University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Selected Concepts In Transformational Theory

(USC Thesis Other)

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Selected Concepts In Transformational Theory

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INVESTIGATION
OF SELECTED CONCEPTS
IN TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY
by
Edward Joseph BorowIec
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P artial F u lfillm e n t of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1971
BOROWIEC, Edward Joseph, 1937-
A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INVESTIGATION OF
SELECTED CONCEPTS IN TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY.
University of Southern California, Ph.D.,
1971
Education, teacher training
j University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
©COPYRIGHT BY
EDWARD JOSEPH BOROWIEC
1 9 7 1
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED ,
UNIVERSITY OF SO U TH E R N C A LIFO R N IA
T H E GRADUATE SCHOOL.
U N IV ER S ITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, C A L IF O R N IA S 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, 'written by
under the direction of /i.is Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
, Edward. Jasspb-.BarQwisG.
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
Date.....
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
hatrtnan
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Far more important to me in the present work than merely
w ritin g and completing a doctoral dissertation was the opportunity
to work closely with three professors I personally selected and whom
j 1 g re atly admire. I f for no other reason, the d is s e rta tio n process
I
can be defended on the above grounds.
Dr. Leslie Wilbur, my chairman, supplied the i n i t i a l en
couragement and inspiration four years ago. To Dr. Harry Handler
1 am indebted fo r bringing some semblance of order into my chaotic
world o f s ta tis t ic s and research design. And to Dr. Robert B. Kaplan
I am indebted fo r providing valuable suggestions in the f i e l d of
lin g u is tic s during a ll phases of my study. They were always
a v a ila b le , approachable^ and candid. For this I am deeply g ra te fu l.
To Mr. Robert Jones of the University of Southern C a l i
fo rn ia 's Testing Bureau 1 am grateful for many hours of discussion
and technical assistance and for providing technical personnel for
my study whenever they were needed.
And f i n a l l y , to my w ife , Beverly, a thousand thanks fo r a
thousand tasks. I am indebted to her for more encouragement than I
deserved, fo r more o b jective and an aly tic al argumentation than my
own narrow perspective was able to p r o f it from, and for the grace
and wisdom to to le ra te a person and a process th a t, in combination,
are hardly to le ra b le .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................................... i i
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................v ii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................................................................... 18
A Review of the L ite ra tu re Related to Selected
Concepts in Transformational Theory
The Applied Linguists
The Theoretical Linguists
A Review of the L ite ra tu re Related to the
Psycholinguistic Aspects o f the Semantic
Di f f e r e n tia l
I I I . DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ............................................................................... 75
IV. ANALYSIS OF R E S U L T S .............................................................................. 87
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 109
APPENDICES...................................................................................... 120
BIBLIOGRAPHY 151
LIST OF TABLES
Table * Page
1. D is trib u tio n and Return of the Semantic D iffe re n tia l
in Numbers and P erce n tag es.................................................... 84
2. C h aracteristics of Respondents ...................................................... 86
3. An Analysis o f Variance o f Differences between
College Teachers of English and Prospective
College Teachers of English for Various
Semantic D iff e r e n tia l Factors ........................................... 90
4. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D if
fe r e n tia l fo r College Teachers o f English and
Prospective College Teachers of English .................... 91
5. An Analysis of Variance of Differences between
High School Teachers of English and Prospective
High School Teachers of English for Various
Semantic D iff e r e n tia l Factors ........................................... 92
6. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D if
fe r e n tia l fo r High School Teachers of English
and Prospective High School Teachers of English . 93
7. An Analysis o f Variance of Differences between
College Teachers of English and High School
Teachers of English for Various Semantic
D if f e r e n t ia l Factors ................................................................... 95
8. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D i f
fe r e n tia l fo r College Teachers o f English and
High School Teachers of English ...................................... 96
9. An Analysis o f Variance of Differences between
Prospective College Teachers of English and
Prospective High School Teachers of English
fo r Various Semantic D iff e r e n tia l Factors . . . . 97
v
Table Page
10. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D i f f e r
en tial for Prospective College Teachers of
English and Prospective High School Teachers
of Engl i s h ................................................................................................. 98
11. An Analysis of Variance o f Differences between Groups
Who Have Been F a m ilia r with Transformational
Theory for Varying Periods of Time for Various
Semantic D if f e r e n t ia l Factors .................................................... 99
12. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D i f f e r
en tial for Groups Who Have Been Familiar with
Transformational Theory fo r Varying Periods of
T i m e .................................................................................................................... 100
I 13. An Analysis o f Variance o f Differences between Groups
with D iffe re n t Primary Sources of Knowledge for
Various Semantic D iff e r e n tia l Factors .................................... 102
14. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D i f f e r
en tial fo r Groups w ith D iffe re n t Primary Sources
of Knowledge............................................................................................ 103
15. An Analysis of Variance o f Differences between Groups
with D iffe re n t Undergraduate Preparation for
Various Semantic D iff e r e n tia l Factors ................................. 104
16. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D i f f e r
e n tial for Groups w ith D iffe re n t Undergraduate
Preparation ....................................................................................... 105
17. An Analysis of Variance of Differences between Groups
Who Have Earned Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees
for Various Semantic D iffe r e n tia l Factors ....................... 107
18. Means and Standard Deviations on the Semantic D i f f e r
e n tial for Groups Who Have Earned Undergraduate
and Graduate Degrees ........................................................................ 108
/
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Schema to Show Relationships between Basic Concepts
in a Language Arts C u r r i c u l u m ....................................... . 37
2. Revised Schema to Show Relationships between Basic
Concepts in the Language Arts Curriculum . . . . . 37
3. Diagram of the Relationships o f the Various Components
of a Transformational G ra m m a r........................................... 39
vi i
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The past two decades have been witness to a v e rita b le revo
lution in the development and application o f grammatical theory. In
1954 Francis (73) was s u b s ta n tia lly correct in predicting the onset
o f the revolution, but he could not have had even the s lig h te s t pre
monition of its breadth and depth or of its eventual impact in the
American secondary and college classroom. Nine years la te r Francis
(74) made another assessment of the state o f grammatical theory, an
assessment which was te c h n ica lly accurate but somewhat incomplete.
Others (Pooley, 178; Roberts, 189; Gleason, 79; and Postman, 183)
had also attempted th e ir hands a t prediction, even while the revo
lution was experiencing its most productive moments, but they too,
were only p a r t i a l l y successful. In short, no one had been able to
predict with any success the eventual impact and subsequent pro
life r a tio n o f the more recent developments in grammatical theory.
Nor was anyone abTe to account for the selection and adoption of
these developments by secondary school and college textbook w rite rs .
1
2
While grammatical concepts were being incorporated into
textbooks almost as rapid ly as they were being published in the
periodical lit e r a t u r e , the results were neither encouraging nor
systematic. In some textbooks ( i l l and 220) the new ideas were set
alongside old ones with no attempt to relate the two. In yet other
textbooks (190 and 79) an attempt was made to integrate the old with
the new, usually by juxtaposing the old terminology with the new con
ceptual framework. But textbooks, like teachers themselves, were
i
generally not attuned to these new developments with a deep p h ilo
sophical and in te lle c tu a l commitment. The knowledge in both texts
! and teachers was quite fragmentary, for the most part, and thus an
|
| ominous s itu a tio n began to develop. Meckel (155) noted the following
i n The Handbook o f Research on Teaching:
That textbooks used in the schools are extremely
conservative and even in e rro r with respect to usage,
and that teachers tend to be both conservative and
uninformed about recent lin g u is tic research seems
to be c le a r from the research of Malmstrom (1959)j.
Womack (1959); and a recent survey on the preparation
of English teachers (National Council of Teachers of
English, 1961). (155:966)
This kind of research served to characterize teachers of
English and th e ir textbooks in the early part of the decade of the
'sixties when major emphasis was being placed upon fusing tra d itio n a l
grammatical theory with s tru ctu ral or descriptive lin g u istic s .
However, at the m id-point o f the decade another grammatical theory
appeared in the classroom, and th is gave the revolution not only a
new impetus but also a new d ire c tio n .
The new theory was a lte r n a te ly called transformational
generative grammar or generative transformational grammar. With
increasing use of the theory lin g u ists came to favor an abbreviated
version of the name wherein e ith e r transformational or generative was
dropped. In any event, the theory was given its formal introduction
and statement by Professor Noam Chomsky in a now famous monograph
e n title d Syntactic Structures (3 6 ). Transformational theory, even
! in its revolutionary thrust and comprehensiveness, has not supplanted
!
! the strongest of the e a r l i e r grammatical theories. I f anything, i t
I
has complemented them. In fa c t, transformational theory has been
propounded by Chomsky and many of his colleagues as a rigorous and
systematic tra d itio n a l grammatical theory.
For fiv e years a f t e r its inception the theory had several
notable developments, p rin c ip a lly by Chomsky (37j 38, and 39) and
Lees (132). Its introduction into the classroom was effected by
Roberts in both secondary (190) and college level (192) texts.
Shortly th e re a fte r, Thomas (229) and Kaplan et a l . (113) introduced
transformational m aterials s p e c ific a lly designed fo r the teacher of
English.
Beyond the purpose of classroom instruction in a grammatical
theory, other w riters were beginning to find applications fo r tra n s
formationalism in related areas. Ohmann (166) was among the f i r s t
to advance the notion of understanding lite ra r y style by way of a
transformational approach, while Newsome (161), Zidonis (2^9),
4
Davis (5 7 )j Hunt (100), and Mellon (156) studied the relationships
between the theory and sentence-building. More recently, Cook (53)
and V/interowd (244) saw the same relationships between the theory
and rhetoric programs extending fa r beyond the sentence. In another
but related f ie ld Lado (119) and Hughes (99) have applied the theory
to the teaching o f foreign languages. The above, however, represents
only a small portion of the studies and experiments which touch upon
| applications of the theory. I t w ill be the objective of Chapter I I to
discuss many of these w ritin g s in depth.
Although a comprehensive bibliography of transformational
theory would number well into the thousands of items, comparatively
l i t t l e has been w ritte n on the impact of the theory on the teaching
of English in American public schools. Writers who have attempted to
describe this impact could do l i t t l e more than provide an assessment
which focuses on one or two aspects o f the theory's application.
Rosenbaum (199), fo r example, suggested th at the impact would be f e l t
f i r s t on the level of syntax. Postman ( l 83) f l a t l y stated that the
theory would have absolutely no impact unless a new style of teaching
were suited to i t :
. . . although there is l i t t l e research on the effects
of generative grammar we feel safe in predicting that
i f generative grammar is taught in conventional ways
it w ill be found to be as useless as any other system
of grammar. (183:66)
Postman fu rth er suggested the inquiry approach as a way fo r students
to know and to behave in a lin g u is tic context:
5
Linguistics is a way o f behaving. I t is an
a c t iv i t y , a process of doing something. More s p e c if i
c a lly , it; is a way of behaving while one attempts to
discover information and to acquire knowledge about
language. The information and knowledge that result
from such inquiry-behavior become part of what is
meant by lin g u is tic s . (183:4)
Furthermore, Algeo (4) discussed the scope and potential impact of
language study in an ontological sense. The crucial issue for him
was to make the d is tin c tio n ". . . between knowing about and knowing
how to" (4:274). He compared knowing and doing with Chomsky's para
l l e l concepts o f language competence and language performance. These
two concepts serve as the basis fo r th eo retical and applied formu
lations o f language. The ultim ate effectiveness of any grammatical
theory then, must be discussed in terms o f these two concepts even
though t h is kind of discussion does not make a more precise
measurement of the theory's impact possible. A precise measuring
tool may never be a v a ila b le .
None of the above approaches is e n t ir e ly s a tis fa c to ry ; yet
a l l of them must be accepted u n til some method is found to account
fo r the impact and usefulness of what transpires in secondary and
college English and lin g u is tic s classrooms, especially those which
purport to handle language and grammatical systems or composition
and rhetoric. Until th is information is a v a ila b le , researchers,
te x t w riters , and curriculum planners w ill have to continue th e ir
efforts in attempting to determine which grammatical theories and
which basic concepts in these theories might p ro fita b ly be included
6
in textual and c u rric u la r m aterials.
The present study seeks to explore several aspects in the
area of attitu d es of English teachers toward, and th e ir acceptance of,
transformational theory by investigating th e ir perceptions and th e ir
perceived meanings of selected concepts in the theory. The groups
s p e c ific a lly investigated are high school teachers of English (grades
9 -1 2 ), prospective high school teachers of English (cu rren tly student
teachers), college teachers of English, and prospective college
teachers of English (cu rren tly graduate students). Of major in terest
here w ill be the differences in the perceptions and in terp retatio n s
of these groups toward the selected concepts. The selection and
order of the concepts gave rise to some fundamental questions about
the nature of both language study and grammatical theory. Teachers
on a ll levels— teachers ranging over the years from A r is t o t le to
Aquinas to Agassiz— have always been concerned with the selection
and the eventual taxonomy of concepts in t h e ir teaching practices.
The concept approach to language teaching is not e n tir e ly
new. Lamberts (125), Cooper (55), C arroll (29 and 31), Hayes (91),
Christensen (51 and 52), and Langacker (126) are only a few o f those
who have discussed a conceptual framework in such areas as grammatical
theory, semantics, rhetoric, and learning theory. These w rite rs ,
without question, have provided teachers with many valuable insights
into the nature of language, language teaching, and language learning.
As more is learned of these three phases of language, more w ill be
learned about the process of knowledge a cq u isitio n , an important
ongoing process which is constantly in need of more research and
discussion. I t is in this s p i r i t that the present study undertakes
to examine the psychological and semantic impact of several basic
concepts in a major grammatical theory.
One of the ways to study this impact is to use a tool from
psycholinguistics, the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique. Although i t
can account for only a small measure of this impact, the technique
| is both a v a lid and a re lia b le one (171)- C arroll (29 and 30)
employed the semantic d iffe r e n tia l to analyze foreign language test
batteries and prose s ty le . In the same sense this study w ill attempt
to analyze selected concepts in transformational theory. Both
concept analysis and the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l belong to the f ie ld of
psycholi nguisti cs.
Osgood and Sebf?ok ( 172) have defined psycholinguistics as a
d isc ip li ne wh ich is
concerned in the broadest sense with relations
between messages and the ch aracteristics of human
individuals who select and in te rp ret them. (172:4)
Saporta (204) noted that one of the subfields of psycholinguistics
is "The semantic aspects of lin g u is tic events" (204:228). Linguistic
events may range from a phonetic utterance to the acq u isitio n and
use of language or to the formation, development, and in te rp retatio n
of a concept w ithin the grammatical system of that language. This
study w ill be prim arily concerned with the la t t e r .
8
Problem of the Study
In essence, the problem o f this study is to determine what
s ig n ific a n t differences e x is t in the meanings of selected concepts
in transformational theory as held by various practicing and pros
pective teachers of English on the high school and college levels
insofar as these differences can be measured by the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l technique. A d d itio n a lly, the study w ill attempt to answer the
follow ing questions of a more specific nature: Is there a s i g n i f i
cant d ifferen ce in the meanings of selected concepts in trans
formational theory held by high school teachers of English, pros
pective high school teachers of English, college teachers of English,
and prospective college teachers of English? I f differences e x is t,
what are they (in s t a t is t ic a l terms) and to what may they be a t t r i
buted? I f differences are found, for example, may they be a t t r i
butable to actual or intended teaching lev e l, amount of academic
tra in in g , type of undergraduate tra in in g , or perhaps to the manner
in which knowledge about the theory was obtained. A f i f t h fa c to r
which may possibly explain differences among the several groups is
that the amount of time individual subjects have been fam ilar with
the theory w ill a ffe c t the s t a b il i t y of ratings on the semantic
di f f e r e n t i a l .
Siqnificance of the Study
From previous citatio n s as well as from the remainder of
th is chapter and study, i t seems evident th at a knowledge of the
perceptions or a ttitu d e s of selected transformational concepts held
by a major segment of teachers of English is essential to the
follow ing groups: teachers of English themselves, language arts
consultants and curriculum builders, textbook w riters and publishers
and f i n a l l y , psychologists and psycholinguists interested in con-
cept-form ation, concept-teaching, and concept-meaning.
D e fin itio n o f Terms
There are two sets of terms v it a l to this study; the f i r s t
set encompasses four items in the newly emerging d is c ip lin e of
psycholinguistics, and the la t te r contains six terms, a ll of them
from transformational grammar. Wherever possible, meanings have bee
adapted from those who were f i r s t to use them, although this is not
to deny th at many others have also made s ig n ific a n t contributions in
revising or expanding these d e fin itio n s . The following four terms
are from psycholinguistics:
Psycholi ngu i s ti cs -
. . . a disci piine which is concerned in the
broadest sense with relations between messages
and the c h ara c te ris tic s of human individuals who
s elect and in te rp re t them. (172)
Semantic D iff e r e n tia l -
. . . a combination of controlled association and
scaling procedures. We provide the subject with a
concept to be d iffe re n tia te d and a set of bipolar
a d je c tiv a l scales against which to do i t , his only
task being to indicate, for each item (pairing of
a concept w ith a scale), the d irec tio n of his
association and its intensity on a seven-step scale.
10
The crux of the method, of course, lies in selecting
the sample of polar descriptive terms. ( i 71)
Concept -
. . . a property of organismic experience—more
p a r tic u la r ly , they are the abstracted and often
co g n itive ly structured class of "mental" e xp e ri
ence learned by organisms in the course o f th e ir
1ife h is to r ie s . (31)
Mean? nq -
The meaning of "meaning" fo r which we wish to
establish an index is a psychological one— th at
process or state in the behavior o f a sign-using
organism which is assumed to be a necessary con
sequence of the reception of sign stim uli and a
necessary antecedent for the production of sign-
responses. Within the general framework of learning
theory, we have id e n tifie d this cognitive s ta te ,
meaning, with a representational mediation process
and have tr ie d to specify the objective stimulus
and response conditions under which such a process
develops. (171)
The remaining d e fin itio n s are from the lite r a tu r e related to tra n s
formational theory. A ll six d e fin itio n s cited are from Chomsky's
w ritings (1957-1968):
Transformational Grammar (also transformational generative grammar
or generative grammar) -
. . . contains a central syntactic component and two
in te rp re tiv e components, a phonological component
and a semantic component. The grammar specifies the
i n f i n i t e set of we 11-formed sentences and assigns to
each of these one or more structural descriptions. (42)
Deep and Surface Structures -
Surface structure (according to the Port-Royal theory)
corresponds only to sound--to the corporeal aspect of
language; but when the signal is produced, with its
surface structure, there takes place a corresponding
11
mental analysis into what we may call the deep
s tru c tu re, a formal structure that relates d ire c tly
not to sound but to the meaning. (49)
The former is the underlying abstract structure that
determines its semantic in te rp retatio n ; the la t te r ,
the s u p e rfic ia l organization of units which d e te r
mines the phonetic in te rp retatio n and which relates
to the physical form of the actual utterance, to
its perceived or intended form . . . . Deep and
surface structures need not be id e n tica l. (46)
Language Competence -
. . . the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language.
The most s trik in g aspect of lin g u is tic competence
is what we may c a ll the " c r e a tiv ity of language,"
that is, the speaker's a b i l i t y to produce new sen
tences. (47)
Language Performance -
. . . the actual use o f language in concrete s it u
ations. Performance provides evidence for the
investigation of competence. (47)
Transformational Rules -
. . . convert deep to surface structures. (45)
Transformational rules apply in a cycle, f i r s t to
the smallest constituents of a s trin g , then to the
next largest constituents. (42)
(T -ru le s ) include both simple and generalized
transformations. A transformational rule is defined
by the stru ctu ral analysis of the strings to which
i t applies and the stru ctu ral change which i t effects
on these strin g s. (36)
Grammat? calness -
. . . belongs to the study of competence. (44)
Grammatical ness refers to the degree of accepta
b i l i t y to a native speaker. I t is not to be iden
t i f i e d with "meaningful" or "s ig n ifica n t" in any
semantic sense. (36)
12
I t is one of the many factors that interact to
determine a c c e p ta b ility , (kk)
Limitations of the Study
Not a ll teachers in C a lifo rn ia or elsewhere have had the
same access to the more current m aterials being disseminated in the
f ie ld of grammatical theory. Very often such access is sharply
limited to large urban areas where colleges and u n iversities are
located and where in s titu te s can be held or extension services can
be provided. Teachers in remote areas must rely almost e n tir e ly on
independent study to keep abreast of recent developments i f and when
they are able to secure the proper m aterials.
By the same token, not a ll school d is tr ic ts have had the
same interests in searching out, evaluating, and eventually incor
porating these new m aterials and ideas into th e ir cu rric u la . Many
secondary school fa c u ltie s do not even have the more recent texts,
guides, and readers a v a ila b le on th e ir professional reading shelves.
In this way teachers on a ll levels, p a rtic u la rly the secondary, do
not come to understand or accept a theory in the same way. Some come
to the theory remarkably shortsighted and depart the same way. Others
reveal varying degrees of so p h isticatio n . A few e xh ib it considerable
knowledge and understanding of the theory. The la t te r are usually
c le a rly d iscern ib le by th e ir interests in probing s t i l l deeper,
regardless of the subject m atter at hand.
This study has made no attempt to control the q u a lity or
13
sophistication level of the various respondents who participated in
i t . I t further recognized the lim itatio n s of the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l technique i t s e l f , as they are described in Osgood, et a l .
(171).
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated for this
study:
1. There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t difference as measured by
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l between the perceptions of selected con
cepts in transformational theory as held by college teachers of
English and prospective college teachers of English (currently
graduate students).
2. There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t difference as measured by
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l between the perceptions of selected con
cepts in transformational theory as held by high school teachers of
English and prospective high school teachers of English (currently
student-teachers and/or graduate students).
3. There w i11 be no s ig n ific a n t difference as measured by
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l between the perceptions of selected con
cepts in transformational theory as held by college teachers of
English and high school teachers of English.
k . There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t difference as measured by
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l between the perceptions of selected con
cepts in transformational theory as held by prospective college
1U
teachers of English and prospective high school teachers of
English.
5. There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce as measured by
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l in the perceptions of selected concepts in
transformational theory as a function of the time respondents have
been fa m ilia r with the theory.
6. There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce as measured by
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l in the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as a function of primary source of
knowledge. "
7. There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce as measured by
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l in the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as a function of undergraduate preparation
(major f ie ld of s p e c ia liz a tio n ).
8. There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce as measured by
the semantic d iffe r e n tia l in the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as a function of undergraduate and
graduate degrees earned; e .g ., B.A. vs M.A. vs Ph.D.
Computer Program
The above eight hypotheses were tested on the semantic
d iffe r e n tia l technique which was e sp ecially constructed fo r this
study. The data from the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l had been keypunched
fo r processing into the computer a t the U niversity of Southern
C a lifo rn ia 's Computer Science Laboratory. The results from the data
processing have provided the following:
1. An analysis of variance of differences between college
teachers of English and prospective college teachers of English for
various semantic d iffe r e n tia l factors.
2. Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l for college teachers of English and prospective college
teachers of English.
3. An analysis of variance of differences between high
school teachers of English and prospective high school teachers
of English for various semantic d if f e r e n t ia l factors.
k . Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l fo r high school teachers o f English and prospective high
school teachers of English.
5. An analysis of variance of differences between college
teachers of English and high school teachers of English fo r various
semantic d iffe r e n tia l factors.
6. Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l fo r college teachers of English and high school teachers of
Engli sh.
7. An analysis of variance of differences between pros
pective college teachers of English and prospective high school
teachers of English for various semantic d if f e r e n t ia l factors.
16
8 . Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l for prospective college teachers of English and prospective
high school teachers of English.
9 . An analysis of variance of differences between groups
who have been fa m ilia r with transformational theory for varying
periods of time for various semantic d if f e r e n t ia l factors.
10. Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l for groups who have been fa m ilia r with transformational theory
fo r varying periods of time.
11. An analysis of variance of differences between groups
w ith d iffe re n t primary sources of knowledge fo r various semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l factors.
12. Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l for groups with d iffe r e n t primary sources o f knowledge.
13. An analysis of variance of differences between groups
with d iffe re n t undergraduate preparation fo r various semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l factors.
]k . Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l for groups with d iffe r e n t undergraduate preparation.
15. An analysis of variance o f differences between groups
who have earned undergraduate and graduate degrees for various
semantic d iffe r e n tia l factors.
16. Means and standard deviations on the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l fo r groups who have earned undergraduate and graduate degrees.
17
Summary
This chapter has introduced the problem to be studied
together with pertinent background m aterials and shown its s i g n i f i
cance in the context of teacher attitu d es and the preparation of
teaching m aterials. Moreover, th is chapter has presented eight null
hypotheses to be tested by the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique and a
l i s t of s t a t is t ic a l data to be compiled from the computer program.
The remaining chapters w ill present a review of lite ra tu r e
relevant to applied and th eo retical lin g u is tic s and also to the
rapidly developing fie ld of psycholinguistics, the design of the
study, the findings of the study together with a discussion of them,
and a fin a l summary of the study with conclusions and recommendations.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter w ill review the pertinent publications which
have made a contribution to this study. These m aterials include
textbooks, anthologies and readers, journal a r t ic le s , monographs
and dis sertatio n s, and personal communications. Two areas are
fundamental to this study— the transformational generative gramma
tic a l theory of English and the d is c ip lin e of psycholinguistics.
The focus of the review of the lite ra tu r e w ill be upon the emergence
and development of selected concepts in transformational theory on
the one hand, and on the other, it w ill be concerned with the
application to this study of psycholinguistics in a general sense,
and the semantic d iffe r e n tia l technique s p e c if ic a lly . Tangential
to this review, but included nevertheless, w i ll be the lit e r a t u r e
related to several subfields o f psycholinguistics such as concept-
formation, concept-teaching, concept-learning, and language
a cq u isitio n . Several of the studies and w ritings c ite d deal
18
! 19 I
| - i
i
I
d ir e c tly with these topics. However, since comparatively l i t t l e
information is a vailab le in these subfields, no attempt was made to
insert them into a special section.
A Review of. the L ite ratu re Related to
Selected Concepts in Transforma
tio n a l Theory
A review of the lite r a tu r e in transformational theory (since
1955) revealed well over one thousand bibliographical items— p r in c i-
! p a lly in the grammar of English, but dozens of other languages are
i
| included as w e ll. This review was concerned c h ie fly with English
transformational grammar, and more s p e c ific a lly , with w ritin g s which
treated one or more of the following concepts: deep and surface
structures, language competence, language performance, transforma
tional rules, and grammatical ness (or g ram m aticality).
This more lim ited view of the lite r a tu r e in English trans
formational grammar produced over two hundred items, almost a ll of
them s igni fic a n t.
Four selected bibliographies were p a rtic u la rly helpful in
this study. Two of them are s p e c ific a lly intended for transforma
tional grammar (Boyd and King, 21 and Dingwall, 6 2 ). Another (A llen,
8) handled English and English lin g u is tic s , and the fourth, an un
published document (Burke, 24) combined m aterial in lin g u is tic s and
psycholinguistics. No comprehensive transformational bibliography
has been a va ilab le since 1966, although several sm aller ones have
appeared in assorted textbooks and lin g u is tic readers.
20
Almost a ll the w ritin g touching upon transformational theory
has had something to say about one or more of the concepts important
to this study. Treatment ranges from the general to the s p ec ific in
content and from concrete to abstract in level. As such, i t w ill
be the purpose of this chapter to examine the pertinent studies and
w ritings on a chronological basis beginning with applied lin g u is tic s .
Following w ill be a b r ie f overview of the work contributed by theo
re tic a l lin g u is tic s . A th ird section w ill include some recent work
in psycholinguistics. Some of the work cited may f a l l into none of
these categories or into a ll three. In such instances, these
w ritings w ill be placed a r b it r a r i l y into a group depending upon
where th e ir ch ief thrust seems to be.
The Applied Linguists
The f i r s t of the applied linguists to incorporate tran s
formational theory into textual m aterials was Roberts (190).
Although Roberts c le a rly stated that he saw no d ire c t relationship
between the teaching of grammatical theory and one's progress in
the lit e r a t e s k i l l s , he nevertheless defended grammar as a leg itim ate
segment of language study (189 and 191). Subsequently, Roberts
became very interested in the concept of grammaticalIfcy (or
grammaticalness), and this interest appears to have been one of his
principal reasons for rejecting the tenets of s tru c tu ra l-d e s c rip tiv e
grammatical theory. The notion of grammaticality is of no conse
quence whatsoever in that theory.
21
Both applied and th eo retical linguists have always discussed
grammaticality in terms of its independence from meaning. Roberts
pointed out . . that by grammatical we don't necessarily mean
'meaningful' or 't r u e '" (190:3). And again,
V ir t u a lly any speaker of English would c all the
grammatical [sentence] grammatical and the others
ungrammatical. But the line between grammaticality
and ungrammaticality does not always appear so sharp.
There are several borderline areas where we w ill not
a ll agree which is which. ( 190: 7)
In I960, Roberts decried the lin g u is t's in a b ility to define
key concepts or even to define "sentence" without resorting to a f u ll
description of English grammar. For Roberts at the time, the key
concepts were noun, a d jec tiv e, subject, sentence, and the lik e .
Grammaticality, for him, did not e x is t even though a few th e o rists,
notably Chomsky (35 and 36) and Lees (132) had given the concept
shape and d e fin itio n . Correctness or a c c e p ta b ility in relatio n to
social convention was a more appropriate term as is evident in the
follow ing statement by Roberts:
The debate about correctness has been with us
much longer than the debate about structure, but i t
seems no nearer conclusion. The d i f f i c u l t y seems
to be at least p a rtly a matter of misunderstanding,
for which linguists are no doubt at least p artly to
blame. For one thing, linguists use the term
"correct" and " in c o rre c t," but th e ir usage departs
considerably from the common one. By "incorrect
English" a lin g u is t is lik e ly to mean such a
mistake as might be made by a foreigner or a child
learning the language. Thus, both "I i t bought"
and "1 buyed i t " are incorrect sentences. But a
lin g u is t as a lin g u is t would not say that "I done
i t " or "1 brung i t " are incorrect sentences. They
are correct in re la tio n to the d ia le c ts in which
22
o
they occur, and the question of whether the d iale cts
are admired in the nation as a whole is a socio
lo g ical, not a lin g u is tic question. (189:5)
Contrast the above with his comments on grammaticality in his
book English Sentences (1962) which appeared only two years la te r.
In that book the concept of grammaticality was the f i r s t one to be
discussed, but a more cogent argument for grammaticality appeared in
the "Teacher's Manual" to the same volume:
We are led from here (in grasping the f i n i t e system
of a transformational grammar) to a much b e tte r under
standing of the complex question of grammaticality.
What do we mean when we say a sentence is or is not
grammatical? We obviously c a n 't mean that i t makes
sense. The sentence "Chicago is a dish of frie d
sofas" makes no sense, but we accppt i t as wholly
grammatical. Neither do we mean that a grammatical
sentence is one that occurs frequently in a language.
"Chicago is a dish of frie d sofas" has a zero f r e
quency in English. I t has, presumably, never occurred
before. Yet i t is quite as grammatical as, say,
"Chicago is the hog butcher of the world." (190:4)
Roberts am plified the same point la te r in the discussion:
The problem of grammaticality is closely connected
with the problem of d e fin itio n of word classes,
something that has plagued students and teachers
of grammar since a t least the time of A r is to tle .
(190:4)
Roberts' gradual tra n s itio n from structuralism to tran s
formationalism had already been effe c ted , but his treatment of
certain th eo retical notions was ju s t beginning to surface:
Transformational analysis goes much fu rth er than
this [simple description of language] . I t seeks
to figure out the grammatical system of a language
and then project i t . Thus i t not only recognizes
sentences as grammatical because they have occurred
but also undertakes to predict what sentences w ill
23
be grammatical when and i f they occur in the future.
(190:4)
Just as important as Roberts' new and transform ationally-
oriented stance on grammaticality was his expression of some interest
in the concepts o f language competence and language performance.
While these concepts were to mature much la te r in his thinking,
they were given a modest introduction in English Sentences:
9
I t must be emphasized that transformational analysis
is much more than simply a neater or more defensible
way of describing a language. I t goes a long way to
describe how languages are learned in the f i r s t place.
I t explains something of how v ir t u a l l y a l l human
beings, even the d u lle s t, manage to grasp and use at
least one language. Language appears as a f i n i t e
and comprehensible system. (190:3)
At about the same time Roberts published English Sentences.
another applied lin g u is t, Owen Thomas (227), took up the issue o f
teaching transform ational grammar in the schools. His notion of
teaching the new grammatical approach was lim ited to handling a
few basic and concrete concepts such as "kernel sentence" and
"elementary transform ations." Whereas Roberts, up to th is point,
had discussed only "basic sentence patterns" or "basic sentences,"
Thomas introduced the concept of "kernel sentence" to the applied
lite ra tu r e ; moreover, he was the f i r s t of the applied linguists to
in terp ret Chomsky l i t e r a l l y in handling the concept of tran s
formations :
A fte r having defined the lim its o f his theory,
Chomsky introduces a basic concept: that of a
group of "kernel" sentences. A kernel sentence
is "simple, a c tiv e , d e c la ra tiv e ," and Chomsky
2 k
feels that " a ll other sentences" are derived from
kernel sentences by means of "transform ations."
Roughly, a "transform ation" is a rule that e ith e r
introduces new elements into kernel sentences (e .g .,
adjectives, negatives), or rearranges the elements
of a kernel sentence ( e . g . , to produce an interroga
tiv e sentence), or both ( e .g ., to produce a passive,
sentence). Chomsky implies, therefore, that passive,
in te rro g ative , and negative sentences, and sentences
containing, fo r example, a d jectives, adverbs, and con
junctions, are a ll more complex or "sophisticated"
than kernel sentences. (227:95)
Thomas wrote nothing else about concepts s p e c ific a lly except to
note that "transformations per se, as previously noted, probably
cannot be taught to pre-college students" and that concepts can be
chosen and ordered by teachers to s u it individual tastes:
And most importantly, an understanding of Chomsky's
theories permits a teacher to select and arrange
grammatical elements in the most logical order and
to build e f f e c t iv e ly upon preceding m ate ria l. As
teachers, we can hardly ask more of any theory.
(227:99)
In a 1963 a r t i c l e e n title d "Linguistics and the Teaching of
Composition," Roberts returned to the issue of grammaticality, this
time admitting th at the notions "grammatical" and "substandard" can
exis t together in the same sentence:
The j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the study of tra d itio n a l
grammar has always been that i t makes the student
consciously aware of gram m aticality, of right and
wrong in language. Our notion of rig h t and wrong
in language is now much more sophisticated than
i t used to be. We know that correctness has to
do mainly with sociological rather than lin g u is tic
matters. We know the place of d ia le c ts and can
e n te rta in the concept o f grammatical substandard
English. (191:335)
In the same journal, a few pages removed, Thomas suggested
that achieving grammatical sentences is both related to and a function
of the application of obligatory transformational rules and that the
result w ill be a well-formed sentence. Thus, for the applied l i n
guist, the concept of "grammaticalness" is almost f u lly developed.
Other concepts too, were beginning to make some impact upon
the lite r a tu r e during the middle three years o f the past decade. The
concept o f transformational rules had already been discussed by
j Roberts and Thomas in e a r lie r works, but s ta rtin g in 1964, teaching
i
| m aterials e n tir e ly devoted to transformational concepts were pub
lished for the f i r s t time. Roberts' f i r s t purely transformational
e f f o r t , English Syntax (192), was published and used in a few schools
and colleges. The book is an orderly and programmed approach to
transformational rules. In addition to th is major emphasis, Roberts
also discussed several other concepts germane to th is study. For
example, he not only expanded his previous notions of grammaticality:
He [the high school student] should develop a
concept of grammaticality. A fe e lin g o f grammati -
c a lit y underlies what we mean by "sentence sense,
a capacity that some people develop n a tu ra lly but
that others have to work a t . This te x t attempts
to deal e x p l i c it ly with gram m aticality, to show
what we mean when we say that a sentence is grammati
cal or is not. Grammatical and ungrammatical are
c le a rly distinguished from other, sometimes related,
adjectives that might be applied to w ritin g or
speech: good and poor, standard and substandard,
meaningful and meaningless, true and fa ls e . A
concept of grammaticality w ill also be useful to
the student in the reading of lit e r a t u r e , fo r he
learns how w riters often manipulate the grammar
to achieve lite r a r y e ffe c ts . (192:1-2)
but he also Introduced, in implied fashion and a f t e r Chomsky's lead,
the abstract notion of " lin g u is tic competence" to the secondary
school teacher and student:
He [[again, the high school student^ should get an
understanding o f the nature of the English language
and to some extent of language in general, an under
standing that is valuable fo r its own sake. He should
see the highly systematic nature of the grammar and
the e s s e n tia lly simple general structure that under
lies and holds together the countless number of possi
ble English sentences. (1 9 2 :l)
| This l a t t e r statement c le a rly represents a departure point in the
j
j treatment of grammatical concepts by applied lin g u is tic s . The
j concept in the former statement, although cited in previous works,
i
I
embodies a new emphasis in applied grammatical theory, that of
gearing a textbook and a s ty le of teaching to a set o f a b s tra c tly -
conceived grammatical concepts.
C learly then, Chomsky's influence on Roberts was considerabl
Within the body of an introduction in th is same landmark textbook,
Chomsky b r ie f ly outlined the concept of lin g u is tic or language v
competence and related i t to the concept of transformational rules.
Chomsky wrote:
. . . we can conclude that the speaker-hearer's
knowledge of his language must be represented as
a system of rules, and that his lin g u is tic com
petence lies precisely in his a b i l i t y to rearrange
these rules in new and previously untried combi
nations in forming and in terp retin g sentences.
These rules, in th e ir various arrangements, specify
the structure of each sentence of the language;
in t u it iv e mastery of them is what constitutes « ,
knowledge o f a language. A grammar presents this
system of rules. (1 9 2 :ix)
27
Like Chomsky before him, Roberts also emphasized the concept of
lin g u is tic (or language) performance in s ta tin g that his book
. . . should be of some service to the student who
wishes to improve his w ritin g . I t won't automati
c a lly made him w rite b e tte r. No grammar can make
him do th a t. But i t w ill explain the structures
on which conventions of punctuation are based and
the fa u lts in sentence construction to which young
w riters are prone. A student motivated to improve
his w ritin g w ill find a conscious understanding
of the syntax an obvious help. For many students
i t is an indispensible one. (192:2)
I While Roberts had not yet come to grips with the concept of
lin g u is tic performance in its relatio n sh ip to transformational
grammar, others had. Ohmann (166), lanni (101), and Newsome (161)
found use fo r certain transformational concepts. Ohmann, fo r example,
■ was among the f i r s t to introduce the transformational component into
the notion o f lit e r a r y s ty le . P a rtic u la r stress was placed upon
o b lig ato ry transformations as a major contributor to s t y li s t i c s .
Furthermore, he introduced into lit e r a r y study fo r the f i r s t time
outside the context of th eo retical publications, the concept o f deep
and surface stru ctu re:
The th ird value of a transformational grammar to
the analyst of s ty le is its power to explain how com
plex sentences are generated, and how they are
related to simple sentences. Writers d i f f e r
noticeably in the amounts and kinds of s yn tactic
complexity they h a b itu a lly allow themselves, but
these matters have been hard to approach through
conventional methods of analysis. Since the
complexity of a sentence is the product of the
generalized transformation i t has gone through, a
breakdown of the sentence into its component simple
sentences and the generalized transformations
applied (in order of ap p licatio n ) w ill be an account
28
of its complexity. And since the same set of complex
sentences may be generated from them, each of which
d iffe r s from the other only in transformational
h is to ry, while embodying the same simple "propo
s it io n s ." Such differences should be in terestin g ly
approachable through transformational analysis. So
should major variatio n s in type of compounding:
s e lf embedding as against l e f t - and right-branching,
for example, or the formation o f endocentric as
against the formation of exocentric constructions.
These deep grammatical p o s s ib ilitie s in a language
may well be exploited d iffe r e n tly from w r ite r to
w r ite r , and i f so, the differences w ill c e rta in ly
be of s t y l i s t i c in te res t. (166:433-43*0
Thus, fo r Ohmann, the application of optional transformational rules
^ ^
which convert deep to surface structures provided lit e r a r y analysis
w ith a tool that he called "transformational a n alysis."
lan n i, in defending transformational grammar from the a ttack
of a " t r a d i t i o n a l i s t , " also defended the use of grammaticalness
("grammatical p o s s ib ilitie s " ) and transformational rules. Most
in te res tin g however, was his view re la tin g new lin g u is tic terminology
(p r in c ip a lly from transformational grammar) to the teaching of
lin g u is tic concepts:
We need the new and expanded terminology to label new
concepts. I f our knowledge o f language were complete,
perhaps we could have the comfortable, s ta tic s it u
ation Professor Wolfe yearns for. Nor can we take
refuge in the reasoning that the relevance of this
new science exists only for the expert who must
complete the body of facts and sim plify i t for us.
I t is apparent that lin g u is tic science is fa r
enough advanced in accuracy and compelling enough
in content that i t may be used to improve classroom
language in s tru ctio n . Let us not reject this
b en efit for the comfort o f the fa m ilia r. (101:602)
Newsome found transformational rules p a rtic u la rly useful in
29
the classroom M. . . to develop greater f l e x i b i l i t y and m a tu rity 1 1
in the students' w ritin g . (161:327) In addition, she found that
Transforming two or more sentences to form a new
sentence reveals the process of coordination and
subordination more c le a rly and brings a lte rn a tiv e
grammatical structures into sharper contrast than
the ad d itive method. (161:327)
In 1965 Thomas' Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of
English was published. I t was a s ig n ific a n t publication in several
ways. F ir s t , his e ffo rts were e n tir e ly directed to teachers of
English and prospective teachers of English. Books in applied
transformational theory were usually destined fo r high school
college students. Second, Thomas took a deeper and broader look
at the concept structure of transformational grammar and devoted
considerable space to a ll of the major concepts handled in this
study. And th ir d , Thomas was the f i r s t w rite r in applied lin g u is
tics to admit that he was a "pedagogue and not a lin g u is t." He
s p e c ific a lly categorized his book as a "pedagogical rather than a
s c ie n t if ic grammar." Thomas was quite e x p lic it on this point':
1 am personally and professionally interested in
the problems of teaching English and only p e r i
pherally interested in the problems of th eo retical
lin g u is tic s . (229:v i i )
The d is tin c tio n between applied and theoretical lin g u is tic s or
between pedagogical and s c ie n t if ic grammars extends even fu rth e r,
to some fundamental d istin ctio n s between the concepts of lin g u is tic
competence and lin g u is tic performance. According to Thomas:
30
This d is tin c tio n between s c ie n tific and pedagogical
grammars also relates to one between "competence"
and "performance." And this la tte r d is tin c tio n can
also be viewed in many ways. By the time a ch ild is
fiv e or s ix , he has been exposed to a wide v a rie ty
of lin g u is tic experiences. He has heard hundreds
of thousands of sentences, most of them well formed
but many o f them not completely well formed (such
as, for example, those from his playmates). He has
spoken thousands of sentences of his own; he has been
encouraged by such things as smiles from parents and
by g ettin g what he asks fo r when he makes a mistake;
he has occasionally been corrected when he makes
mistakes. (229:6-7)
Thomas juxtaposed the above comments on performance with those
below on competence:
. . . every child somehow learns to make g e n e ra li
zations about language on the basis of his exposure
to lin g u is tic experiences of various kinds. More
p recisely, on the basis of being exposed to almost
random and a rb itra ry lin g u is tic data, every ch ild
develops a certain degree of lin g u is tic "competence."
No one yet knows precisely how to describe th is com
petence, since i t cannot be observed d ir e c tly . A ll
that we can observe is a speaker's "performance";
that is, the sentences he actually produces. And
these can be influenced by a wide v a rie ty of fa c to rs ,
many of them not connected with lin g u is tic s at a l l .
For example, the speech of any native speaker w ill
be influenced by such things as whether he is t ir e d ,
or embarrassed, or in a hurry. Yet these things
a ffe c t only the performance of the speaker; his
lin g u is tic competence remains unaffected by them.
On the other hand, lin g u is tic competence generally
increases, up to a point, as a speaker grows o lder.
But the competence may be d iffe re n t from a change
in performance that is brought about, fo r example,
when a ch ild moves from one part of the country
to another and abandons the pronunciation common
in the old area for that common in the new. (229:7)
Furthermore, Thomas suggested that the concept of grammatical ity can
be evaluated as though i t operated on a continuum. Roberts hinted
31
at this notion but never discussed i t d ire c tly . Thomas also
singled out the d is tin c tio n between the terms "transform ational"
and "generative" as an important one in the sense that transform
denotes "change" and generative denotes "enumeration." S t i l l a
fin a l concept which Thomas accorded substantial treatment was that of
deep and surface stru ctu res. This concept is handled thoughout the
book and important to a ll of i t . The following is a representative
sample o f that emphasis:
. . . the surface structure f a ils to indicate fun
damental grammatical relationships that are necessary
to an understanding of a sentence. This fact stresses
again the importance o f transformational analysis,
which is the only cu rren tly a vailab le grammatical
analysis th a t reveals both deep and surface s tru c
tures f u lly . (229:67)
In the same year that Thomas' book appeared, Lees ( 7 6) and
A lle n (6) agreed on what they thought would be the usefulness and
impact o f transformational and grammatical theory on the teaching
of English. Lees, quoted in an NCTE publication, believed "the
major importance of grammatical studies to lie in the area o f the
s o -called behavioral sciences and not in supposed applications to
the pedagogy of rh e to ric" ( 7 6: 6 ) . This was not intended as a salve
to ease the pain of knowing that transformational grammatical theory,
as yet, had l i t t l e or no a p p lic a b ility in the classroom. I t was
merely a statement consistent with a ll transformational theorists
and some from the applied sector. Meanwhile, Allen also sought a
new approach, e s s e n tia lly one from the behavioral sciences too, to
32
aid the applied lin g u is t or teacher of English. This approach is
neither well known nor f u lly developed, but i t is a viable a l t e r
native in c e rta in language teaching practices, and i t is a central
aspect of th is study. A llen saw this new development this way:
Such a d is c ip lin e — or in te rd is c ip lin e — is the one,
s t i l l with rather vague boundaries, called psycho
lin g u is tic s . . . . I t is true that the various
researches so fa r described seem irrelevan t to
the teaching o f composition, but the psycholin
guist nevertheless is equipped by tra in in g and
in te re s t to advance from the psychology of sound
to the psychology of the sentence and of s t i l l
larger blocks of discourse. I t strikes me that
the psycholinguist can do much to reduce the element
of s u b je c tiv ity in matters of syntactic choice as
in word choice. (6:265)
But more s p e c if ic a lly , Allen wrote that " i t may be that the work of
Roberts and Newsome a ctu ally represents the lim it of a p p lic a b ility
of transformational grammar, as a kind of generative grammar, to
composition" (6 :2 6 4). And as a fin al gesture in combining a psy-
ch o lin g u is tic approach with a concept from transformational grammar,
A llen
. . . would urge psycholinguists to help the compo
s it io n teacher to develop a wider base for his judgment
with respect to features of w ritin g . I t is a ll very
well to use transformation exercises to help a student
gain control over d i f f i c u l t syntactic constructions
expressing the same idea; but he should also be given
e v id e n tia lly based guidance for choosing the construc
tio n or sentence lik e ly to communicate most e ffe c
tiv e ly in a given s itu a tio n . (6:265)
A lle n 's ideas in both areas culminated in the publication of a
secondary school language textbook, New Dimensions in English (1966),
for which he was p rim arily responsible. In i t he combined both
33
approaches to language--the transformational and the psycholinguistic.
The fact that he discussed c ertain transformational concepts such
as transformational rules and grammaticality is not su rp risin g , but
his substantial discussion of the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique,
as a p o te n tia lly useful tool in language study, is. I t remains to
this day the only such language textbook of its kind to have done so.
Rosenbaum (199)> w ritin g in the Harvard Educational Review.
considered each of the major concepts being reviewed in this study.
For him, lin g u is tic competence is the most d i f f i c u l t concept to
grasp since i t is related to almost every other lin g u is tic concept.
For example, i t underlies the notion of grammaticality and is thus
d ir e c tly related to lin g u is tic performance. By the same token, i t
accounts for the transformation process which converts deep s tru c
tures into surface structures. As all-encompassing and in te rre la te d
as these concepts are in the realm of s c ie n t if ic explanation, they
f a l l short in at least one respect:
The abstract constructs offered in a transformational
description are designed solely for purposes of
description and explanation. Neither the trans
formational theory nor the transformational descrip
tion of the syntax of English contains any im p lic it
pedagogical recommendations. From neither does i t
follow that a transformational description of
English should be taught in the classroom. From
neither does i t follow that instruction in tran s
formational grammar w ill improve performance in the
l i t e r a t e s k i l l s . (199:3^1)
Yet Rosenbaum did see some potential pedagogical benefits in the
theory:
34
. . . to study and practice the constructs of a
transformational grammar may result in an under
standing o f how the student's language works
(competence) but not necessarily in an understanding
o f how to make i t work (performance). (199:342)
In short, Rosenbaum unequivocally stated that there are no inherent
educational advantages in a lin g u is tic or transformational description
of English or any other language although individual applications of
the theory in the classroom may result in certain educational
b en efits:
I t remains not with the lin g u is tic theory or
d escrip tio n , but with the informed educator, whether
he is a teacher, lin g u is t, or sp ec ia lis t informed
in both areas, to determine the a p p lic a b ility of
v a lid lin g u is tic results to the teaching of English.
(199:342)
Zidonis (249) reported on a two-year study at the Ohio State
U niversity which involved the teaching of transformational grammar
to ninth and tenth graders. His results contrasted sharply with the
conclusions reached by Rosenbaum. He attempted to measure the
"grammatical q u a lity of the sentences w ritten by p u p ils," and
arrived a t fiv e conclusions. Four of them are relevant to this study
and are included below in abbreviated form:
1. High school pupils can learn the principles of generative
grammar r e la t iv e ly e a s ily . . . .
2. A knowledge of generative grammar enables pupils to
increase s ig n if ic a n tly the proportion of well-formed sentences they
wri te.
35
3. . . . there is a strong inference that i t was the
knowledge of a generative grammar that enabled the experimental
subjects to increase the complexity without s a c rific in g the grammati
cal ity o f t h e ir sentences.
k . When rigorous c r it e r i a of well-formedness were applied in
the analysis of w ritin g samples, almost h a lf of the sentences w ritte n
by the ninth graders were judged to be malformed. This finding runs
counter to the widespread contention of the structural lin g u is t, who
is not concerned with well-formedness as a grammatical goal, that
children have acquired v ir t u a lly fu ll command of the grammar of
English at an e arly age. The more lik e ly contention is that the
grammar o f English is never f u 1ly mastered. (249:^08)
<&)
I t is in terestin g to note that of Z id o n is 1 fiv e conclusions,
four of them d e a lt d ir e c tly with issues in this study. For example,
the f i r s t conclusion was centered on the concept of lin g u is tic com
petence, the second with lin g u is tic performance. The th ird and fourth
conclusions dealt exclusively with the concept of grammaticality.
One year la t e r , Zidonis (250) in an important paper delivered
to the Houston meeting of the NOTE, suggested an approach fo r incor
porating transformational grammar into the English curriculum:
The prelim inary task that the curriculum maker needs
to complete would be to examine the structure o f a
transformational grammar to id e n tify the key concepts
th is stru ctu re contains and to establish the r e la
tionships that e x is t among them. ( 2 5 0 : 1 3 1 7 ) (My under-
1ining)
Following th is , Zidonis proceeded to enumerate some of the key
concepts while drawing loose lines of relatio n sh ip between them:
This relationship between deep and surface
structure appears to be a concept o f central im
portance in the structure of a transformational
grammar of English. Other important relationships
are those between grammatical and deviant sen
tences; competence and performance; acceptable and
unacceptable; and grammatical, deviant, acceptable,
and unacceptable sentences. The explanatory power
of the relationship between deep structure and
surface structure is suggested in the following
schema, which provides another way of considering
the e n tire language arts curriculum (See Figures 1
and 2 ). (250:1318-1319)
Gleason (79) found this kind o f concept-oriented approach
much too confining:
The transform ational-generative model is not e f f i
cien t on a re stric te d scale. I t is lik e a diesel
engine— fine for heavy duty, but hopeless to run
a motor scooter. ( 7 9: 297)
However, Gleason visualized the new grammar almost exclusively in
terms of the application of very s p ec ific and re s tric te d transfor
mational rules.
