International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

December 2012, Vol. 2, No. 12

ISSN: 2222-6990

214 www.hrmars.com/journals

Sentence Analysis from the Point of View of Traditional,
Structural and Transformational Grammars

Ahmed Mohammed S. Alduais
Department of English Language, King Saud University KSU, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia KSA

Abstract

Purpose: To analyse sentence (simple type, statement form) in terms of three types of
grammar: traditional, structural and transformational grammars in addition to presenting some
hints about analysing sentences which are semantically the same but with different word order,
from the point of view of the three grammatical approaches.

Method: Reviewing related literature and presenting examples that show the analysis of the
sentence according to each grammatical school, briefly.

Results: Each type of the three grammatical approaches has different terminology and yet
strategy when analysing a sentence. For instance, in traditional grammar the sentence is
divided into units, into patterns in structural grammar and into elements and phrases in
transformational grammar. In addition, in both traditional and structural grammars, a number
of sentences which have identical meanings with different word order are considered totally
different from one another when being analysed; whereas, in transformational grammar the
sentences share the same base and are analysed in terms of surface and deep structure(s) for
each one.

Conclusions: The three presented grammatical approaches can be arranged in terms of the
most detailed approach as: transformational grammar, traditional, and finally structural
grammar.

Keywords: simple sentence analysis, traditional grammar, structural grammar, and
transformational grammar.

Introduction

It is totally agreed by most of the world linguists and mainly grammarians that whatever
numbers of grammar types we do have; they all basically aim at stating some statements about
linguistic units. That is, how each unit, part or even element functions and operates in a
sentence, (Lester, 1976). In spite of this, each type of grammar would in one way or another
differ from another type of grammar and that is why one type of grammar has an advantage
over another. In this research-paper; however, the researcher is going to introduce
comparatively the sentence in English mainly the simple sentence type. Put another way, this
research-paper is two folded: in one case the sentence is defined from the point of view of
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
December 2012, Vol. 2, No. 12
ISSN: 2222-6990

215 www.hrmars.com/journals

three types of grammar: traditional, structural and transformational and then is analyzed also
from the point of view of these grammars. The other part in this research-paper is showing
how two types of grammar: traditional and structural would consider two or more sentences
which have identical structures as the same and they are actually different or sentences which
have different structures with the same constituents as different ones and they actually
internally share one base.

Literature Review

Sentence Definitions

Principally and according to traditional grammarians, a sentence is a group of words
containing a subject plus a predicate and expressing a complete thought, (LaPalombara, 1976:
p. 76). Unsatisfied with such definition, modern grammarians including structuralists and
transformationalists have criticized such a definition for being vague and too general. They
claimed that such a definition would make any sentence which contains of a subject plus a
predicate as a sentence. To some extent what they have said is true but it is clear that they, for
one reason or another, have ignored the last part of the traditionalists definition, expressing a
complete thought. For instance, consider the sentence (Ahmed having played football), it is
true that according to the traditionalists definition that this sentence is true but if we admit
that we have ignored that last part of their definition because they said it must express a
complete thought and here this condition is not achieved. Consequently, such a claim directed
against traditionalists by other grammarians is not that reasonable.

Therefore, structuralists view a sentence in terms of patterns, one that is made up of
constructions and yet constructions are made up of constituents which in turn are made up of
words (morphemes). Hence, a sentence is a constituent of nothing. For transformationalists, a
sentence is a group of words within which a full syntactic analysis is possible yet which has at
least one deep structure and a surface structure or vice versa, usually a sentence will have the
same surface and deep structures.

Sentence Analysis

Have presented the definitions of the sentence from the point of view of the three types of
grammar, we now look at the sentence analysis or more accurately what kind of statements
does each type of grammar would make about a particular sentence in English.

Example

The student did the homework.




International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
December 2012, Vol. 2, No. 12
ISSN: 2222-6990

216 www.hrmars.com/journals


Traditional Grammar Analysis

Example
The student did/the homework.

