CLASSICAL MODEL OF TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR AS A PEDAGOGICAL AID IN TEACHING NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH

0
1025

ABSTRACT

The Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG) has been established as a pedagogical aid in teaching native speakers of English; as these native speakers have an implicit knowledge of grammatical rules. This current study is aimed to examine how the same TGG could be used as a pedagogical aid in teaching non-native speakers of English since English is their second  language (L2) and they might not have the implicit knowledge of English grammatical rules. The study adopted mixed methods approach. The sample size of the study was one hundred and fifty

(150) students and six teachers from West African Senior High School (WASS) and Presbyterian Boys Senior High School (PRESEC). A mixed method design as well as a scholastic test on English Grammar was used in testing the student participants’ level of knowledge and understanding of grammatical rules. An interview guide was also used in assessing the teacher interviewees’ opinion on their students’ knowledge and understanding of English grammatical rules. The data from students was analysed and presented in charts and figures whilst the responses from the tutors’ qualitative data were thematically analysed. The findings revealed that non-native speakers of English have a very good knowledge and understanding of English grammatical rules. It was also established that the non-native English speaking participants have an implicit knowledge of the underlying rules just as the native speakers of English; therefore, the Transformational Generative Grammar could be used as a pedagogical aid in teaching English grammar. It is, therefore, recommended that in-service training and workshops be organised for teachers on the use and the need to adopt the TGG as a teaching aid in order for them to avoid the persistent grammatical errors student’s frequently make during both oral and writing.

LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                                                                                          page

  1. Research Design Interrelation…………………………………………………………………………… 44
  2. Population Distribution of Students and Teachers in the La-Nkwantanang Municipal Assembly……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
  3. Table Showing Demographic Characteristics of Respondents……………………………….. 57
  4. Table Showing Demographics of Interviewees……………………………………………………. 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                                                                                      page

  1. Diagram Showing Adaptation of the Conceptual Framework of the Study…………….. 18
  • Framework for Data Collection and Analysis……………………………………………………… 45
  • An Optical Model of the Strategy Used…………………………………………………………… 47
  • Chart Showing Participants’ Knowledge on Positive Declarative Statements………… 61
  • Chart Showing Participants’ Knowledge on Negative Declarative Statements………. 65
  • Chart Showing Affirmative Main Clause and Affirmative Tag……………………………. 67
  • Chart Showing Students’ Knowledge on Imperative Tags…………………………………… 70
  • Chart Showing Participants’ Knowledge on Intonation………………………………………. 72

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GSSGhana Statistical Service
L2Second Language
RO-Right and Obligation
PRESECPresbyterian Boys Secondary School
  SHS  Senior High School
SPSSStatistical Package for Social Sciences
TGGTransformational Generative Grammar
WASSWest African Senior High School
CFLChinese as a Foreign Language
EFLEnglish as a Foreign Language

TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Contents

DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. i

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………. iii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. v

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………………………………… vii

TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………………………………………………… viii

CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Background to the Study…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

The Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Research Questions…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

Delimitation of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

Organisation of the study…………………………………………………………………………………………. 10

CHAPTER TWO…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11

Chomsky’s Theory of Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG)…………………………….. 11

Criticisms of Chomsky’s Theory of Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG)…………. 13

Linguistic Markedness Theory………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG)……………………………………………………………. 16

Deep Structure (Competence)…………………………………………………………………………………… 17

Surface Structure (Performance)……………………………………………………………………………….. 17

Pedagogical Aid:…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG)……………………………………………………………. 19

Transformational-Generative Grammars as a Pedagogical Aid……………………………………… 24

Tag Formation………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31

Intonation in English tag questions……………………………………………………………………………. 34

Empirical Review……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36

CHAPTER THREE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41

METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41

Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41

Study Area…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41

Research Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

Research Strategy……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46

Population……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 49

Sampling Procedure………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

Sample size…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51

Instrument for Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………………. 51

Data Collection procedures………………………………………………………………………………………. 53

Validity of Instrument……………………………………………………………………………………………… 54

Reliability of Instrument………………………………………………………………………………………….. 55

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 55

Ethical Consideration………………………………………………………………………………………………. 56

CHAPTER FOUR…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………………………………………….. 57

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57

Demographic Characteristics…………………………………………………………………………………….. 57

Demographics of Interviewees………………………………………………………………………………….. 59

Positive Declarative Statements………………………………………………………………………………… 60

Negative Declarative Statements………………………………………………………………………………. 63

Affirmative Main Clause and Affirmative Tag…………………………………………………………… 65

Imperative Tags………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 68

Intonations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70

Discussion of Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………… 73

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 78

CHAPTER FIVE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………… 79

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 79

Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………. 79

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 80

Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 81

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 83

APPENDIX ONE……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 95

INTERVIEW GUIDE…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 95

APPENDIX TWO……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 97

QUESTIONNAIRE……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 97

APPENDIX THREE………………………………………………………………………………………………… 104

ETHICAL CLEARANCE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 104

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

It is easily perceived that the general idea derived from grammar is the heart of most forms of language study. Viewing grammar from a birds-eye perspective, not only does grammar interest itself with the principles which determine its organisation of words, phrases, and sentences, but with its rules which regulate its rendition (Radford, 2002). And history has it that in the medieval age, English grammar was designed with the intent to give a laid down standardized format for learning Latin, the then esteemed language. This thought yielded no result, paving way for the rise of the prescriptive concept of grammar and its related compatibility issues of standards and forms of the English language. In view of this, some Scholars such as Robert Lowth, William Bullokar and Ellin Davis in their quest to find lasting solutions to the unending problems of organisation of principles of the language into codes, cut down rules and regulations, settled exceptional cases and identified general mistakes for appropriate solution in improving the language (Lamidi, 2002).

In several ways, the term “grammar” has been made plain and comprehensible by language educators and grammarians such as Wilcox (2004), Purpura (2004), Ur (1988) who have affected and been affected by varied techniques to teaching grammar. Brown (2007) considers grammar as the system of rules guiding the conventional arrangement and relationship of words in a sentence. Based on this, Khan (2016:10) thinks that merely understanding the meanings of the words is inadequate to express the targeted message in communication but application of grammatical rules in a conversation makes conveying of detailed and thoughtful messages possible for speakers. Khan also asserts that grammar also involves several different correlated

expressions with the ordering of items in a sentence. He further thinks that grammar is a linguistic function concerned with word formation.

Wilcox (2004) also suggests that grammar can be considered as a system of rules which permits the users of a particular language to produce meaning by building both intelligible words and larger constructions of sentences. Purpura (2004) defines grammar as a set of structural rules guiding the formation of clauses, phrases, and words in any particular natural language. He further avers that instructors normally think that this will render the generative structure on which learners can build their knowledge and will eventually be in a position to use  the language. Grammar can also be considered as the means through which a language stage- manages and commingles words so as to produce longer units of meaning. How units of meaning are constructed in a given language is guided by a set of rules.

Flowing from the above definitions, it suggests that grammar is the core system of any language which holds it together, and that meaning is an essential part of this system. Linguists such as Ferdinand, Chomsky, and Jakobson among others are dynamically assertive and swiftly strike a chord in us to that effect. Both prescriptive and descriptive grammars are loaded with rules but in different ways. The simple dichotomy between descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar is that as regards the former, the rules that form the basis of our words, phrases, clauses and sentences usage are examined while the latter attempts to implement rules and patterns of what they deem as the correct uses of language. Based on these two schools of thoughts, several types of grammars if not all, such as generative, comparative, mental, performance, reference, theoretical, traditional, transformational and universal grammars among others describe and analyse structures and functions of language dynamically (Khan, 2016).

Comparative Grammar in simple lucid terms deals with examination and differentiation of grammatical structures. However, contemporary grammar pertains to the inherent cognitive language that renders an explanation as to how an individual can acquire a first language. As regards generative grammar, it deals with the set of rules and patterns that set up the formation and explanation of sentences that speakers accept as part of their language. Turning to reference grammar, it is that type of grammar which describes a language by focusing on the rules guiding the construction of words, phrases, clauses and sentences. Examples of contemporary reference grammars in English include; A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, by  Randolph Quirk et al. (1985), the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999),  and The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002).

Traditional grammar is that type of grammar which involves grammar teaching with conventional approaches. In view of traditional grammarians, grammar is a language skill that is instructed through the application of conventional approaches. As always stressed by traditional grammarians, grammar comprises eight distinct categories of speech fashioned by nouns, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, articles, participles, adverbs and verbs. So as to learn a language, there is the need for the learners to study the foresaid eight kinds individually as well as build up the rules with regard to their translation (Hinkel and Fotos, 2002). Similarly, Williams (2005) thinks of traditional grammar as mainly aimed at continuing a diachronic model of what evidently comprises proper language. Transformational grammar on the other hand, is a theory of grammar that explains the formation of a language by linguistic transformations and phrase structures. In transformational grammar, the term ‘rule’ is used not as an established principle by an outside authority but for an instinctive rational which is repeatedly followed in sentence construction and elucidation.

The above are some of the varieties of grammars defined by various authorities of which Transformational Generative Grammar that underpins this research is part. In spite of all these types of grammars, Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar (TGG) theory of teaching native speakers of English language caught my interest without reservation in the using of this same module in teaching pedagogically non-native speakers of English.

Nordquist (2017), a rising linguistics, who began in the year 1957 by publishing Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures, befits the label ‘revolutionary.’ He posits that after 1957, the study of grammar has not fallen short to what is said and how it is interpreted. Factually speaking, the word grammar itself has assumed a new meaning. Nordquist (2017) thinks the new linguistics defined grammar as our instinctive, subliminal knack to create language, an internal system of rules that forms our human language capacity. It is these internal rules that the new linguistics sought to explain. As opposed to the structuralists who aimed to scrutinize the sentences  we   normally   articulate   and   to   illustrate   their   systemic   nature,   however,   the transformationalists aimed at unlocking the secrets of language thus, to develop a form of our internal rules, a form that would produce all of the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Kolln, Funk, Allyn and Bacon (1998) it has been clear right from the onset that Transformational Grammar was the best accessible theory of language structure whilst being deficient of any lucid grasp of typical assertions the theory made about human language (Sampson, 2001).

Transformational Generative Grammar singled out as an important inventive or generative part of the language faculty. This is because prior to the introduction of the TGG theory, there was an all-time Skinnerian behaviourist approach where language was taught as a simple environmental stimuli before Chomsky, the revolutionary, stressed on the internal cognitive capacity of building a language in our heads. In other words, Cardenas (2016) asserts that we humans are not just

mindless automatons but cognitively urbane beings competent of building multifaceted structures in our brains.

Again, the study adopts Chomsky’s TGG because it has been helpful not only grammatically, nor in the area of cognitive science but to native speakers as well. TGG approaches language innovatively. However, native speakers of English require an avenue to use their creativity to explore the language on their own. They need to use and hear the language in order to figure out themselves how the language they are studying works since they have naturally internalized the rule which enables them to transform words with ease. However, native speakers of English require an avenue to use their creativity to explore the language on their own in order to figure out how the language they are studying works since they have naturally internalized the rule which enables them to transform words with ease. The study seeks to find out how this same TGG model could be used pedagogically in teaching non-native speakers of English language and the extent to which the latter can demonstrate explicitly knowledge in various syntactic grammatical categories.

Statement of the Problem

The current study is to find out if non-native speakers of English have an implicit underlying understanding of English syntactic structures to warrant the use of transformational generative grammar (TGG) in order to avoid the traditional approach to the teaching of mechanics such as sentence fragments, comma splice, run-ons, subject verb agreement etc. Research shows that native speakers of English consciously or unconsciously, possess an implicit knowledge of syntactic grammatical structure, an underlying knowledge of such syntactic categories and the internalisation of rules. All these categories present cognitively in a native speaker’s mind go a long way to minimise grammatical errors in the native speaker’s syntactical and semantical

expressions. It is this inherent quality that teachers of the language usurp as a tool in teaching pedagogical native speakers of English. On the other hand, however, non-native speakers’ of English make several errors in both oral and written form of the English Language. What could possibly be the cause? Could TGG be used in teaching non-native speakers of English to avoid such grammatical errors? If native speakers of English possess these underlying grammatical syntactic principles then this paper seeks to find out if this same TGG model could be used in teaching non-native speakers of English.

Noguchi (1987), asserts that to aid students to correct sentence mechanics, there is the need to have a systematic way that puts an end to the conformation of grammatical concepts; a method which can enable students to make out the necessary grammatical categories in parallel to other grammatical categories. Lending support to this, Adrian and Heny (1975) maintained that the classical model of transformational generative grammar could act as a remarkable instructive tool. This theoretical account postulates two degrees of representation for sentences, an abstract deep structure of meaning and a concrete surface structure of realized sentences. The latter is obtained from the deep structure by a set of rules, or transformations. Noguchi (1987) in this regard, demonstrates that it is the transformational aspect which is helpful in correcting sentence mechanics. He also indicates that what makes the transformational part chiefly valuable is that transformational rules are sensitive to a range of syntactic categories.

Noguchi (1987), ponders over how native speakers of English can, with ease, transform statements into appropriate question tags unlike their non-native counterparts. He also wonders how native speakers can create the “tags” with each of the original declarative sentences and thus convert the declarative sentences into tag-questions. He further indicates that certainly, native speakers do not memorize corresponding tag-questions for declarative sentences. Noguchi is

however of stern conviction that the native speakers of English have rather internalised a rule, that is, the rule of Tag-Formation which aids them to change declarative sentences into appropriate tag-questions.