London: The British Council, 1972.
Wilkins, D.A. Linguistics and Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University
Press 1978.
Yule, G. The Study of Language (2nd Edition) Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1885.
84