Analytically, the vertical line indicates the elements to the left are the subject of the sentence
and on the other hand the elements to the right are the predicate of the sentence. Again, the
slanted line indicates that the element to the left is the verb of the sentence and the element to
the right is the object. Then, the words are indentified individually by parts-of-speech. For
instance, student and homework are nouns the former is subject and the second is object, the
as an article and did as a verb.

Structural Grammar Analysis

Example

The student did the homework.

The sentence pattern of this sentence according to structuralists is

Det+ N+ Tran. V+ DO

Analytically, Det would stand for determiner (the) and N for nouns (student and homework)
and Tran. V for transitive verb (did) and Do for direct object (the homework). Yet, we have two
nouns one functions as the subject and the other as the object of the transitive verb. It is
worthy to note that there is also one more way of analysing the sentence from the point of
view of structuralists which is with the use of the Immediate Constituent Analysis (ICA) but the
above mentioned one is enough for our research-paper here.

Transformational Generative Grammar Analysis

Example

e.g. The student did the homework.
S

NP VP

Art V NP
The N did
Student
Art N
The homework
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
December 2012, Vol. 2, No. 12
ISSN: 2222-6990

217 www.hrmars.com/journals

After diagramming the sentence, we then can either explain its analysis from top to down or
from bottom up. In the former case S stands for the whole sentence, NP for noun phrase, VP for
verb phrase. Yet, the sentence S consists of two elements: a noun phrase (NP) and a verb
phrase (VP). Furthermore, the noun phrase consists of two elements: an article or determiner
(Det) and a noun (N); the article is the word (the) and the noun is the word (student). Again, the
verb phrase (VP) consists of two elements: a verb (V) and a noun phrase (NP); the verb is (did)
and the noun phrase is (the homework). Once again, the noun phrase (NP) consists of two
elements: a noun (N) which is (homework) and an article (Det) which is (the).

In the latter case, from bottom up the analysis would be something like this: (the) is an article
(Det), (student) is a noun (N), (did) is a verb (V), (the) is an article (Det) and (homework) is a
noun. Articles and nouns are combined to make noun phrases and the verb and the following
noun phrase are combined to form a verb phrase and finally the former noun phrase and the
verb phrase are combined to form a sentence.

With the use of symbols and rules of phrase structure grammar, the structure of this sentence
would be analyzed in the following way:

S NP + VP
NP Det+ N
VP V+ NP
V T+ V
T past
Det the
N { student, homework}
V do
Past -ed

Discussion

Basically, provided information in the three types of analysis look apparently the same but they
are entirely different. For instance, in the case of the traditional grammar analysis, we
essentially have five words (the, student, did, the, homework) and they are divided into three
units/elements according to traditionalists analysis; (the student, did and the homework).
Conversely, in the case of the structural grammar analysis we will have these five elements
divided into five elements just as they appear in the original sentence. Consequently, one could
infer that neither traditional grammar nor structural grammar would tell us how these
elements combine to make larger elements or how do they relate to each other. Instead,
transformational generative grammar seems to solve this problem by telling us firs how the
whole element (S) are/is spilt into parts and yet how these parts are combined to form larger
elements till they reach to the highest level which is the sentence.

Have introduced the first point which is defining and analyzing the sentence from the point of
view of traditional, structural and transformational grammarians, we now look at the other
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
December 2012, Vol. 2, No. 12
ISSN: 2222-6990

218 www.hrmars.com/journals

point which is how two or more sentences are analyzed under one base in transformational
grammar and are different in the other two types of grammar (traditional and structural).

Examples

It is difficult for Ahmed to understand the lesson.
The lesson is difficult for Ahmed to understand.
To understand the lesson is difficult for Ahmed.
Understanding the lesson is difficult for Ahmed.
For Ahmed to understand the lesson is difficult.

