The Arbitrary Basis of Transformational Grammar

Abstract

THE ARBITRARY BASIS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR GEORGE LAKOFF University of Michigan Baker & Brame, in this issue of LANGUAGE, correctly observe that, in three of the cases cited in my paper on global rules (Lakoff 1970), the effect of global rules can be obtained by the use of ad hoc coding mechanisms using arbitrary gram- matical elements, in one case an infinite number of such elements. This raises the question of whether the elements used in grammatical descriptions should be ar- bitrary or whether they should have a natural basis. In addition, Baker & Brame incorrectly claim in three other cases to be able to handle global phenomena within the Aspects theory. In each case they use apparatus that goes beyond that theory. Moreover, they claim that a theory of global grammar is necessarily 'more powerful' than the Aspects theory and their proposed extensions. This is shown to be false.* Baker & Brame 1972, in their reply to my paper on global rules (Lakoff 1970) claim that the phenomena discussed in that paper can and should be handled differently, and that a uniform global treatment of those phenomena was not warranted. Their proposals fall into two classes. In three of the cases (arguments 1, 3, and 4), they propose an ad hoc extension of the Aspects theory which has the effect of introducing arbitrary markers in order to code global phenomena. In the other four cases, their proposed re-analyses are based on still other changes in the Aspects theory. The general issues raised are (1) whether the elements used in grammatical descriptions should be arbitrary or should have a natural basis,' and (2) whether global grammar is necessarily 'more powerful' than either their alternative proposals or the classical theory of transformational grammar. I will take up the issues in that order. ARBITRARY MARKERS AND CODING 1.1. ARGUMENT 1: GREEK CASE. BB second, a post-cyclic rule which assigns case to an adjective or participle on the basis of the case given to its co-indexed NP ... We conclude that it is possible to give a general formulation of principle 1 in the Aspects theory. Thus B&B claim that both rules are transformations. But the first rule they propose is in fact not a transformation: a rule that 'gives nouns and their modi- I would like to thank Paul Postal for reading an earlier version of this paper and mak- ing valuable suggestions for improvement. This work was partially supported by grant GS-2939 from the NSF to the University of Michigan, by a grant from the American Council of Learned Societies, and by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where I am in residence during 1971-72. 1 For another discussion of using arbitrary markers to code global rules, see Postal 1972. This content downloaded from 136.152.142.188 on Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:07:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions