• Cite Icon1
  • https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700004849Copy DOI Icon

On Uhlenbeck on Chomsky

Show More
  • Abstract
  • Literature Map
  • References
  • Citations
  • Similar Papers
Abstract

This brief note concerns Kempson's review of Uhlenbeck's Critical comments on transformational-generative grammar (Kempson, I975; Uhlenbeck, 1973). My purpose is not to defend Uhlenbeck but rather to point out that Kempson does not understand him in one or two vital points. Kempson quotes Uhlenbeck's contention that, 'as far as the analysis [by Chomsky] of the sentence What disturbed John was being disregarded by everyone is concerned, one has not to do with one sentence with two different interpretations, but with two sentences each with a quite different syntactic structure', then to complain that Ehlenbeck's observation is a 'non-argument', since what Ehlenbeck observes 'is precisely what the formalism of deep structure predicts', Kempson then calls the entire issue a 'terminological squibble' (i i8). Not quite. If one says that a certain 'sentence' is ambiguous one is talking about a sentence token and not a sentence type. The term 'ambiguity' can obviously be used only in application to a token, whereas 'homonymy' holds only between types. Strictly speaking, as a 'sentence' must always be a type, it cannot, but only some concrete utterance of it can, be a token. However, it is surely harmless to use the expression 'an ambiguous sentence', provided one is not lead astray by the inconsistency of this expression. Uhlenbeck's point is, in context, quite clearly that of fighting the notion of deep structure. In Chomsky's theory any deep structure is only a type, and any surface structure is only a token, at least for the purposes of this discussion. There is, then, more at stake here than something merely terminological. When Uhlenbeck says that the above quoted sentence represents two different syntactic structures, he does not mean what Chomsky would mean by this, i.e. that the token in question can be traced back to two deep structures; rather, Uhlenbeck means that the difference in syntactic structure is found in two sentences, each one reading like the example quoted, but each one different in structure from the other, while no deep structure postulate is needed to bring out that difference. It might not be sufficiently worth while to make these observations, if it were not for the circumstance that Kempson gets the impression Uhlenbeck is a behaviourist (i I9). On the contrary, his position that one may recognize different structures in what would appear behaviouristically as identical entails unconditional rejection of behaviourism. I would not be surprised if Uhlenbeck

Similar Papers
  • Research Article

Transformational Generative Linguistics Movement Before Chomsky: Nahiv

  • Apr 25, 2020
  • International Journal of Language and Education Research
  • Yusuf Avcı +1
  • Research Article
  • Citations6

Aural perception of different syntactic structures and lengths.

  • Apr 01, 1967
  • Language and Speech
  • Arthur J Compton
  • Research Article

The Influence of Arabic Grammar on Modern Linguistic Studies

  • Feb 05, 2026
  • Alqalam Journal of Science
  • Huda Amer Al-Mabrouk Abu Ghdeiri
  • Research Article

Perception of Prosodic Cues in the Resolution of Ambiguous Sentences in English

  • Dec 01, 2013
  • Korean Journal of Linguistics
  • 김경미 +1
  • Research Article
  • Citations8

Syntactic and semantic structure in the recall of orders of approximation to English

  • Dec 01, 1968
  • Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
  • Edward Tejirian
  • Research Article

복문으로 나타나는 일본어 「知る」문과 한국어 「알다」문의 통사구조와 재구조화현상

  • Jun 30, 2021
  • Comparative Japanese Studies
  • Yong-Il Park
  • Research Article
  • Citations23

Surface and deep structures in graphics comprehension.

  • Dec 03, 2014
  • Memory & Cognition
  • Wolfgang Schnotz +1
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations2

Chomsky between revolutions

  • Feb 18, 2010
  • Malcolm D Hyman
  • Research Article
  • Citations8

Transformational Models Applied to Musical Analysis: Theoretical Possibilities

  • Sep 01, 1971
  • Ethnomusicology
  • Mridula Adenwala Durbin
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations1

Generative Grammar

  • Jan 01, 2001
  • International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences
  • M Bierwisch
  • Research Article

Syntactic-Semantic Linearity in Scent of Apples by Bienvenido N. Santos

  • Jan 01, 2022
  • International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Multidisciplinary Physical Sciences
  • Geraldine V Darao
  • Research Article
  • Citations2

Practical consequences of the validation of a mathematical model in assessment of partial androgen deficiency in the aging male using bioavailable testosterone

  • Mar 01, 2001
  • The Aging Male
  • R R Tremblay
  • Research Article
  • Citations9

Gesture modeling for architectural design

  • Nov 01, 1996
  • Computers & Graphics
  • Naai-Jung Shih +1
  • Research Article

A Transformational-Generative Analysis of Spoken Syntax in TikTok Podcasts: A Study on the Deddy Corbuzier Channel Segment “KTP Wonogiri... Ngomongnya British Abis!!”

  • Feb 27, 2026
  • JALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literacy)
  • Robi'Ah - Laila +4
  • Research Article

Chinese Narrotologies

  • May 01, 2022
  • Style
  • Zheng Shaomin
Cactus Communications logo

Copyright 2026 Cactus Communications. All rights reserved.