Sledd (214), in a largely unfavorable review of Gleason's
book, chastised him for possessing an unenlightened view of the
new transformational generative grammar:
Some of Gleason's remarks about transformational
grammar are best ignored as n e g lig ib le traces of
understandable soreness under the slings and
arrows of outrageous Chomsky. (214:801)
37
In te rp re tin g | Compos i ng
Deep Structure
Surface Structure
Listening Reading Speaking W riting
Fig. 1 . * —Schema to Show Relationships between
Basic Concepts in a Language Arts Curriculum
*Adapted from Zidonis (250:1319)
Zidonis might have added the following to his schema to complete the
relationships between concepts which he outlined e a r lie r :
1n te rp re ti ng
Speaki ng Wri t i ng
Listening Reading
Compos i ng
Language
Competence
Language
Performance
T-Ru 1 es
(G rammat i c a 1 ness)
Surface Structures
Deep Structure
Fig. 2 . --Revised Schema to Show Relationships
between Basic Concepts in the Language Arts Curriculum
and Basic Concepts in Transformational Theory
38
As the arguments between linguists of assorted persuasions
raged, some continued to look for applications o f whatever concepts
seemed appropriate to th e ir work, ju s tify in g them on various grounds.
Ohmann (16 7) and Jackobson (104) f e l t the essence of lit e r a r y and
language study, respectively, to be contained in the singular
concept of deep and surface structures. In a somewhat more general
sense, Postman (184) saw the teaching of certain concepts in tra n s
formational grammar as the key to a more . . rigorous study of
language s itu a tio n s " (184:1163), while Bonney (17) saw that "a
knowledge of the difference between a kernel sentence and a tra n s
formation is useful" (17:586). Roberts too (194), became enamored
with the idea of key concepts which he treated in some depth in his
The Roberts English S eries. Not only did he expand upon gramma
ti c a lit y and transformational rules, concepts which he emphasized
considerably in previous works, but he also introduced into his
lin g u is tic program the concept of deep and surface structures.
Moreover, Roberts connected this concept to both the semantic
component and to the phonological component. Like Zidonis, he
charted a ll of these important relationships in a diagram:
see Figure 3 , Diagram of the Relationships of the Various Components
of a Transformational Grammar.
While Richards (188) was rejectin g the notion of lin g u is tic
competence in a transformational grammar on purely psychological
grounds, Lester (137) continued his examination of the same concept,
39
Syntactic Component
(Kernel Rules)
Deep Structures
Semantic
-^Component
(Meani ng)
Transformational Rules
Surface Structures
Phonological
Component
(Pronunciation)
Fig. 3 . * — Diagram o f the Relationships of the
Various Components o f a Transformational Grammar
*Adapted from Roberts (19^:11)
the least discussed concept in the lite r a tu r e . On the p ositive side
of the ledger, Lester f e l t that language competence, along with
language performance and grammaticality, were the three most essen
t i a l concepts in a transformational grammar. On the negative side,
however, he saw that
' c >
The complexity of human language competence is so
vast that we can hardly expect our petty tin kerin g
with the surface of performance to produce lasting
results. (137:207)
Lester concluded his remarks in this fashion:
. . . the study of transformational grammar in a
composition class cannot be ju s t i f i e d u n til i t
can be demonstrated that the study o f grammatical
competence w ill a ffe c t grammatical performance.
(137:209)
40
K.'
Roberts (195) published another textbook on transformational
grammar, Modern Grammar, this one in a non-programmed format. In i t ,
his customary concern with grammatical concepts were c le a rly evident
throughout, but one of these concepts, that of grammatica1ity or
more properly "ungrammaticality," was treated in a systematic and
f a i r l y d e f in it iv e manner. He listed seven kinds of ungrammaticality
and thus gave a type of s c ie n tific resp ectab ility to the concept in
an applied context.
Following the lead of Roberts and others, a number of
w riters now took on the mantle of transformationalism and adapted
concepts from the theory to th e ir own needs. Winterowd (24-3) in
his Rhetoric: A Synthesis expressed interest in the p o s s ib ility
of using transformational rules along with the e n tire "generative
q u a lity of language" in developing a much needed new rhetoric
(243:104). Hughes (99) reported that transformations and grammati
cal ity appear to be two of the fundamental concepts in the theory
and most useful in the teaching of a foreign language. Although
Grady (82) warned teachers of ". . . f a llin g into the trap of
presenting, in a course in w ritin g , a ll the theoretical aspects of
transformational lin g u istics . . . ," he nevertheless, lik e Zidonis
before him, f e l t that some aspects can be used to improve w ritin g ,
reading, speaking, and listen in g performance (82:874). Without
resorting to s p ecific concepts Cook (53) attempted to unite the
transformational generative grammar of Chomsky with the generative
k ]
rhetoric of Christensen, even though the term "generative" in the
one system bears no resemblance to the same term in the other. Yet
the selection and treatment of concepts from a grammatical theory,
as they are applied to the problems of composition, are necessarily
forced and a r t i f i c i a l . S t i l l , stated Cook, the union must be
e ffected :
Neither grammar nor composition should— or, fo r that
m atter, can they e f f e c t i v e l y , — occupy separate bed
chambers. Their marriage is imperative i f students
are to pass beyond merely solving problems of form
and of order to constructing s t y l i s t i c a l l y mature
prose. I f students are to see the connection between
grammatical knowledge and the improvement of th e ir
w ritin g , the two must be connected in time and place,
ju s t as vocabulary study must be an adjunct to the
teaching of reading. (53:1168)
And f in a l ly Shugrue (210) in English in a Decade of Change high-
lighted two concepts: "the rules of transformational grammar" and
"the grammatical utterances of the language" (210:67).
Transformational Grammar: A Guide for Teachers by Kaplan
et a l ., lik e works cited e a r lie r by Roberts, Thomas, and A llen ,
stands as a landmark publication fo r teachers on several counts.
F ir s t , i t discussed a ll of the key abstract and concrete tra n s
formational concepts in an orderly fashion: "What we have presented
is a quick survey of the major concepts of transformational
grammar" (113:10). Second, the authors d e lib e ra te ly set out to
re la te theory to p ractice, both in the introduction and in the
body of the te x t:
While i t is true that school grammar has been so
42
l i t t l e a real subject that both its teachers and its
students have been bored with i t for generations,
we do recognize that language has some kind o f under
lying theory and that language study can be i n t e r
esting. (113:9)
Third and perhaps most important, the authors stressed the psycho-
lin g u is tic nature of language learning and grammatical theory:
I t £the grammar]] must have a psycho-linguistic com
ponent. I f we are indeed to teach our children to
communicate— and that is what we say we must do—
then we must teach them a grammar. But what we are
teaching them must have some relationship to the
r e a lit y o f the language they speak. (113:7)
Jacobs and Rosenbaum (106), following the Chomskyan type
of s c ie n t if ic (rather than pedagogical) grammar, have also handled
a ll of the major concepts in th e ir college level te x t English Trans-
formational Grammar. They have shown how these concepts are related
in the following passages; the f i r s t discusses deep and surface
structures and transformations, the second language competence and
performance:
Once the child has discovered the p a rtic u la r tra n s
formations of his language, the transformations that
convert deep structures into the surface structures
of the language, he is able to distinguish, with
r e la t iv e ly few errors, the grammatical utterances
of his language, to in te rp ret certain grammatical
structures, even though elements of his in t e r
pretation may not be physically present in the
utterance, and to perceive ambiguity and synonomy.
This is very fa r from the whole answer to the
mystery of language acquisition. No one yet knows
ju s t how the child goes about using his knowledge
o f elementary transformational processes in the
acquisitfon of a language. The discovery of these
processes and of the way they work in p a rtic u la r
languages is only a f i r s t step, important as i t is.
( 106:28)
43
Golub (8 l) reverted to the Roberts-Thomas model of pedagogical
grammars. While he did not e n tire ly ignore the major concepts in a
transformational grammar of English, he discounted th e ir importance
in favor of a more s im p lis tic , i f not humanistic view of language.
For Golub the pivotal book underlying pedagogical grammars was
Roberts 1 English Sentences.
Thomas (230) meanwhile, was forging ahead. He had incor
porated into his Metaphor and Related Subjects a ll fiv e of the major
concepts discussed in. this study in other than s t r i c t l y grammatical
applications. The book is s ig n ific a n t because i t departs from con
vention on at least two points. F ir s t, the book has l i t t l e of
nothing to do with grammatical theory in a stru ctu ral or develop
mental sense; that is to say, its essential th ru st is in "selective
ap p licatio n " of certain grammatical p rinciples or concepts. In this
regard, knowledge about language structure and language processes
was used to explore the power o f a lit e r a r y device. Second, Thomas
was the f i r s t w rite r in the applied f ie ld to include and develop the
notion of "scale of grammaticality" in his work. While Roberts had
e a r lie r enumerated seven kinds of ungrammaticality, an enumeration
which was intended to be a f a i r l y precise and categorical description
o f the negative lim its o f the concept of grammatica1it y , Thomas was
the f i r s t to suggest that the concept may, in fa c t, e x is t on a
continuum:
The adjective "grammatical" is popularly assumed
to have a categorical rather than a scalar meaning.
44
That is, people generally assume that statements can
be c la s s ifie d as simply grammatical and ungrammatical
(as nouns can be c la s s ifie d as animate or inanimate),
rather than placed on a scale o f grammaticality
(s im ila r to a lig h t - dark or hot - cold s c a le ). This
assumption is, in fa c t, wrong; there is a scale of
grammaticality, and i t has important implications
for the study of metaphor. (230:35)
Lester, in the same year, carried the concept even fu rth e r by in tr o
ducing into the applied lite r a tu r e the notion of "semi-grammatical -
ness"; this notion was formulated by Chomsky (38) and s p e c ific a lly
applied to syn tactical problems by Katz (114) in what the la t t e r
c alled "semi-sentences. 1 1 Lester f e l t that he could measure "semi-
grammatical ness" in syntax by applying the c o ro lla ry notion of
"deviation":
By establishing an abstract deep stru ctu re,
transformational grammar can account for the notion
of deviation. A semi-grammatical or non-grammatica 1
sentence is one which violates the rules (to a
lesser or greater degree) that tran slate sentences
from the deep structure to the surface structure.
In other words, a sentence w ill deviate from gramma
t ic a l to the degree that it vio lates the rules.
(138:369)
Grammaticality and deviation in English syntax were studied
by Mellon (156) and reported in an NCTE research report e n title d
Transformational Sentence-Combi ni ng. Although his findings were not
surprising, he did manage to question the work of other applied
lin g u ists by insisting that no s c ie n tific re s p e c ta b ility could be
* N
a ttrib u te d to certain grammatical concepts:
Deviations from grammaticality, as in the case of
metaphor, often produced complexity of a ta n ta liz in g
45
s o rt, whereas deviations from a c c e p ta b ility , in the
sense used by Chomsky (1965), produce a less desirable
kind. (156:25)
Like Roberts and others before him, Mellon noted that " . . . i t is
id le to pretend that transformations can be consciously applied in
the production of sentences" (156:9). He disagreed with the findings
of the Bateman and Zidonis study (12) which attempted to have s,tudents
learn transformational rules to increase th e ir w ritin g performance.
M ellon's view was that students have already in tern alized the kind of
language competence which is implied in transformational rules.
Hence, l i t t l e of this is teachable and almost none of i t is measure-
able.
Hatch, Sheff, and Chastain (88) conducted a study which tan
gential ly touched upon the language competence and language per
formance of fiv e-ye a r-o ld s . They found that neither number nor type
of transformations were s ig n ific a n t in determining t h e ir compre
hension level of w ritte n matter. Their study suggests that we may
not be able to test for the underlying relationships between com
petence and performance on lin g u is tic or psychological levels.
I f we cannot show how the concept of competence is related
to the concept of performance, we must, according to Winterowd (244),
a t least assume that the former exceeds the la t t e r . In answering
the question: "How do we sense that some utterances are grammatical
and some are ungrammatical?", he wrote:
In answering th is question, the grammarian must
d iffe r e n tia t e between competence and performance,
46
two f a i r ly complicated concepts. Since any ten
thousand speakers could Id e n tify those utterances
that are native to the language and those that
are not native, we must assume that competence
exceeds performance. That is, even the i l l i t e r a t e
w ill be lik e ly to recognize the ungrammatical even
though his own performance does not enable him to
produce a ll of the possible sentences in a ll of
the possible dialects of English. (244:92)
In this connection Winterowd argued that a transformational grammar
". . . wi l l proceed from a theory of language competence as opposed
to a theory of the in d ivid u al's language performance" (244:94). I t
should be noted, however, that Winterowd's notions are cu rren tly being
challenged.
Sanborn (202), following Bruner, urged that the study of
language be s im p lified and conceptualized. His assertion was that
such concepts or "peaks" are ju s t coming to the surface in our study
of language and are s t i l l in rough form. He suggested s ix of these
concepts or peaks (also called perspectives), and they are given
below in abbreviated form:
1. The psycholinguistic perspective is concerned with the
acquisition of language and the re la tio n of perception to thought
and language (language competence).
2. The synchronic-diachronic perspective investigates
grammatical structures, language divergence, and language universals
(transformational rules and grammatical ness).
3. The external perspective focuses on surface structures.
4. The internal perspective handles deep structures exclu-
47
si vely.
5. The in te rre la tio n a l perspective uses lin g u is tic
approaches in areas peripheral to lin g u is tic s (psychology, anthro
pology, and sociology).
6. The rhetorical perspective describes the in d ivid u a l's
performance with language (makes use of a ll major grammatical
concepts).
Sanborn's framework is, as yet, highly th eoretical and quite broad,
but its application to the development of a curriculum in the
language arts or to the teaching of English at a s p e c ific grade level
should be obvious to anyone who would make the attempt.
in a recent personal communication, Thomas (231) expressed
his current thinking on the matter of teaching some of the above
concepts in the schools:
i t seems to me that the most important reason
for teaching grammar in the schools is to help a
child understand the competence that he has simply
by v irtu e of being human. I can think of many
d iffe re n t ways which would u t i l i z e base rules,
in tu itio n , kernel sentences, and so on. There
is no evidence that one way is superior to any
other. (231)
Marckwardt (152), also in a personal communication, expressed l i t t l e
confidence in concept-oriented teaching unless the s p e c ific level
could be isolated and i f the teacher could acquire a reasonable
degree of confidence in one or more of the concepts:
One teaches transformational grammar— or any other
grammar, for that m atter— to sp ec ific students, at
48
a sp ec ific level; fo r a sp ecific purpose. The concepts
most important for a p a rtic u la r purpose and in a par
t ic u la r context might be of considerably less s i g n i f i
cance in terms of other purposes and in d iffe r e n t s it u
ations.
Moreover; I find i t impossible to consider a number
o f these concepts in iso latio n . Language competence;
for example; h$s- l i t t l e meaning by i t s e l f — i t can be
considered only over against the concept of language
performance. (152)
Laird (120) acknowledged the apparent impact o f tra n s fo r
mational theory in elementary and secondary classrooms and a ttrib u te d
th is , in part, to the generative p rin cip le of language discussed
e a r l i e r in this study. However; Laird's most important contribution
to the current discussion was his advocacy of psycholinguistics in
the classroom; a theme that has been recurring with great frequency
in the recent lite ra tu r e :
Another procedure too l i t t l e practiced by students
of language and even less applied by teachers is what
is sometimes called psycholinguistics. How does the
mind work with language and how does language stru c
ture the mind? How is language learned? Here again,
we have e ss e n tially excitin g material for the class
room, p a rtly because, being human beings, students
like to study themselves. (120:1204)
Laird saw a clear and l i t t l e used relationship between a psycho-
lin g u is tic approach to language and systematic instruction in certain
major lin g u is tic p rinciples.
Tate (225) glanced b r ie f ly backwards to the past decade in
assessing the current state of the concept framework in tran s
formational grammar. Concepts are d i f f i c u l t to learn and even more
d i f f i c u l t to teach. In short, the d i f f i c u l t i e s of the secondary
49
school English teacher in keeping abreast of developments in
lin g u is tic theory cannot be exaggerated:
I f , for instance, he [the teacher]] began his study
in the early 's ix tie s , he learned a great deal
about kernel sentences. Within a few years, however,
this term was to disappear and he was told that deep
structure and surface structure were the re a lly
s ig n ific a n t concepts. (225:159)
S im ila rly , Jacobs and Rosenbaum (107) stressed the same
concepts in an updated but considerably abridged version o f t h e ir
1968 work. The newer work is a. fo u r-p art series geared to the
secondary school student. Its concept o rie n ta tio n and presentation
is apparent throughout a ll of the texts even to the point of re
structuring some of the concepts in the theory. For example, the
broader and more abstract concept of deep and surface structures is
here reduced to the sub-concept of deep subjects and objects. Other
major concepts were accorded a comparable treatment. This represents
a s lig h t departure from and refinement of other p ractical m aterials
ava ila b le in transformational grammar.
Algeo (3 ), O'Donnell (165), and James (110), in independent
w ritin g s, sought to explore the p ractical applications of tra n s
formational grammar. Algeo sounded a note o f caution in s ta tin g that
although transformational grammar promises great developments
. . i t is s t i l l very much in the formative stage" (3:111).
O'Donnell too, cautioned teachers about expecting more from tra n s
formational grammar and lin g u is tic s , in general, than they can
provide:
50
By this time i t should be c lear that 1 th in k
research in lin g u istics does have p ractical a p p li
cations in education, but that they are not a p p li
cations that can be achieved by teaching the student
a lin g u is tic principle or concept and expecting
automatic improvement in communication s k i l l s .
(165:412)
James, in s lig h t contrast with the other two, expressed doubt in the
e ffic a c y of the present concept structure of language even while
agreeing that lin g u istic s can be p ro fita b ly explored in the classroom.
His argument was based on the concept of a "whole language" view, but
\
he did recognize that even certain abstract concepts w ith in the whole
view are simply too vast and heterogeneous to be of any use to
teacher or learner. He further am plified his views w ith the f o l
lowing statement:
Moreover, the whole idea of s ta rtin g with an ab
stra ctio n is now generally recognized to be peda
gogical anathema: percept must precede concept;
the student comes before the subject; experience
p rio r to generalization. (110:1096)
James' admonition is applicable to every teaching le v e l, this again,
a re fle c tio n of the Brunerian p rin c ip le that anything can be taught
at any lev e l, given the appropriate concepts and the appropriate
language.
This warning by James was not the only note o f discord to
be heard on the subject of concept structure and use. Lakoff (123)
severely c r it ic iz e d Roberts and Thomas and even Jacobs and Rosenbaum
fo r promulgating incorrect concepts. While discussing th e ir handling
o f transformational rules he wrote that "the rules given in these
51
men's works are, without exception, fakes" (123:170* Long (1 ^ 0
pursued much the same line of argument when he described the "incon
venient flu id ity " in certain concepts of transformational analysis.
Two final transformational textbooks deserve mention in this
review; one, by Kitzhaber et a l . (116), was designed prim arily for
high school students, and the other, by Langendoen ( 129), was
t f
designed for high school teachers. The former text includes concepts
from early transformational theory presented in a necessarily
sim plified way. The la tte r text, although b rie f, is quite current
and comprehensive. In i t the author handled a ll of the major concepts
discussed e a rlie r in this chapter and expanded the concept of deep
structure, in an applied sense, in a section which handled the
"concept of deep structure groups."
Summary
There is lit t l e agreement among the applied linguists on the
question of what concepts are most important in transformational
grammar; s t ill less agreement is evident on the issue of how concepts
should be handled in the classroom. Some writers opt for a struc
tured concept framework and -others prefer one variation or another
of the "selected" approach to concept teaching and learning. Perhaps
no unanimity should be expected in these ideological and methodologi
cal areas. Followers of both applied schools, the pedagogical
grammarians and the more scientific grammarians, have acknowledged
** f
th e ir own strengths and weaknesses. I f any trends in the direction
52
of th e ir work are at a ll d iscern ib le, i t is that each of these groups
tends to emulate the s ty le , i f not the content, of the other. Thus,
the pedagogical grammars of Roberts, and la te r Thomas, tended to be
more inclusive, systematic, and hence s c ie n t if ic . On the other hand,
the more s c ie n tific grammars, that is, those which attempted to
follow the theoretical pattern and th e o retical developments of
Chomsky and others more re lig io u s ly , found themselves developing a
concern for " te a c h a b ility ." S p e c ific a lly , this m i b e applied to
the work of Langendoen, Bach, and the combined and sin g le e ffo rts of
Jacobs and Rosenbaum. Yet, as so many of these w riters of both
persuasions have said or implied, i t w ill be incumbent upon the
individual teacher o f English, on whatever level, to s e le c t, analyze,
and discuss the concepts of a grammatical theory which seem most
appropriate to him and his class at the moment.
The Theoretical Linguists
Chomsky, following some of H a rris ' e arly transformational
w ritin g s , f i r s t developed the concepts which were la t e r to be
adopted by applied lin g u ists . His doctoral d is s e rta tio n (33)
introduced two of these concepts, namely, transformational rules
and language competence, the la t t e r having already developed from
the concept of lin g u is tic in tu itio n . Chomsky's landmark Syntactic
Structures (36) elaborated upon the nature and system of tra n s
formational rules and devoted considerable space to a discussion of
the concept of grammatical ness:
53
One way to test the adequacy o f a grammar proposed for
L is to determine whether or not the sequences that i t
generates are a ctu ally grammatical, i . e . , acceptable
to a native speaker, etc. We can take certain steps
towards providing a behavioral c r it e r io n fo r gramma
ticalness so that this test of adequacy can be carried
out . . . . We thus face a fa m ilia r task of e x p li
cation o f some in tu itiv e concept— in this case, the con
cept "grammatical in English," and more generally, the
concept "grammatical." (36:13)
But Chomsky more than introduced this concept; he gave i t con
siderable shape and d e lim ita tio n . In the f i r s t instance, he related
the concept to the in f in it e set of "grammatical utterances" which the
grammar could produce rather than to any p a rtic u la r corpus of
observed utterances. This, in essence, negated the s t r u c tu r a lis t's
long held b e lie f that any utterance in the language would automati
c a lly be acceptable or grammatical. Secondly, according to Chomsky,
"the notion 'grammatical' cannot be id e n tifie d with 'meaningful' or
's ig n ific a n t' in any semantic sense" (36:15). T h ird ly , this notion
cannot be id e n tifie d in any way with the. idea of "high order of
s t a t i s t ic a l approximation to English" (36:15— 16). And f i n a l ly ,
Chomsky added to the concept the notion of degrees or levels of
grammatical ness which was to receive fu rth er refinement in la te r
research.
Chomsky once hinted at the emerging concept of deep and
surface structures (36:1 5), but its b irth and subsequent refinement
would also come much la te r.
Refinement on "grammaticalness" was to come in 1961 in an
a r t i c l e by Chomsky e n t i t l e d "Some Methodological Remarks on Generative
Grammar." The remarks below represent the high point of the con
cept's development:
. . . 1 would like to emphasize that I am using the
terms "grammatical" and "degrees of grammatical ness"
in a technical sense (which is, however, not unre
lated to the ordinary one). In p a rtic u la r, when a
sentence is referred to as semi-grammatical or as
deviating from some grammatical re g u la rity , there is
no implication that this sentence is being "censored"
or ruled out or that its use is being forbidden.
. . . a degree of grammatica1 ness can be assigned
to any sequence of formatives when the generative
grammar is supplemented.by a hierarchy of categories.
The degree of grammaticalness is a measure of the
remoteness of an utterance from the generated set
o f p e rfe ctly well-formed sentences, and the common
representing category sequence w ill indicate in
what respects the utterance in question is deviant.
Thus, a generative grammar supplemented with a
hierarchy of categories can assign a degree of
grammaticalness to each sequence of formatives.
(38:222-223)
A few years la te r Katz (114) picked up the notion of "semi-
grammatical ness" and developed i t in a s lig h t ly d iffe r e n t vein. His
research on "semi-sentences" was based on Chomsky's concept but is
not identical to i t .
Other concepts were also developing at the same time.
Chomsky (39) and Lees (133) took an in terest in exploring the
th eo retical implications of the concept of language competence.
Chomsky, for example, saw a connection between th is concept and the
process of undertaking a f u ll grammatical description. He wrote:
This competence can be represented, to an as yet
undetermined extent, as a system of rules that
55
we can c a ll the grammar of his [the speaker-
hearer's] language. (39:9)
Transformational rules and th e ir applications were also given con
siderable atten tio n by Chomsky in 1962. The a p p licatio n of these
rules from the smallest to the largest constituents was called a
"transformational c y c le ." Postal (180) followed th is and other
concepts up in his very important work Constituent S tru c tu re .
But perhaps the most innovative, and to date the most s ig n ific a n t
development in the transformational concept framework, was the
development and eventual insertion into the lit e r a t u r e o f the con
cept >of deep and surface structures. The concept possesses con
siderable explanatory power in a transformational generative grammar.
The central feature of the concept is to separate syntax into two
levels; the deep level leads to an eventual semantic in te rp re ta tio n
while the surface level leads to a phonetic representation. A ll
w riters agree on the function of this concept and its importance in
the transformational description, but some p refe r to view the con
cept as two separate and related concepts. The m ajority of w rite rs
however, appear to view deep and surface structures as one concept
with a dual and highly related function.
The research of Katz and Postal (115) prompted many re-
• >
finements in the concept of transformational rules. They provided a
d is tin c tio n between transformations and a family of transformations.
A short while la t e r , Bach (10) "in his Introduction to T r ansformational
Grammars, though adding l i t t l e to the substance of the theory i t s e l f ,
56
did s im p lify many o f the concepts such as grammatical transforma
tions and transformational cycles. He also revealed some of the
inadequacies in the transformational component of a generative
grammar. Bach's ch ief contribution seems to have been the s p e c ific
inclusion of techniques of modern logic and mathematics to explain
basic lin g u is tic problems.
Boyd (21), in a doctoral d is se rta tio n , studied several
j problems of deep and surface structure in the accusative and i n f i n i -
| tiv e expressions in modern English. His intension was to study the
i
i
re la tio n s h ip between grammar and meaning although Chomsky, in e a r lie r
w r itin g , was able to see none. Boyd too, found no such re la tio n s h ip ,
but he did find many ra d ic a lly d iffe r e n t grammatical constructions
related to each other a f t e r having applied the concept o f deep and
surface structures.
During the middle years of the past decade, Chomsky pub
lished three s ig n ific a n t works, one in 1965 and two the following
year. The f i r s t of these was Chomsky's magnum opus, Aspects of the
Theory of Syntax (44). In this volume he defined generative
grammars as theories of lin g u is tic competence. Further, he provided
a d is tin c tio n between this key concept and its counterpart, lin g u is
t i c performance:
We thus make a fundamental d is tin c tio n between com
petence (the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his
language) and performance (the actual use o f
language in concrete s itu atio n s. (44:4)
in a major section of the book s u b title d Toward a Theory of Per
formance. Chomsky wrote:
The notion "acceptable" is not to be confused
with "grammatical." A cc ep tab ility is a concept that
belongs to the study o f performance, whereas gram
maticalness belongs to the study of competence
. . . . Like a c c e p ta b ility , grammaticalness is, no
doubt, a matter of degree, but the scales of gram
maticalness and a c c e p ta b ility do not coincide.
Grammatical ness is only one of the many factors
that in teract to determine a c c e p ta b ility . (44:11)
Aspects also contained d e f in it iv e statements on deep and surface
structures and transformational rules. Some of these statements
have, of course, undergone subsequent m odification, but most have
not.
A new dimension was added to the concept of lin g u is tic compe
tence in Chomsky's Topics in the Theory of a Generative Grammar (47):
The most s tr ik in g aspect of lin g u is tic competence
is what we may c all the 'c r e a t iv it y of language',
that is, the speaker's a b i l i t y to produce new sen
tences, sentences that are immediately understood
by other speakers although they bear no physical
resemblance to sentences which are ,1 :fami 1 i a r ’ . (47:11)
Chomsky expanded b r ie f ly the concept of deep and surface structures
as w e ll. He indicated that these structures, although they are
related , can never be identical since surface structures do not have
the c a p a b ility to account for the grammatical relations which are
so essential for a semantic in te rp re ta tio n :
The in a b ilit y df surface structures to indicate
sem antically s ig n ific a n t grammatical relations ( i . e . ,
to serve as deep s tru ctu re) is one fundamental fact
that motivated the development of transformational
58
generative grammar, in both its classical and modern
v a r ie tie s . (47:17)
Much the same kind of treatment of concepts by Chomsky appeared in a
less technical discussion which appeared in a 1966 number of Col lege
Enalish (46). As expected, most of the m aterial in that a r t i c l e
supported rather than extended his previous theoretical positions.
Fillmore (6 9) in a highly in flu e n tia l and s ig n ific a n t paper,
"Toward a Modern Theory o f Case," took issue with Chomsky's position
on deep and surface stru ctu res, especially in the relatio n of that
concept to subjects and objects in a sentence. He wrote:
. . . 1 regard each simple sentence in a language as
made up of a verb and a c o llectio n of nouns in various
"cases" in the deep structure sense. In the surface
structure, case d is tin ctio n s are sometimes preserved,
sometimes not— depending on the noun, or depending
on idiosyncratic properties of certain governing
words. (69:375)
Dixon in a 1963 paper had taken issue with the formulation o f certain
transformational concepts, p a r tic u la r ly competence and performance.
He fa ile d to see the d iffe re n c e between the two concepts, but Postal
(182) a ttrib u te d th is f a ilu r e to Dixon's in a b ilit y to distinguish
language from speech, or more b a sically "langue" from "p a ro le."
Moreover, th is d is tin c tio n is essential to an understanding o f the
difference between the notion of a universal grammar, something that
is akin to language competence in an in d ivid u al, and the notion of a
p a rtic u la r grammar, the s p e c ific language performance of th a t in d i
vidual in concrete s itu a tio n s .
Quirk and S v a rtik (185) conducted a most in teresting study
59
which, investigated the concept of lin g u is tic a c c e p ta b ility . They,
unlike Chomsky, Katz, and others, saw th e ir work as a study of
grammaticality by assuming that a cc e p ta b ility and grammaticality were
s im ila r, i f not id e n tic a l. The difference between Chomsky and Q.uirk
and S va rtik , however, is re a lly one of degree and not of kind. In
any event, th e ir technique was simply to use a ju ry of randomly
selected and educated speakers, a b a llo t, and the following question:
"Do you lik e this, form, or don't you?" What they found did not
surprise them or anyone else. The ju ry gave them emotionally based
reactions to the forms employed in the study. I f nothing else,
the study provided the lin g u is t with a f a i r l y reasonable approach
to learning more about individual and group lin g u is tic competence
and performance as well as t h e ir innate sense of grammaticalness.
By 1966 most o f Chomsky's grammatical concepts were almost
f u lly developed, p rim arily in his own w ritings but also in the
w ritin g o f others. As a re s u lt, his treatment of these concepts in
the lit e r a t u r e diverged s lig h t ly from past practices. For example,
in a working paper presented to the Northeast Conference on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages (48), he appeared to be more concerned
with the ordering of concepts and procedures for rule governance in
a transformational grammar's application in the classroom. I f
Chomsky was showing that a th e o ris t could be interested in pedagogy,
he also showed th at history as well had a role to play. His
Cartesian Linguistics (45) did l i t t l e more than lend a measure of
1
60
h is to ric a l a u th e n tic ity and re s p e c ta b ility to the concepts which he
and others had formulated and promulgated during the previous decade.
While the pedagogical ram ifications of using a transforma
tional grammar were often attacked, the h is to ric a l veracity of the
theory was not. U n til very recently no one ventured forth to
dispute with Chomsky on these grounds. A a rs le ff ( l ) , however,
remained unconvinced o f Chomsky's view of h isto ry. He found con
siderable e rro r not only in the h is to ric a l framework Chomsky adopted
but also in his departure point as w e ll.
The challenge of developing transformational concepts thus
f e l l to Chomsky's colleagues, to his former students, of to graduate
students preparing Ph.D. d issertations at M .l.T . such as Rosenbaum
(198) and Ross (2 00). Other than publishing in 1968 a series of
three lectures given at the Berkeley campus of the University of
C a lifo rn ia under the t i t l e Language and Mind (U9) and becoming
involved in a 1969 debate with B ritis h linguists at the University
of Birmingham, Chomsky has had l i t t l e to say about transformational
theory. Even the recent work, cited above, is only peripheral to
the theory. For example, the series of lectures ess e n tially
re iterated the theory of a transformational generative grammatical
model but th is time with philosophical and psychological overtones.
The debate with the B ritis h linguists was on the topic "Should
Trad itio n al Grammar Be Ended or Mended?" and its impact is at best
negi ig ib le .
61
Between 1967 and 1968 dozens of doctoral d issertations
appeared, some analyzing a s p ecific component or concept, others
using the theory as a basic tool of discovery for research. Four o f
them are important to th is study. Moore (158) examined the con
cepts "scales of grammatica1ity " and "scales of a c c e p ta b ility " in
what he called the "grammar of competence." His investigations
included sentences which were wholly grammatical yet t o t a lly
unacceptable. Sanders (203) offered a much narrower c h a ra c te ri
zation o f the concept o f grammaticality while Perlmutter (175)
studied the deep and surface constraints on syntax. F in a lly ,
Spangler (218) attempted to account fo r deviation in syntax by
rigorously applying the concept of "degrees of grammaticalness."
He found that this procedure produced nothing su b stan tial.
Lakoff (122) added s lig h t ly to the concept of deep and
surface structures as did Lees (134) in his a r t ic le "On Very Deep
Grammatical S tru c tu re ." The le t te r item related deep stru ctu re to
the logical structure of language and surface structure to the
grammatical structure of language. Langendoen (128) pursued the
same topic in "The A c c e s s ib ility of Deep Structures" in which he
found that some "sentences" are grammatically unacceptable, and
th is unacceptability is dependent upon the internal complexity of
th e ir surface syntactic structures.
In two general works, Lyons (144) and Langendoen (127)
sought to f i l l in some of the gaps in transformational theory; the
62
former text emphasized transformational rules and deep and surface
structures as two pivotal grammatical concepts, and the la t te r
stressed grammaticalness along with the judgment making process
inherent in that concept.
Shipley, Smith, and Gleitman (209) conducted a study into
the factors a ffe c tin g language acquisition and response of ch ild ren .
This study was p a rtly in the area of linguistics and p a rtly in
psycholinguistics. They investigated the innate lin g u is tic com
petence of young children in re la tio n to an output (lin g u is t ic
performance). A ll o f this was done in terms of the concept of
grammaticalness as i t has been developed in this study. They found
that the c h ild re n 's syntactic comprehension (or lin g u is tic com
petence) exceeds t h e ir production (or lin g u istic performance) par
tic u la r ly in those speakers whom they defined as "telegraphic"
speakers— those who used p rim itiv e or incomplete utterances. This
they called "telegraphic competence."
Summary
While the peak in the development of transformational
concepts seems to have occurred during the middle years of the past
decade, the e f f o r t to refin e or add to the theory has not yet
dissipated, th is despite the emergence during that time of two
"newer" grammatical theories. But beyond th is , the new emphasis
with Chomsky and with many of his colleagues and followers seems to
be directed to the rapidly developing and increasingly s ig n ific a n t
63
i
d is c ip lin e of psycholinguistics.
The movement c u rren tly extends from two d irec tio n s . On the
one hand, psychologists, notably M ille r , Osgood, Lennenberg, and
C a rro ll, are studying language and language related problems in
order to learn how humans come to learn and use language; that is,
th e ir language competence and th e ir language performance. Neither
i
! of these issues has been s a t is f a c t o r ily answered, our only clues
to them coming from th e o ris ts . On the other hand, linguists in
I both the applied and th e o re tic a l camps, Chomsky, Roberts, Katz, Postal
i
I and Fodor, Kaplan and A lle n , Sebeok and Saporta to name only a few,
t
i have seen the need to re la te th e ir work to a psychological evalua
tion and in te rp re ta tio n of language. In fa c t, i t was Chomsky who
f i r s t saw lin g u is tic s as an important branch of "cognitive psycho
logy."
A Review of the L ite ra tu re Related to the
Psychoh?nguiStic Aspects of the
Semantic D iffe r e n tia l
Psycholinguistics is generally thought to have had its
beginning at the mid-point of the present century. I t was seen as
a movement p rin c ip a lly by psychologists towards language and l i n
g u istics. Sebeok (172) saw the development this way:
The idea of reuniting lin g u is tic s and psychology in
the middle of the tw entieth century was conceived
and sparked by the Carnegie Corporation's John W.
Gardner, a psychologist deeply concerned with the
possible implications of such a rapprochement for
64
educational problems at a ll levels, and was f i r s t
a rtic u la te d by John B. C a rro ll, a psychologist
attuned to lin g u istic s . . . . (1 7 2:v)
However, a good case might be made for a ttr ib u tin g these beginnings,
at least in part, to Z ip f (251) who took a s t a t is t ic a l approach to
the analysis of language. Deese (59) in his A Survey of Psycho-
lin g u is tic Research. 1954 - 1964. did acknowledge Z ip f's role,
a lb e it a minor one. Yet Z ip f was the f i r s t to recognize language
as a b io lo g ic a l, psychological, and social process. According to
M ille r (157), Z ip f called his f ie ld "dynamic philology" although i t
was not taken seriously in his own time. Hardly surprising though,
is the fa c t that some of Z ip f's interests as evidenced in his The
Psycho-Biology o f Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology,
are largely indistinguishable from what keeps some psychologists,
lin g u is ts , and psycholinguists busy today. An example of this
commonality appears in his book under the heading "The Problem of
Meaning Behavior";
U ntil some means has been devised for measuring
the phenomena of a given f i e l d , one can neither
make o f th at f ie ld an exact science nor study
the dynamics of the f ie ld with any mentionable
degree o f precision. Hence the discovery of a
method s u itab le for measuring the ch ief phenomena
of speech is of immediate concern to Dynamic
Philology. (251:9)
The above comment is s ig n ific a n t here for at least two reasons.
F ir s t, one of the primary objectives o f this study was to use a
psycholinguistic technique, namely the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l , to
65
measure the a ttitu d in a l behavior o f various groups. The semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l attempts to uncover a more systematic and s c ie n t if ic
approach to meaning— in the sense of psychological rather than
lin g u is tic v a li d i t y . Second, problems in the measurement of
behavior are s t i l l occupying the time o f psycholinguists such as
Osgood (171 and 172), M ille r (157), Tannenbaum (171 and 224), and
C arroll (27, 2 9, 30, and 31). Dozens of other w riters in scores
of papers, monographs, and dissertations have also occupied them
selves with s im ila r problems and techniques. But the fact remains
that a ll students o f the psychology o f language are s t i l l try in g to
a rriv e at Z ip f 's "degree of precision" in th e ir work.
Finding a precise b irth d ate fo r psycholinguistics, however,
is not as important as documenting its subsequent development and
influence. Most w riters in lin g u is tic s and psychology have already
recognized psycholinguistics as a bona fide d is c ip lin e . But some,
lik e Postal (179), questioned its content and even its existence.
Yet these kinds of attacks have been sporadic, and in the more
recent lit e r a t u r e they-are non-existent. Linguists and psycholo
gists who have had nothing p o s itive to say about psycholinguistics
have, for the most p a rt, refrained from saying anything about i t .
And while they refrained from commentary, the growth and influence
of psycholinguistics proved them overly cautious. In short, with
the publication of m aterials in the f i e l d , psycholinguistics has
received both its baptism and its confirmation.
! 66
t
t
I
I
!
This increase in publications served mainly to give the
d is c ip lin e a degree of re s p e c ta b ility . Several excellent and com
prehensive readers were produced in the ten year span from 19 61.
The f i r s t of these was the reader edited by Saporta (20*0 t i t l e d
Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings. Saporta's important book
was followed by many others, among them these three: Osgood and
! Sebeok (172), Jakobovits and Miron (109), and Deese (59). The
I second o f these volumes includes an exc ellen t survey of psycho-
lin g u is tic research from 195** to 196** prepared by Diebold ( 6 l ) .
i
j Deese's book updated the bibliography to 1969. A ll of the volumes
| cited above give increasing a tte n tio n to the development, refinement,
j
and application of various psycholinguistic techniques, the semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l among them.
The Semantic D iffe r e n tia l
Of primary concern in th is study is the use of the semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l technique, a tool often employed by psycholinguists.
The semantic d if f e r e n t ia l is an objective measure of meaning devel
oped by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (171) in th e ir book The
Measure of Meaning and amply described and employed in the Osgood
and Snider sourcebook, Semantic D if f e r e n t ia l Technigue (217). P rin
cipal development of the technique occurred at the University of
I l l i n o i s in th e ir In s t it u t e of Communication Research. Most of this
development was completed between 1952 and 1957^ and since th at
time, l i t e r a l l y hundreds o f studies have used the technique in one
S of its many forms.
The technique has many forms because i t has almost no form.
Other than the necessity fo r u t i l i z in g concepts and scales, there are
few other requirements and even these can be adapted to s u it in d i
vidual needs or s itu atio n s. This kind o f f l e x i b i l i t y in the in s tru -
i
i ment has caused some to question its s c ie n t if ic underpinnings in the
I
| f ie ld of meaning (Brown, 22; Weinreich, 239; and Fodor, 72). Others
have opted for revising the d if f e r e n t ia l to the unique charac-
: te r is t ic s in th e ir work (Ervin and Foster, 64; Maltz, 149; and
; Di Vesta, 63) or to renaming i t .
C arroll (31), a f t e r using the technique on several occasions,
! gave i t a s lig h t ly revised name while explaining its use and r e l i -
a b i1i ty:
Osgood's "semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l , " in which one is
asked to rate one's concepts on scales such as
good-bad, strong-weak, fast-slow , active-passive,
light-heavy, pungent-bland, e t c ., is a way of
indexing c ertain r e la t iv e ly universal cognitive
and a ffe c tiv e components of individual experiences
as classed in concepts; i t would perhaps more
properly be called an "exp erien tial d i f f e r e n t i a l . "
The fact that f a i r l y consistent results are ob
tained when the concept ratings from d iffe re n t
people are compared or averaged implies that people
tend to have generally s im ila r kinds of experiences,
a t least w ith in a given c u ltu re . (31:572)
L i l l y (140) in a developmental study of the semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l offered a much more d e fin itiv e statement on the
techniqueJs- use and p o te n tia l:
By fa r the predominant approach to the study of
a ffe c tiv e meaning has been that of Osgood and his
colleagues. To study the connotative aspect of
meaning, a measuring device, the Semantic D i f f e r
e n tia l (SD), was developed and extensively tested
by Osgood and his associates (Osgood, Suci, and
Tannenbaum, 1957). T yp ically an SD study involves
a group o f subjects rating a number of concepts
(often nouns such as Mother) on a series of seven-
point b ip o lar ad jective scales (such as good-bad).
In order to determine the dimensions of the "semantic
space," a facto r analysis of the intercorrelations
among the a d jective scales, computed across subjects
and concepts, is performed (Osgood and Sue!, 1955;
Osgood et a l . . 1957, Ch. 2 ). Evidence from a large
number of d if f e r e n t factor analyses of SD data
suggests that there are three primary factors in
the domain o f a ffe c tiv e meaning (Osgood, 1962;
Osgood et a l .. 1957, Ch. 2). The f i r s t and most
important factor is called an evaluative (E) dimen
sion and is characterized by scales such as good-
bad, pleasant-unpleasant, and positive-negative.
The second facto r is called potency (P) and is
characterized by scales such as strong-weak, heavy-
lig h t , and h ard -so ft. The th ird factor is called
a c t i v l t v (S) and is characterized by scales such
as activ e -p a ss iv e, fast-slow, and excitable-calm .
These three factors are mutually independent and
often account fo r most of the re lia b le variance
in the data. Osgood (1962) has presented an im
pressive array of studies involving d iffe re n t
subjects and concepts which support his view of
the "semantic space." (l4 0 : 5 “6)
The D e fin itio n o f Meaning
The notion of "semantic space" depends on a psychological
rather than a lin g u is tic in te rp re ta tio n of meaning. I t functions
as a re la tio n a l concept in a representational process. According
to Osgood ( 17 1) th is is to say that
. . . the meanings which d iffe re n t individuals have
for the same signs w ill vary to the extent th at th e ir
behaviors toward the thing s ig n ifie d have varied.
This is because the composition of the representa
tio n a l process— which is the meaning of the sign—
69
is e n t ir e ly dependent upon the nature of the to tal
behavior occurring while the sign is being estab
lish ed . (171:9)
While the value or v a l i d i t y of other kinds of meaning is not negated
by Osgood and his associates, they have repeatedly emphasized that
t h e ir notion o f meaning is uniquely related to the immediately
observable behavior o f a responding organism:
The meaning of "meaning" for which we wish to
! e s ta b lis h an index is a psychological one— that
| process or state in the behavior of a sign-using
organism which is assumed to be a necessary con
sequence of the reception of sign stim uli and a
I necessary antecedent fo r the production of sign-
| responses. (171:9)
I Law (130) has noted that sign-response production is a
j function o f sign reception, and decoding is a function o f sign pro-
!
duction and encoding. The decoding process, fu rth er, is a matter
of in te rp re ta tio n of ideas; encoding is a matter of expression of
ideas. In any event, this kind of meaning is psychologically
determined simply on the grounds of having been thrust into an
encoding-decoding process, a m en ta lis tic process which is unin
terp retab le in any other than a psychological way.
Though the logic of inserting this kind of process into
the semantic d if f e r e n t i a l has rarely been questioned, the v a lid it y
of the Osgood conception of meaning has. Brown (22), Weinreich (239) .>
and Fodor (72) expressed doubts about the nature and existence of
psychological meaning and semantic space. More s p e c ific a lly , Brown
saw the d i f f e r e n t i a l ' s ch ief shortcoming in its in a b ilit y to solve any
of the problems of meaning posed by philosophers and
does not even observe the d is tin ctio n s of which they
feel most confident. (22:115)
Weinreich saw the helplessness of Osgood and his associates to place
. . t h e ir position in a h is to ric a l framework of a general theory
of s ig n ific a tio n " (239:352). Fodor's thesis was simply that
meaning is not reducible to psychological and m entalistic factors
I and that even the more conventional lexical and contextual approaches
j
to meaning have yet to be more f u lly researched on objective
i
! grounds.
]
j
i The Logic of the Semantic D iff e r e n tia l
Osgood's account (171) of the logic behind the development
and use of the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique was. a speculative
one. I t nevertheless provided a much needed theoretical base upon
which some of the basic constructs of the techniques were to be
tested and improved. Constructs central to the th eoretical and
practical operation of the semantic d iffe r e n tia l range from
"psychological meaning," discussed e a r lie r in the study, to
"semantic space."
Semantic space has a "natural" dimensionality to i t in the
sense th at the system o f factors together accounts for the variance
in meaningful judgments. A c tu a lly , this dimensionality is re a lly
a multidimensional phenomenon upon which is projected a measuring
operation which is
. . . assumed to correspond to what component
mediating reactions are associated with the sign £or
conceptj and with what degrees of in te n s ity . (Osgood
et a l .. 171:31)
A fte r postulating the notion of "semantic space," Euclidean
in character and of unknown dimensionality, Osgood defined the
construct o f b ip o lar a d je c tiv a l scales which are to be located at
e ith e r end of a lin ea r continuum. The s tra ig h t lin e function o f the
scales passes through the o rig in of the semantic space, and since
there are many scales and several concepts to be judged, there are
many dimensions in the space.
Judging the concepts then is merely a matter of applying them
to the scales provided. A concept already judged becomes a sign
as do the b ip o lar adjectives which d e lim it the scales. The dimen
s io n a lit y o f any concept is discovered by determining the patterns
which the concept evokes on the scales. From this inform ation, the
p a tte rn 's p o sitive and negative valence along with its position on
the scale (in te n s ity ) can be calculated.
Selection of individual scales according to evaluation,
potency, and a c t iv it y c r it e r i a and according to the p a rtic u la r
requirements of the technique's intended use is l e f t e n tir e ly to the
in v es tig a to r. A factor-analyzed glossary of pre-tested b ip o lar
a d je c tiv e scales is a vailab le to the investigator, but its use is
not mandatory. Once the objectives fo r the use of the technique are
c le a r, selection and rotation of the scales are a r e la t iv e ly simple
m atter (See Appendix I ) .
72
Respondents are asked to rate each concept on a set of
scales, each scale ranging from one bipolar adjective to the other
across a seven-point "semantic space." The ch ief task of the
respondent is to select that gradation on the scale which most c le a rly
approximates his immediate reaction to the concept. In th is fashion
each concept is rated against each set of scales.
Almost any v a ria tio n in the number of scales and the number
of concepts may be used. Whereas most investigators lim it th e ir
semantic d if f e r e n t ia ls on the basis of amount of time required to
complete i t , N . number of scales and N . number of concepts may be used.
In a d d itio n , some have used the d iffe r e n tia l with a fiv e -p o in t scale
or a nine-point scale. However, the preponderance of lite r a tu r e
on the topic suggests th at the optimum number of divisions in the
semantic space is seven. A seven-point scale was used in the present
study.
R e l i a b i l i t y of the Instrument
Ample evidence exists to support both the item and fa c to r-
score r e l i a b i l i t y of the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l. For example, Osgood
et a l . , (171) have shown a te s t-re te s t co rrelatio n of .85 in
working with 100 subjects on 40 scales. Tannenbaum {22b) using the
same procedure reported a correlation of .91. An even higher
c o rre la tio n , .93, was reported by Weaver (238) who employed the
s p l i t - h a l f technique. Researchers, however, did recognize that
scales with higher facto r loadings produced higher co rrelations
of r e l i a b i l i t y . Thus, the highest factor loadings, usually scales
in the "evaluation" (E) category, generated the ". . . smallest
average errors of measurement (Osgood et a 1.. 171:131). Bopp (18)
even showed that there were no s ig n ific a n t differences in r e l i a b i l i t y
when "normal" subjects were compared to "neurotic" ones.
V a lid it y o f the Instrument
There is l i t t l e need here to review the p ertin en t lite r a tu r e
on th is topic since Osgood and Snider (217), in th e ir sourcebook on
the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l , have devoted an e n tire section to recent
j
studies on v a li d i t y . The most s ig n ific a n t recent work which appears
in that volume was undertaken by F lavell (70)> Deese (58), and
Howe (98).
Summary
This section of the chapter reviewed the lit e r a t u r e
pertaining to aspects of psycholinguistics and to the semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l technique. The body o f research about the semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l is extremely well documented, and according to the
comprehensive bibliography in the Osgood and Snider volume (217),
numbers well over one thousand en tries.
Numbers alone, however, do not always aid in bridging the
gap between linguists and psychologists, esp ecially since the
d is c ip lin e of psycholinguistics is too new to have produced many
researchers and scholars of its own. Yet great strid es in uniting
and ju s t if y in g the new d is c ip lin e are being made, due p rin c ip a lly
to far-sighted individuals in lin g u is tic s and psychology. I t seems
that these men, regardless of where th e ir p a rtic u la r philosophical
views place them, have seen the foolishness and a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the
a r b itr a r y borders w ithin th e ir own d is c ip lin e s . Moreover, they
have attempted to increase the knowledge of man and his language by
using whatever tools and information that seemed appropriate to the
j task. Perhaps Roberts (193) expressed this sentiment best as he
j sought assistance from both lin g u is tic s and psychology to improve
I
! the teaching and learning process:
I would like to believe that fu rth e r research
in lin g u istic s and psycholinguistics, b e tte r know
ledge of both the learning process and the thing
learned, w ill enable us to undertake the task of
language teaching in a surer and more c le a rly
e ffe c tiv e way. (193:525)
CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Description of the Instruments
Three instruments were used in this study: a 39-item rating
scale, a fiv e-item questionnaire, and a semantic d if f e r e n t ia l con
sistin g o f 15 bipolar adjectival scales and fiv e concepts selected
from transformational theory. Information from the questionnaire
was d ire c tly related to the testing of the hypotheses. Bipolar scales
with previously established high factor loadings were selected for
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l, although this was not possible in every
instance, since some scales with high fa c to r loadings were not con
sidered relevant to the present study.
Most studies (29, 171* and 224) using the semantic d if f e r e n
t i a l have used scales with high factor loadings in three factor
areas, and these are evaluation, potency, and a c t i v i t y . Other
factors were often present, but they represented less than a s i g n i f i
cant percentage of the t o t a l — usually f iv e percent or less. Some of
the scales with lower factor loadings in this study were selected
because they were thought to be more immediately related to the fiv e
_______________________ 75
transformational concepts and to grammatical theory. Factor-
loadings for the scales used are given in Appendix I I .
Construction o f the Rating Scale
The w ritings of Noam Chomsky and some of his colleagues and
followers produced a l i s t of 39 concepts in transformational theory,
some major, some minor, almost a ll of them in te rre la te d . The m ajority
I of these w ritin g s were published between 1957 and 19 6 9•
j Concepts were selected on the basis of the following con-
1
siderations:
1. Those concepts receiving the greatest exposure of
highest frequency in the lite r a tu r e .
2. Those concepts which were treated in some depth so as
1
to have been given emphasis in a r tic le s , anthologies, or textbooks.
