A number of ideas from later work in generative semantics have been incorporated into [[cognitive linguistics]], [[head-driven phrase structure grammar]] (HPSG), [[construction grammar]], and into mainstream generative linguistics.<ref>{{cite book|author=Newmeyer, Frederick, J.|title=Linguistic Theory in America|year=1986|publisher=Academic Press|edition=Second}} See p. 138.</ref>
=="Interpretive"vs.semantics and "generative" semantics==
The controversy surrounding generative semantics stemmed in part from the competition between two fundamentally different approaches to [[semantics]] within [[Transformational grammar|transformational]] [[Generative grammar|generative syntax]]. TheIn firstthe semantic1960s, theorieswork designedin tothe begenerative compatibletradition withassumed transformationalthat syntaxsemantics werewas ''interpretive''.Syntacticin rulesthe enumeratedsense that the meaning of a setsentence was computed on the basis of well-formedits sentencessyntactic pairedstructure withrather than the other way around. In these approaches, syntactic structures,eachwere generated by rules stated in terms of whichsyntactic wasstructure assignedalone, anwith ''interpretation''no byreference to meaning. Once generated, these structures would serve as the rulesinput ofto a separate semantic theorycomputation which would output a denotation. This leftapproach syntaxcaptured relativelythe (thoughrelationship bybetween nosyntactic meansand entirely)semantic "autonomous"patterns, withwhile respectallowing the syntax to work independently of the semantics, as Chomsky and wasothers had argued for on the approachbasis preferredof byempirical Chomskyobservations such as the famous [[Colorless green ideas sleep furiously]] sentence.
In contrast,The generative semanticistssemantics arguedframework took the opposite view, positing that interpretationssyntactic structures are computed on the basis of meanings. In this approach, meanings were generated directly by the grammar as [[Deep structure and surface structure|deep structures]], and were subsequently transformed into recognizable sentences by transformations. This approach necessitated more complex underlying structures than those proposed by Chomsky, and thus more complex transformations as a consequence. Despite this additional complexity, the approach was appealing in several respects. First, it offered a powerful mechanism for explaining synonymity. In his initial work in generative syntax, Chomsky motivated transformations using [[active voice|active]]/[[passive voice|passive]] pairs such as "I hit John" and "John was hit by me", which despitehave theirdifferent identicalsurface meaningsforms havedespite quitetheir differentidentical surfacetruth formsconditions.{{ref|2}} Generative semanticists wanted to account for ''all'' cases of synonymity in a similar fashion—anfashion, impressivelywhich ambitiousproved goalto beforebe thea adventchallenge ofgiven morethe sophisticatedtools interpretiveavailable theories inat the 1970stime. Second, the theory had a pleasingly intuitive structure: the form of a sentence was quite literally ''derived'' from its meaning via transformations. To some, interpretive semantics seemed rather "clunky" and ''ad hoc'' in comparison. This was especially so before the development of [[trace (linguistics)|trace theory]].
