THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRANSFORMATION EVENT WITH SENTENCE COMPLEXES

ABSTRACT

One of the interesting problems in linguistics is the relationship between transformation and composite sentences. The comprehensiveness of the issue and its connection to a number of problems have increased attention to this field, and many linguists have shown a tendency to investigate this problem starting from the fifties of the twentieth century. As a result of the research, it became clear that transformation is closely connected with issues such as transformative member, functional equivalence, syntactic synonymy, syntactic variant, syntactic derivation, complex invariance, dominance, semantic core, etc. The investigation of the problem can have a special role in the detection of manifestation and in the study of these issues. The author of the article believes that the potential for developing this issue is far from being exhausted, and wants to attract more attention of modern researchers to this range of issues.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Одной из интересных проблем лингвистики является соотношение трансформации и сложных предложений. Комплексность вопроса и его связь с рядом проблем повысили внимание к этой области, и многие лингвисты проявили тенденцию к исследованию этой проблемы, начиная с пятидесятых годов ХХ века. В результате исследования выяснилось, что трансформация тесно связана с такими вопросами, как трансформирующий член предложения, функциональная эквивалентность, синтаксическая синонимия, синтаксический вариант, синтаксическая деривация, комплексная инвариантность, доминантность, семантическое ядро и т.д. Исследование данной проблемы может иметь особую роль в обнаружении манифестации и изучении этих вопросов. Автор статьи полагает, что потенциал разработки данной проблематики далек от исчерпания, и хочет привлечь большее внимание современных исследователей к этому кругу вопросов.

Keywords: Language Types, Sentence-Word, Transformation, Syntactic Unit, sentence complexes

Ключевые слова: типы языка, предложение-слово, трансформация, синтаксическая единица, комплексы предложений

Introduction

A neural network (NN) is a form of AI-based learning designed to help computers analyze data similarly to humans. Each neural network is made up of layers of nodes, which pass data between each other. Through training data and experience, neural networks give machines the ability to learn from mistakes and improve their performance over time. As a result, neural networks seem to be ideal for handling more complex data-related tasks.

The NN analysis method has the following disadvantages: 1) it has not developed a tool for distinguishing similar syntactic structures that are different in meaning (One of the examples of similar syntactic structures we find on quora.com : John found the book on the table. vs John found the book on the atom. Marc Ettlinger (PhD in Linguistics, UC Berkeley) comments upon: "In sentence (A) the prepositional phrase "on the table" is an adjunct of the verb found. In sentence (B) the PP modifies the noun phrase book specifying what the book is about." He gives the difference in syntactic bracketing: [S [NP John] [VP found [NP the book] [PP on the table]]] vs [S [NP John] [VP found [NP the book [PP on the atom]]]]). The technique is powerless to distinguish semantic difficulties; 2) it is applicable only within a simple sentence at a step as a whole, and then not in all cases.

With this technique, the linguist is not able to answer the question of what is the elementary unit of language at the syntactic level. They tried to overcome the shortcomings of the descriptive grammar similar to the NN in the USA with the help of transformational (generative) grammar.

In the 1950s linguists began to realize that the structural, purely formal approach to the study of language, which does not take into account the semantics of linguistic units, is becoming obsolete.

One of the branches of the new trend in linguistics, which arose under the influence of the ideas of Noam Chomsky in the 50s and 60s (XX century) was called transformational generative grammar. The structure of this grammar has three main components: syntactic, semantic and phonological, of which syntax is central, the rest perform interpretive functions.

E.Kozerin, M.Birvishin, T.Muzeffaroglu, U.C. Jeif, O.M.Kim, E.Kurilovich discussed the concept of "transformation", its nature, the surface and deep structure of the transformation sentence, its dimensions, determination, structural changes, method of transformation; L. Tener, E. Kubryakova, V. Bogdanov, V. N. Migrin, V. V. Babayseva, V. I. Nikitin, A. V. Bondako and others gave interesting and valuable ideas and opinions. N. Chomsky and Zellig Harris laid the foundation of the term "transformation", and Z. Harris formed the transformation method as a special system of analytical procedures.

Main part

In the system of concepts about transformation, linguists inevitably had to express certain considerations and opinions about the method of transformation, its types and forms. I.A. Sizova writes about the method of transformation in her book "What is syntax?": "The method of transformation arises as an addition to the analysis, but it is limited to determining between two elements in a sentence... The model of the resulting grammar is divided into two components: syntactic and phonological. One of them, in turn, is divided into two subcomponents: a) the rules of combination and classification of sentence elements and b) the rule of converting simple sentences of the existing language into other sentences".