3. Those concepts which have some apparent relationship to
teaching problems or to applied lin g u istic s generally, ( i t is
adm ittedly d i f f i c u l t , at times, to distinguish between purely
th e o retical constructs and those which are more suitab le fo r
problems in applied lin g u is tic s . Such a concept is "grammaticalness"
which, on the one hand, can be related to the abstract notion of
" lin g u is tic u n iversals," and on the other, is c le a rly related to
the syntactic problems of " p a rtic u la r" grammars.)
Concepts thus selected included both broad, far-ranging
and abstract concepts as well as concepts quite concrete and
narrow in scope. A group of 32 linguists a ll of whom had been
77
responsible for contributing to the lite ra tu r e and content of trans
formational theory comprised the panel.
Some of the panelists are acknowledged theoreticians; others
are e s s e n tia lly involved with applied lin g u is tic s . The panel also
contained a representative sampling of transform ationalists,
stru c tu ral lin g u is ts , and lin g u ists of other theoretical persuasions.
A cover l e t t e r and a rating sheet with the 39 concepts was
sent to each of the panelists together with a return, s e lf -
addressed and stamped, envelope. Of the 32 panelists contacted in
th is manner, twenty-nine responses were received, and of these 24
were useful in th is study. Three of the panelists wrote le tte rs
indicating they were not able to make such judgments, and two others
returned th e ir rating sheets blank only to include th e ir own
concept rating scale on the reverse side. I t was interesting to
note that both of the la t t e r scales represented grammatical theories
which are c u rren tly in competition with transformational theory,
at least on the th eo retical front i f not in the classroom.
Panelists were asked to rate the 10 concepts on the rating
sheet which they f e l t were most essential in the teaching of the
theory. Ratings were to be assigned on the basis of order of
importance. For example, the most important concept was to be
rated "1" and the least important of the group "10. " Thus, twenty-
nine of the concepts were l e f t unmarked. Numerical values were
then assigned to each of the judged concepts by reversing the number
78
given to them on the rating scale. As such, a concept rated "1" was
assigned a value of "10" whereas a concept rated "10" was assigned a
value of " I . " A ll of the rated concepts on the 2k returned rating
scales were subsequently summed. The fin a l tabulation produced the
following concepts, th e ir order determined by the values assigned to
them by the p an elists: deep and surface structures, language
| competence, language performance, transformational rules, and gram-
| maticalness.
j
Construction of the Semantic D iffe r e n tia l
The fiv e transformational concepts were combined with 15
bipolar ad jec tiv al scales to produce a 75-item (5 X 15) semantic
d i f f e r e n t i a l . Osgood et a l ., (171:82) recommended that the scales
be rotated and reversed. The usual procedure is to use one scale
from the evaluation fa c to r, this to be followed by scales from the
potency and a c t iv it y factors. The process is then repeated u n til a ll
scales have been u t i l i z e d . A d d itio n a lly , the f i r s t set of scales in
the d if f e r e n t ia l is to be l e f t unaltered while the second one is to
be reversed; the th ird scale again, is l e f t unaltered. This pro
cedure is used u n til a ll scales have been placed into the d i f f e r
e n tia l. This reversal process can be seen in the f i r s t two sets of
scales used in the present study. For example, the f i r s t set of
scales is "valuable-worthless" and the second is strong-weak. This
is the way they appear on the facto r-lo ad i ngs chart in Osgood e.t al..
(171:53-62). Both scales are designed so as to place th e ir positive
connotations on the le ft and th e ir negative connotations on the rig h t.
The reversal process simply reverses every other scale in the d i f f e r
e n tia l so th at the positive connotations w ill now be reflected on the
rig h t, the negative ones on the l e f t . This procedure prevents re
spondents from being unduly influenced in th e ir judgments by th e ir
scores on scales in the immediate v ic in it y of the one being judged.
j
| In this fashion an identical instrument was produced for
each of the fiv e transformational concepts. Each set of identical
|
jscales appeared on a separate page with the name of the concept at the
! top.
I
j The directions fo r administering the semantic d iffe r e n tia l
i
| were adapted from Osgood et a l ., (1 7 1) and Carroll (29) and appear in
I Appendix I .
The Questionnaire
A questionnaire consisting o f fiv e items vyas developed to
test the hypotheses in th is study Respondents were asked to provide
the following information: current status (teacher, graduate
student etc J , kind of degrees earned, major area of undergraduate
study, source of knowledge, and length of time that the respondent
has been fa m ilia r with transformational theory. Respondents were
also asked to include in the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l booklet any
comments related to the teaching of transformational grammar, the
structure and effectiveness of textbooks and other m aterials in this
f ie ld , concepts which are e specially d i f f i c u l t to teach, student
reaction to the theory, and the general impact and value of the
theory in th e ir own classroom work. These comments are included in
Appendix IV.
Selection of the Schools and Colleges
The sample o f respondents in this study was selected from
the population of high school and college teachers and prospective
! high school and college teachers in southern C a lifo rn ia . Southern
C a lifo rn ia is here defined as that portion of the state extending
! southward from a line drawn east and west through the c ity of
i
! San Luis Obispo, C a lifo rn ia .
| As part of th is study, a ll of the s ta te colleges in the
j
i southern C a lifo rn ia area were to have been used together with a
|
| random sample of the public secondary schools having grades 9 or 10
through grade 12. Of the 10 C a lifo rn ia state colleges in this region,
only six were found acceptable for this study in terms of the f o l
lowing three c r it e r i a :
1. The college must have two or more f u ll-tim e faculty
members in English or lin g u istic s who teach both graduate and
undergraduate courses in grammatical or transformational theory.
2. The college must have graduate students doing work
toward the M.A. degree in English or lin g u is tic s who have had some
formal tra in in g (at least one course) in grammatical or trans
formational theory.
3. The college must have a teacher tra in in g program in or
i .......................' .................................." ............. ‘ ......" " " ....................‘ ....................... 8 1 ~
I
i
i
i
i
j
cooperating with its department of English which uses the neighboring
secondary schools as tra in in g in s titu tio n s and which produces pros
pective teachers of English who have received some formal training
(at least one course) in grammatical or transformational theory.
The four colleges excluded on the above grounds are prim arily
new colleges whose programs are largely undeveloped or s t i l l in the
j planning phase.
i
A l i s t o f secondary schools in southern C a lifo rn ia was
j obtained from the 1969-1970 C a lifo rn ia School D irectory, published
| by the State Department of Public instruction in Sacramento,
t
| C a lifo rn ia . The to ta l population of secondary schools having
I grades nine or 10 through 12 numbered 317 schools. A 25% random
j
sample of this group was taken and this figure amounted to 79
schools.
Selection o f the Subjects
Letters were sent to the English department chairman and
to the coordinator of student teachers in the department of English
in each of the s ix state colleges. The former were asked to supply
a l i s t of names of fa c u lty in t h e ir respective departments who are
fa m ilia r w ith transformational theory s p e c ific a lly and grammatical
theory generally. The chairmen were also asked to provide a l i s t
of names of those graduate students who also had some fa m ilia r ity
with the theory and who were cu rren tly working with professors of
English or lin g u is tic s a t th e ir respective colleges.
Three of the colleges forwarded complete lis t s fo r both
groups, whereas the remaining three could only supply lis t s of th e ir
own fa c u lty members. In these la t t e r instances, extra copies of
the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l booklet were sent to the professors in
these in s titu tio n s , and they were asked to d is trib u te them to th e ir
| graduate students according to the c r it e r ia presented e a r lie r in the
! study. The la t t e r group (student-teacher coordinators) were likewise
I
asked to c o lle c t and forward a l i s t of names of th e ir student
I teachers who had some f a m ilia r ity with transformational theory.
I Compiling this l i s t proved to be the most d i f f i c u l t task of
! a l l , since a ll of these potential respondents were already out in
i
J
the fie ld doing th e ir student teaching. They were not on the
campuses on a regular basis for this information to be collected by
the coordinator. An a ltern a te approach was used instead. A l i s t of
names was secured from the coordinator's secretary and then personal
contact was made by telephone to ascertain i f the c r it e r io n on
f a m ilia r it y could be met.
At the secondary school lev e l, a ll English department
chairmen were sent a le t t e r explaining the nature of the study and
a description of the instruments to be used (see Appendix 111).
They also were sent a return postcard on which they were to l i s t
the names of teachers in th e ir departments who had some understanding
of transformational theory. Twenty-three of the 79 secondary school
English department chairmen returned postcards with no names. Of
the remaining figure, fo rty -e ig h t chairmen sent a to ta i of 117 names
w hile eig ht others returned nothing.
D is trib u tio n of the M aterials
Each potential respondent whose name was received on one of
the lis t s or via telephone was sent a packet containing a cover
le t t e r explaining the study (see Appendix 111) and a 12-page
semantic d iffe r e n tia l booklet which included in s tru ctio n s, d e f i n i
tions, the questionnaire, and the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . Also
included in the packet was a return m anilla envelope, stamped and
self-addressed. One packet was sent to each person except to pro
fessors in three of the state colleges. They were sent a to tal of
s ix packets, one for th e ir own perusal, the other fiv e fo r th e ir
graduate students. These professors were requested to w rite for
a dditional packets i f they were needed. Only one did so.
A to ta l of 244 packets was sent out. Forty-two of those
packets were returned with no markings. In various ways these
p o te n tial respondents indicated that they were not fa m ilia r enough
w ith transformational theory to complete the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l .
A breakdown of a ll packets d istrib u ted and returned follows in
Table 1. The actual return was 165 booklets; three of these were
incomplete or improperly executed and deleted from the sample.
Thus, the to ta l sample was 162 or 66.4% of the to ta l d is trib u te d .
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN OF THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
IN NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES
Category
Distributed
N %
Returned
(Marked)
N %
Returned
(Unmarked)
N %
Returned
(in c .)
N %
Unreturned
N %
High School Teachers
117
48.0 58 35.8 32 76.2 2
66.7 27
!
67.5
Prospective High School Teachers
49
20.0
37 22.8
7
16.6
C
1 33.3 5 10.5
College Teachers
33 13.5 31 19.2 0 00 0 00- 2 5.0
Prospective College Teachers
b5 18.5
36 22.2
3 7.2 0 00 6 15.0
Totals 244 100.0 162 100.0 42 100.0 3 100.0 40 100.0
85
Description of the Sample
The ch arac teristics of the to tal (useable) returned sample
are presented in Table 2.
Method of Scoring
Each scale was scored by the method suggested by Osgood
et a l . (171:96). Numerical ratings from 1 to 7 were given to each
of the scale positions from l e f t to rig h t. The neutral area or mid
point of each scale was the number k . The scales fo r each concept
were then summed. This method produced a consistent scoring system
throughout.
Summary
This chapter has described the design of the study. I t has
also given a description of the nature and construction of the
semantic d i f f e r e n t ia l. A d d itio n a lly, the selection of schools,
colleges, and subjects, the d is trib u tio n of m ate rials, and the
scoring process were described. And fin a lly > data concerning the
d is tr ib u tio n and return of the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l in numbers and
percentages and c h arac teristics of respondents were given in table
form.
TABLE 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
Category Class i f i cati on N
Current status High school teacher
of English
Student teacher of
English (grades
58
9-12)
College teachers of
37
English
Graduate students in
English or 1in —
g uistics preparing
31
fo r college teaching 36
Level of train in g Bachelor's degree 88
Master's degree 42
Doctorate 32
Undergraduate major English 111
Other (foreign language,
social sciences,
etc. 51
Source of knowledge Degree-oriented course
work in English
or lin g u is tic s
Other (in s t it u t e s , inde
64
pendent study, e t c .) 98
Experience wi th 1965 and p rio r 61
transformational
theory
1966 and la te r 101
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Procedure
An analysis of the data gathered w i l l be discussed in this
chapter together with the inferences which may be drawn to te s t the
eight hypotheses presented in Chapter I.
A one-way analysis of variance was applied to a ll the data
collected for this study. Information from the fiv e -ite m question
naire was coded w ithin each category in the fashion outlined below:
Category
Status
Degrees Earned
Undergraduate Major
Code
1
2
3
k
1
2
3
1
2
Informat ion
High School Teacher of English
Prospective High School Teacher
of English
College Teacher of English
Prospective College Teacher of
Engli sh
Bachelor's
Master's
Doctorate
Engli sh
Other (Foreign Language, Social
Sciences, e tc .)
87
Category Code 1nformation
Source of Knowledge 1 Formal Course Work in English or
Linguistics
2 Other (In s t it u t e s , Independent
Study, e t c .)
Fami1i a r i t y with the
Theory 1 1965 and P rio r
2 1966 and Later
1 This information was keypunched along with the raw scores
i
; obtained from the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . Computer analysis of the
I data was performed at the University o f Southern C a lifo r n ia 's
I
1 Computer Science Laboratory. The computer's task was to calculate
|
! the various £ ratio s, sums of scores, sums of squares, means and
standard deviations, and a co rrela tio n m atrix among a ll variab les.
Each of the transformational concepts was given three sets
o f scores, one set for each of the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l factors
(Evaluation, Potency, and A c t iv it y ) . Thus £ ratios and means and
standard deviations were obtained fo r each of the factors w ithin
each of the concepts. A ll of this information is presented in table
form in this chapter.
Results
Hypothes is 1 .—This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
s ig n ific a n t difference between the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as held by college teachers o f English
and prospective college teachers of English (c u rre n tly graduate
students), as measured by the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . An analysis of
89
variance of differences between the two groups produced £ ratios
which are presented in Table 3. Means and standard deviations are
presented in Table k .
With the appropriate degrees of freedom and £ ra tio o f 3.99
would be required to demonstrate sig nificance at the .05 level.
None of the variables was s ig n ific a n t a t that lev e l. No other,
s t a t is t ic a l tests were applied to these two groups.
Hypothesis 2 . —This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
s ig n ific a n t difference between the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as held by high school teachers of
English and prospective high school teachers of English (currently
graduate students and/or student teachers a t the secondary le v e l),
as measured by the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . The results are shown in
Table 5. None of the £ ratios could be considered even remotely
s ig n ific a n t. Table 6 contains means and standard deviations for
these two groups.
Hypothesis 3 . —This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
s ig n ific a n t difference between the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as held by college teachers of English
and high school teachers of English, as measured by the semantic
di f f e r e n t i a l .
Six of the 15 £ ratios on four of the concepts proved to be
s ig n ific a n t at the .05 level, four of them on the important evalu
ation (E) factor and one each on the remaining two factors. The
TABLE 3
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH AND
PROSPECTIVE COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH FOR VARIOUS SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FACTORS
j
Concept Factor
Between Groups Wi thi n Groups
F
S i g n i f i
cance df
Mean
Square df
Mean
Square
Deep and Surface Evaluation 1 14.49 65
21.94 .66 > .05
Structures Potency
1 21.94
65 12.28 1.78 > .05
Acti vi ty
1
1.75 65 10.92 .16 > .05
Language Evaluation 1 52.06
65 18.88
2.75 > .05
Competence Potency 1 9.50 65
9.24 1.02
> .05
A ctivi ty 1 .63
65
13.06 .04 > . 0 5
Language Evaluation 1 .01
65
10.64 .00 > .05
Performance Potency 1
.09 65
10.92 .00 > . 0 5
i
A ctivi ty 1 .14
65 6.75
.02
> . 05
Transformational Evaluation 1 11.81
65
29.44 .40 > .05 i
Rules Potency 1 12.71
65
15.86 .80 > .05
A ctiv i ty 1 8.05 65
7.42 1.08 > .05
Grammatical ness Evaluation 1 .08 65 16.05 .00 ' > . 05
Potency 1
2.97 65 19.25 .15 > .05
Acti vi ty 1 .80
65 10.19 .07 > .05
TABLE 4
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FOR COLLEGE TEACHERS
OF ENGLISH AND PROSPECTIVE COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH
Variables
j C
Col lege Teacher (N«31)
Prospective
Col lege Teacher (N«36)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1 12.51 5.86 11.58
3.35
Deep and Surface Structures 2 13.93 3.67 15.08 3.34
3
16.06 3.82 16.38 2.78
4
13.12 5.22 11.36 3.42
Language Competence
5
16.83
2.96 16.08 3.10
6 17.80 4.02 17.61 3.22
7
10.58 3.82 10.61 2.68
Language Performance 8 16.74 3.47 16.66
3.15
9
15.93 2.70 16.02 2.50
10 12.93
6.32
13.77 4.51
Transformational Rules 11 13.70 3.71 14.58 4.19
12 15.19
2.44 15.88 2.94
;
13 12.87 2.92 12.94 4.73
Grammaticalness 14 16.35 4.81
16.77 3.98
15
17.61 2.80 17.83 , 3.49
I
TABLE 5
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ENGLISH AND PROSPECTIVE
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ENGLISH FOR VARIOUS SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FACTORS
Concept Factor
Between Groups Within Groups
F
S i g n i f i
cance
Mean
— Square
Mean
~ Square
Deep and Surface
Structures
Evaluation
Potency
Act i vi tv
1 19.48
1 7.60
1 12.55
93 32.71
93 14.93
93 13.93
.59
.50
.90
> .05
> .05
> .05
Language
Competence
Evaluation
Potency
A ctivi ty
1 9.68
1 1.57
1 1.69
93 25.50
93 13.13
93 22.63
.37
.12
.07
> .05
> .05
> .05
Language
Performance
Evaluation
Potency
Ac t i v i ty
1 2.45
1 .73
1 6.54
93 23.39
93 H .7 0
93 14.75
.10
.06
.44
> .05
> .05
> .05
Transformational
Rules
Evaluation
Potency
A ctiv i ty
1 46.10
1 5.27
1 24.41
93 39.83
93 22.15
93 14.54
1.15
.23
1.67
> .05
> .05
> .05
Grammatical ness
Evaluation
Potency
A c tiv ity
1 49.16
1 9.69
1 54.13
93 30.35
93: 17.32
93 15 M
1.61
.55
3.51
> .05
> .05
> .05
vo
ro
TABLE 6
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS
OF ENGLISH AND PROSPECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ENGLISH
Variables
High School
Teacher
(N=58) .