Now, in terms of transformational generative grammar such sentences would be considered as
semantically identical but syntactically different. More importantly, all these sentences have
been derived from one sentence which is technically called the base sentence. However, the
first sentence is the base here and all other sentences have been derived from it. Hence, each
sentence has been derived on the basis of transformational rules of generative grammar. For
instance, we make use of the rule of it deletion and then change the word order of some
other elements to form the second sentence. Moreover, one can notice that how the subject in
each sentence has become different form the other one; it is by applying transformational rules
we have been able to form all the above mentioned sentences.

To return to both traditional and structural grammars, they would consider each sentence
different from the other one, because they have different structures so each one has a different
pattern in the case of structural grammar and each one has different grammatical units in the
case of traditional grammar. Unlike both traditionalists and structuralists, transformationalists
have argued and yet proved that these sentences, though have different structures but they do
share the same base which make them related to each other not only semantically but also
syntactically.

We have already seen how one sentence (deep structure sentence) can have a number of the
sentences (surface structure sentences), now we look at the opposite; one sentence (surface
structure sentence would have at least one or more deep structures).

Example

Sara wrote a letter to her mother.
According to both traditional and structural grammarians, this sentence would have only one
meaning as it appears. That is, a subject (Sara) plus a predicate in terms of traditional grammar,
and then (S+ V+ DO+ IO) in terms of structural grammar. Dissimilarly, in transformational
grammar we have first to derive the possible meanings or sentences of this sentence. That is
the deep structure(s) from the surface structure.

Example

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
December 2012, Vol. 2, No. 12
ISSN: 2222-6990

219 www.hrmars.com/journals

Sara wrote a letter to her mother. (Surface Structure)
Sara wrote a letter to her mother.
(Deep structure, means Sara is away and she wrote a letter to her mother telling her about
herself)

Sara wrote a letter to her mother.
(Deep structure, means Saras mother is illiterate, she cannot write so her daughterSara
wrote a letter to her to send it to someone else)

Conclusion

This research-paper aimed at two main things: defining and analyzing the simple sentence in
English from the point of view of traditional, structural and transformational grammars. We
have defined the sentence from the point of view of these three grammars and also analysed a
simple sentence; form (traditional grammar), form and position (structural grammar) and
surface and deep structure (transformational generative grammar). It has also been shown in
the next part how transformational grammar relates a number of rules to one base and also
derives a number of the sentences from the same base which other types of grammar cannot
do. Thus, it does not mean that the researcher want to belittle other grammars, but in one way
or another it is just one way of showing the main differences between grammars of English and
how do each type analyses a simple sentence in English.

References

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntacitic Strucutres . The Hague : Mouton .
Grinder, J. T. (1973). Guide to Transformational Grammar: History, Theory, Practice . New York,
Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, Dallas, Montreal, Toronto, London, Sydney: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, INC.
Jeffries, L. (2006). Discovering Language: The Srtucture of Modern English . Palgrave: Palgrave
Macmillan .
LaPalombara, L. E. (1976). An Introduction to Grammar: Traditional, Structural,
Transformational . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers, Inc.
Lester, M. (1976). Introductory Transformatinal Grammar of English . New York, Chicago, San
Francisco, Atlanta, Dallas, Montreal, Toronto, London, Sydney: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
McClay, J. K. (Fall, 1988). Learning and teaching Grammar: The Experiences and Intentions of
Student Teachers . A thesis, Master of Education : Edmonton, Alberta. Available at
http://proquest.umi.com/login, retrieved at 05/05/09.
Mitchell, L. C. (May, 1996). Controversies over Grammar: Cotexts and Purposes in the
Seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries . A dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy : Faculty of the
Graduate School, University of Southern California. Available at http://proquest.umi.com/login,
retrieved at 05/05/09.
Thakur, D. (2001). Syntax. Thakurbari Road, Kadamkuan, Patna 800 003: Bharati Bhawan
(publishers & Distributers).