Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T13:31:34.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks on directionality1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Arnold M. Zwicky
Arnold M. Zwicky
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In several recent articles the issue of directionality in transformational grammar has been treated, rather unsatisfactorily to my mind. The question is this: are the relationships among the various levels of grammatical description (semantic structure, deep structure, surface structure, phonetic structure) such that certain levels are descriptively prior to others? That is, is there an inherent ‘direction’ to the relationship between two levels of description (say deep structure and surface structure)? Recent treatments suggest that the question is pointless, or that the answer is no. I maintain that this impression results entirely from the way previous discussions have been worded, and that the issues have yet to be approached properly.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1972, pp. 103 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bach, E. (1971). Questions. Linguistic inquiry 2. 153–166.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Jakobson, R. & Kawamoto, S. (eds.), Studies in general and oriental linguistics. Tokyo: TEC Company.Google Scholar
Davis, M. (1958) Computability and unsolvability. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, J. E. & Ullman, J. D. (1969). Formal languages and their relation to automata. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1970). Interpretative semantics vs. generative semantics. FL 6. 220–259.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1971). Generative semantics is interpretative semantics. Linguistic inquiry 2. 313–332.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In Steinberg D. D. & Jakobovits L. A. Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968). The role of semantics in a grammar. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. 124–169. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1967). Computation: finite and infinite machines. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Peters, P. S. (1970). Why there are many ‘universal’ bases. Papers in linguistics 2. 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, P. S. & Ritchie, R. W. (1969). A note on the universal base hypothesis. JL 5. 150–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1970). On the surface verb ‘remind’. Linguistic inquiry 1. 37–120.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar