Content deleted Content added
adding links to references using Google Scholar |
|||
Line 9:
The controversy surrounding generative semantics stemmed in part from the competition between two fundamentally different approaches to [[semantics]] within transformational generative syntax. The first semantic theories designed to be compatible with transformational syntax were ''interpretive''. Syntactic rules enumerated a set of well-formed sentences paired with syntactic structures, each of which was assigned an ''interpretation'' by the rules of a separate semantic theory. This left syntax relatively (though by no means entirely) "autonomous" with respect to semantics, and was the approach preferred by Chomsky.
In contrast, generative semanticists argued that interpretations 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 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/passive pairs such as "I hit John" and "John was hit by me", which despite their identical meanings have quite different surface forms.{{ref|2}} Generative semanticists wanted to account for ''all'' cases of synonymity in a similar fashion—an impressively ambitious goal before the advent of more sophisticated interpretive theories in the 1970s. 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]].
==Notes==
| |||