There are also certain ideas about the characteristics of transformation in the language. These features can be grouped as follows: 1) There should be grammatically syntactic proximity between transforms; 2) The structural image must be different between transforms; 3) A stylistic-functional shade should show itself among the transforms; 4) Both the main and additional meaning of the transforms of the syntactic unit should match the main form and meaning of the other syntactic unit.

The grammar accepts basic terminal (hereinafter indecomposable) symbols of parts of speech: S – Sentence (not a Subject), NP – Noun Phrase (for example a subject phrase, or an object phrase), VP – Verb Phrase (Verbal phrase), T – The (Definite (or otherwise a/an indefinite) Article), Attr (A) – Attribute (Definition), N – Noun (Name), V – Verb, Aux – Auxiliary (Auxiliary Verb), Part – Participle (Communion), Adv – Adverb, represented in the form of a so-called tree.

The structure of the sentence (similar to the previously discussed) will look like in Fig. 1.

Figure. 1. An example of supply analysis within the framework of the transformation approach

Although linguists have different opinions about the types of syntactic transformation, the general opinion is that it is correct to combine it into four groups. These groups were defined by I. Sizova and published in 1966. There were (before and after) many other definitions of the types too.

Specific means and methods of language transformation are also mentioned. The most efficient of these methods is the empirical way of transformation. With this method, original texts are transformed into complex constructions and compositions. When complex constructions are converted into a simple sentence (simple sentences), the branch clause acts as a member that answers the question of the main clause.

For the formation of complexes, an operational entity is needed, and the transformation is built precisely as a result of invariant relations between complexes.  At least two complexes are involved here – the initial, and corrective complex – called transform. 

In linguistics, one can also find certain ideas about transformation and homonymous sentences, about the degrees, boundaries of transformation, about the fact that it is a method of linguistic research, and it is shown that with the help of transformation it is possible to determine the structure of homonymous sentences, the variety in their composition (a person comes, a person who comes), in this case, branch sentences can be taken as a transformation of the main sentence into parts (members).

There are also many issues closely related to the transformation event. One of them is composite sentences. As a result of the transformation, several dozen composite sentences are formed from nuclear sentences. For the formation of composite sentences, an operational entity is needed, and the transformation is built precisely as a result of invariant relations between complexes.

The connections and similarities of transformation with some elements of distributive linguistics are beyond doubt. The most important of them is the similarity of transformation with options.  Taken as a whole, transformation models complement the method of distributive analysis.

And the boundaries of transformation are very wide.  Both simple and composite sentences (here both types of a composite sentence, complex sentences, compound sentences; sentences with direct speech, sentences of all kinds in general) can transform and become a member of the sentence.

According to some researchers, the main issue in comparing distributive models is the approximation of these or other syntactic units by all characteristic models.  In this aspect, the processing of simple and composite sentences in a synonymous version of each other, their synonymy, can be taken as a basis.  For example, where you said, I went there – I went where you said.

Transformation is also connected and related to variant. True, talking about the stylistic and expressive difference in the question of options does not justify itself.  Usually the stylistic expressive difference can be between synonymous units. Semantic identity cannot create stylistic difference, expressive diversity. Variance is not related to style in literary language, but precisely to the concept of the norm. The norm is defined as a set of elements chosen and consolidated, stabilized and traditionally realized in the process of social language practice for the language structure.  Variance is manifested among simple syntactic units. 

Conclusions

The author of the article believes that the potential for developing this issue is far from being exhausted, and wants to attract more attention of modern researchers to this range of issues. The disclosed complexity of the issue proves the need in future studies which will further investigate the transformation in connection with transformative member, functional equivalence, syntactic synonymy, syntactic variant, syntactic derivation, complex invariance, dominance, semantic core, etc. The investigation of the problem can have a special role in the detection of manifestation and in the study of these issues.

References:

1. Adilov, M. (2010). Əsərləri. I cild, Bakı: Elm və təhsil. ; Axmanova, O. (1966). Slovar lingvistiçeskix terminov. Moskva: Sovetskaya ensiklopediya.
2. Langella, A.M.: Paraphrases for the Italian communication predicates. In: Barone, L., Monteleone, M., Silberztein, M. (eds.) NooJ 2016. CCIS, vol. 667, pp. 196–207. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55002-2_17
3. Rios, Annette. Esquema de anotaciones sintácticas para el Quechua Sureño (2014). www.cl.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-d043-9c87-ffff-ffffb112cc62/TR_2014_01.pdf
4. Silberztein, M.: Language Formalization: The NooJ Approach. Wiley, Hoboken (2016)
5. Duran, M.: Formalizing Quechua verbs Inflexion. In: Proceedings of the NooJ 2013 International Conference, Saarbrücken (2013)