Prospective High
School Teacher
(N=37)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1 15.98 6.23 15.05 4.71
Deep and Surface Structures 2 16.12 4.36 15.54 2.91
3
17.44 4.25 16.70 2.70
13.53 5.18 14.18 4.83
Language Competence
5
17.46 3.66 17-72 3.55
6 17.51 4.79
17.24 4.70
7
12.72 4.86 13.05 4.79
Language Performance 8 17.60 3.67 17.78 2.96
9
15.94 4.06 16.48 3.46
-
10 18.48 6.36 17.05
6.22
Transformational Rules 11 15.32 5.09 15.81 4.01
12 17.12 4.38 16.08 2.66
13
16.44
5.51 14.97 5.49
Grammatical ness 14 17.65 4.45 17.00 3.65
15 19.03 3.87 17.48 4.01
vo
VaJ
94
computed £ ratios for a ll 15 factors along with the degrees of
freedom and mean squares are shown in Table 7. Table 8 shows the
means and standard deviations for the two groups.
Hypothesis 4 . —This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
s ig n ific a n t difference between the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as held by prospective college teachers
of English and prospective high school teachers of English, as
measured by the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . Five ofthe £ ratios were
s ig n ific a n t, variables 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10. Again, four of these
variables f e ll on the E factor of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . An £
r a tio of 3.98 was necessary to obtain s ig n ifican ce . £ ratios for
this hypothesis are shown in Table 9; means and standard deviations
are shown in Table 10.
Hypothesis 5 . --This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
s ig n ific a n t difference in the perceptions of selected concepts in
transformational theory as a function of the time respondents have
been fa m ilia r (in years) with the theory, as measured by the semantic
d i f f e r e n t i a l . The computed £ ratios along with the degrees of
freedom and mean squares are presented in Table 11. Table 12 shows
the means and standard deviations.
Only two variables were found to be s ig n ific a n t at the .05
le v e l, neither on the E fa cto r. The s ig n ific a n t £ ra tio for the
testing of this hypothesis was 3 . 9 1 * One of the variables had an £
ra tio of 3.93; the other was 4.19.
TABLE 7
\
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH AND
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ENGLISH FOR VARIOUS SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FACTORS
Factor
Between Groups Wi thi n Groups
F
S i g n i f i
cance
| Concept
!
df
Mean
Square
df
Mean
Square
Deep and Surface Evaluation 1
242.78
87
37.64 6.44 < .05
! Structures Potency 1
96.46
87
17.12 5.63 < .05
A c tiv it y
1
38.68
87
16.92 2.28 > .05
I
Language Evaluation
1 3.32 87
26.98 .12
> .05
1 Competence Potency
1 7.93
87
11.84 .67 > .05
j
A c tiv ity
1 1.68 87
20.61 .08 > .05
Language
Evaluation
92.82
87
20.54 4.51 < .05
Performance
Potency
1 14.99
87 13.03 1.15 > .05
A ctivi ty
1 .00
87
13.34 .00
> -05
Transformational
Evaluation
1 621.66
87
40.34 15.^0 < .05
Rules
Potency
1 52.88
87
21.76 2.43 > .05
I
A c tiv ity
1 75.02
87 14.67 5.11 < .05
\
Evaluation
1 258.53 87
22.91 11.28 < .05
Grammatical ness
Potency
1 34.15 87 20.99
1.62
> .05
* ■
A ctivi ty
1 40.82
87
12.52 3.26
> -05
vo
vn
TABLE 8
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FOR COLLEGE TEACHERS
OF ENGLISH AND HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ENGLISH
i
Variables
College Teacher ( N_=31) High School Teacher (££=58)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1
Deep and Surface Structures 2
3
15.98 6.27
16.12 4.36
17.44 4.25
12.51 5.86
13.93 3.67
16.06 3.82 |
4
Language Competence 5
6
13.53 5.18
17.46 3.66
17.51 4.79
13.12 5.22
16.83 2.96
17.80 4.02
7
Language Performance 8
9
12.72 4.86
17.60 3.87
15.94 4.06
10.58 3.82 *j
16.74 3.47
15.93 2.70 I
10
Transformational Rules 11
12
18.48 6.36
15.32 5.09
17.12 4.38
12.93 6.32
13.70 3.71
15.19 2.44
13
Grammatical ness 14
15
16.44 5.51
17.65 4.45
19.03 3.87
12.87 2.92
16.35 4.81
17.61 2.80
TABLE 9
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROSPECTIVE COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH AND
PROSPECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ENGLISH FOR VARIOUS SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FACTORS
Factor
Between Groups Within Groups
F
Signi f i -
cance Concept
.
Mean
df Square
Mean
d f Square
Deep and Surface Evaluati on
1 219.79
71 16.82 13.06 < .05
Structures Potency
1 3.81 71 9.83 .38 > .05
A c tiv ity
1 1.79 71 7.52 .23 > .05
Language Evaluation
1 145.93 71 17.63 8.27 < .05
Competence
Potency
1 49.45
71 H .1 5 4.43 < . 0 5
A ctivi ty
1 2.46
71 16.35 .15 > .05
Language
Evaluation
1 108.89 71 15.21 7.15 < . 0 5
Performance
Potency
1 22.77 71 9.35 2.43 > .05
•
A c tiv ity
1 3.83 71 9.15
.41 > . 0 5
Transformational
Evaluation 1 195.85 71 29.69 6.59 < . 0 5
Rules
Potency 1 27.49 71 16.87
1.62 > .05
i
A c tiv ity
1 .67 71 7.86 .08 > .05
Evaluation
1 75.08
71 26.37
2.84 > .05
Grammatical ness Potency 1 .90 71 14.59
.06 > .05
■ A c tiv ity 1 2.19 71 14.17 .15 > . 0 5
TABLE 10
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FOR PROSPECTIVE COLLEGE TEACHERS
OF ENGLISH AND PROSPECTIVE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ENGLISH
Vari ables
Prospective Col
lege Teacher (N=36)
Prospective High
School Teacher
(Nf37)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1 11.58
3.35 15.05 4.71
Deep and Surface Structures 2 15.08 3.34 15.54
2.91
3
16.38 2.78 16.70 2.70
4 11.36 3.42 14.18 4.83
Language Competence
5
16.08 3.10 17.72 3.55
6 17.61 3.22 17.24 4.70
7
10.61 2.68 13.05 4.79
Language Performance 8 16.66
3.15 17.78 2.96
9
16.02 2.50 16.48 3.46
10
13.77 4.51 17.05
6.22
Transformational Rules 11 14.58 4.19 15.81 4.01
12 15.88 2.94 16.08 2.66
-13
12.94 4.73 14.97 5.49
Grammatical ness 14 16.77 3.98 17.00 3.65
15 17.83 3.49 17.48 4.01
V O
00
TABLE 11
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS W HO HAVE BEEN
THEORY FOR VARYING PERIODS OF TIME FOR VARIOUS SEMANTIC
FAMILIAR WITH TRANSFORMATIONAL
DIFFERENTIAL FACTORS
Between Groups Within Groups
S i g n i f i
Concept Factor
Mean
df Square df
Mean
Square
F
cance
Deep and Surface Eva 1uation 1 5.98 160 31.30 .19 > . 0 5
Structures Potency 1 54.93 160
13.95 3.93 < • 0 5
A c tiv it y 1 .06 160 12.83 .00
> .05
Language Evaluation 1 83.84 160
22.99
3.64 > .05
Competence Potency 1 23.62 160 11.63 2.03 > . 0 5
Activi ty
1 75.59
160 18.02
4.19 < .05
Language Evaluation 1 38.17
160 18.94 2.01 > .05
Performance Potency s 1 1.13 160 11.46% .09 > . 0 5
A c tiv ity
1 1.57
160 11.35 .13 > . 0 5
Transformational Evaluation 1 68.35 160 40.10 1.70 > .05
Rules Potency 1 24.84 160
19.71
1.26
> .05
A ctivi ty 1 3.00 160 11.97 .25 > . 05
Evaluation 1 1.12 160 26.62 .04 > .05
Grammatical ness Potency 1 40.47 160 17.88 2.26 > .05
A ctivi ty 1 10.87 160 13.49 .80 > .05
vo !
VO :
TABLE 12
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FOR GROUPS W HO HAVE
BEEN FAMILIAR WITH TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY FOR VARYING PERIODS OF TIME
%
1965 and Prior (N=6l) 1966 and Later (N»10l)
Vdrl dD 1 65
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1 14.37 5.53 13.98 5.63
Deep and Surface Structures 2
14.59 3.43 15.79 3.90
■ 3 16.80 3.42 16.76 3.67
.
i
4 14.04 4.68 12.56 4.86
Language Competence
5 17.59 2.75 16.80 3.74
I
6 18.40 4.22 17.00 4.25
7 11.29 3.64 12.29 4.72
Language Performance 8 17.16 3.27 17.33 3.45
9
16.21 2.72 16.00 3.70
10 16.88 6.4 4 15.54 6.26
| Transformational Rules 11
14.45 3.96 15.26 4.70
12 16.06 2.94 16.34 3.73
13
14.54 4.13 14.71
5.68
Grammatical ness 14 17.70 3.99 16.67
4.36
15 18.47 2.89 17.94 4.06
101
Hypothesis 6 . — This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce in the perceptions of selected concepts in
transformational theory as a function of primary source of knowledge,
as measured by the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . As the tables w ill show,
only one s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce was found (Table 13). The d i f f e r
ences in means and standard deviations (Table 14) can be a ttrib u te d
to chance.
!
! The single s ig n ific a n t v aria b le f e l l on an E factor and on
; the lowest rated of the fiv e transformational concepts. The
I remainder of the F ratios are quite s im ila r.
1
! Hvoothesis 7 . --This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
I
s ig n ific a n t difference in the perceptions of selected concepts in
| transformational theory as a function of undergraduate preparation
(major f ie ld of s p e c ia liz a tio n ), as measured by the semantic
d i f f e r e n t ia l. F r a tio computations, degrees of freedom, and mean
squares are shown in Table 15> means and standard deviations are
given in Table 16.
Four of the 15 variables were found to be s ig n ific a n t at
the .05 level. However, only one of these was on the E facto r. The
four s ig n ific a n t variables were found on three of the fiv e trans
formational concepts.
Hypothesis 8 . —This hypothesis states that there w ill be no
s ig n ific a n t difference in the perceptions of selected concepts in
e
transformational theory as a function of undergraduate and graduate
I
TABLE 13
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE FOR VARIOUS
BETWEEN GROUPS WITH DIFFERENT PRIMARY
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FACTORS
Between Groups Within Groups
S i g n i f i
Concept Factor Mean Mean
F cance
df Square df Square
Deep and Surface Evaluation 1 90.81 160
30.77 2.95 > .05
Structures Potency 1 1.76 160 14.29
.12
> .05
A ctivi ty 1 19.92 160 12.71 1.56
> .05
Language , Evaluation 1 49.78 160 23.21 2.14 > .05
Competence Potency 1 25.33 160 11.61 2.18 > .05
A c tiv ity 1 .10 160 18.50 .00 > .05
Language Evaluation 1 3.63 160 19.16 .18 > .05
Performance Potency 17.97
160 11.36 1.58 > .05
A ctivi ty 1
3.39
160 11.34 .29 > .05
T ransformat i ona1 Evaluation 1 45.91
160 40.24 1.14 > .05
Rules Potency 1 •- 1.50 160 19.86
.07 > .05
Acti vi ty
1
.14 160
11.99
.01 > .05
Evaluation 1 104.08 160 25.98 4.00 < .05
Grammatical ness Potency 1 .02 160 18.13 .00 > .05
A c tiv ity
&
1 .00 160 13.56 .00 > . . 0 5
TABLE 14
i MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
I FOR GROUPS WITH DIFFERENT PRIMARY SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
i
i
•
Variables
Degree Work (N»64) Non-Degree Work (N?*98)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Deep and Surface 1
Structures 2
3
13.20 4.60
15.46 3.00
16.34 2.81
14.73 6.08
15.25 4.20
17.06 3.97
Language 4
Competence 5
6
12.43 3.86
16.60 3.34
17.50 3.94
13.57 5.34
17.41 3.44
17.55 4.51
Language 7
Performance 8
9
11.73 3.75
16.85 3.05
16.26 3.32
12.04 4 .74
17.54 3.55
15.96 3.39
Transformational
Ru1es * j 2
15.39 5.23
14.84 4.08
16.20 3.07
16.47 6.97
15.04 4.68
16.26 3.69
13
Grammaticalness 1^
15
13.65 4.52
17.07 3.20
18.14 3.29
15.29 5.43
17.05 4.81
18.18 3.91
TABLE 15
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS WITH DIFFERENT
UNDERGRADUATE PREPARATION FOR VARIOUS SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FAdPRS
Concept Factor
Between Groups Wi th i n Groups
F
S i g n if i
cance
Mean
df Square df
Mean
Square
Deep and Surface ^Evaluation
1 4.39 160 31.31 . 14 > .05
Structures
Potency
1 162.32 160 13.28 12.21
< .05
Act ivi ty
1 11.06 160 12.76 . 86 > .05
Language Evaluation 1 210.19 160 22.20 9.46
< .05
Competence
Potency 1 2.33 160 11.76 .19 > .05
A ctivi ty 1 132.03 160 17.67
7.46 < .05
Language Evaluation 1 2.80 160 19.16 .14 > .05
Performance Potency 1 29.03 160 11.29 2.57 > .05
A ctiv i ty 1 1.24 160
11.35
.10
> -05 „
Transformational
Evaluati on 1 84.94 160 40.00 2.12
> .05
Rules
Potency 1 152.96 160
18.91
8.08 < .05
A c tiv i ty 1 33.62 160 11.78 2.85 > .05
Evaluation 1 80.55
160 26.12 3.08
> -05
Grammatical ness
Potency 1 2.24 160 18.11 .12
> .05
1 31.62 160 13.36 2.36
> .05
o :
•P-;
| TABLE 16
f
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
FOR GROUPS WITH DIFFERENT UNDERGRADUATE PREPARATION
English and
Foreign Language, So
Vari ables
Li ngu is ti cs
( N = lll) cial Sciences, etc.
(tt«5l)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1 14.01 5.48
14.37 5.83
Deep and Surface Structures 2 16.01 3.63 13.86 3.66
3 16.95
3.84
16.39 2.89
4
12.35 4.77
14.80 4;$8
Language Competence
5 17.18 3.46 16.92 3.34
6
16.91 4.17
18.86 4.26
7 12.00
4.57 11.72 3.89
Language Performance 8
17.55 3.49 16.64 3.03
9
16.02
3.53 16.21
2.97
10
15.55 5.89 17.11 7.18
Transformational Rules 11 15.62 4.41 13.52 4.20
12 16.54 3.52 15.56 3.22
13 15.12
5.51
13.60 4.09
Grammatical ness 14 16.98 4.35 17.23 4.03
15 18.44 3.86
17.49 3.15
S
106
degrees earned, as measured by the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . Data from
the analysis of variance are presented in Table 17. Means and
standard deviations are given in Tbble 18.
in the test of the fin al hypothesis three of the variables
were s ig n ific a n t at the .05 level. Two of these variables f e l l on
the E fa c to r, the other appeared on the potency (P) fa c to r. Only ,/
two of the fiv e transformational concepts were involved in these
tests o f significance.
Summarv
This chapter presented an analysis and discussion of the
data in order to test the eight hypotheses presented in Chapter I.
An analysis of variance technique was employed which formulated the
data in terms of mean squares, degrees of freedom, and £ ra tio s.
These results were presented in the appropriate tab les. Moreover,
a table was given for each of the tested hypotheses showing means
and standard deviations for a ll 15 variables on a ll fiv e tran s
formational concepts.
Summary of S ta tis t ic a l Findings
Hypothesis Tenable Non-Tenable E Factor Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
4
4
0
2
TABLE 17
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS W HO HAVE EARNED UNDERGRADUATE
AND GRADUATE DEGREES FOR VARIOUS SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FACTORS
Concept
*
Factor
Between Groups Within Groups
F
S i g n if i
cance
df
Mean
Square df
Mean
Square
Deep and Surface Evaluation 2 34.88 159 31.09
1.12
> . 05
Structures Potency 2
38.79 159
13.90 2.79 > .05
A c tiv ity 2
8.34 159
12.81 .65 > .05
Language Evaluation 2 2.41
159 23.63
.10 > .05
Competence Potency 2
5.13 159 11.78 .43 > .05
A ctivi ty 2 10.00 159 18.49 .54
> -05
Language Evaluation 2
59.57 159 18.55
3.21
< .05
Performance Potency 2
2.67 159 11.51 .23 > -05
A ctivi ty 2
10.71 159
11.30 .94
> *05
T rans format i ona1 Evaluation 2 142.60
159 38.99 3.65 < ' . 0 5
Rules Potency 2 76.68 159 19.03
4.02
< .05
A c tiv ity 2 33.18 159 11.65
2.84 > .05
Evaluation 2 14.50 159
26.61 .54 > .05
Grammatical ness Potency 2
8.39 159
18.14 .46 > .05
A ctiv i ty 2 7.92 159
13.54 .58 ;> .05
c
TABLE 18
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL FOR
GROUPS W HO HAVE EARNED UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE DEGREES
3?
Variables
i^Bachelor ‘s (N=88) Master's (N=42) Doctorate 0±=32)
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Deep and Surface 1 14.50 5.44 14.35 5.49 12.81 6.01
Structures 2 15.81 3.86
15.35 3.53 14.00
3.57
3 16.63 3.27 17.30 4.06 16.46 3.72
4 13.23 5.04 12.83 4.47 13.18 4.82
Language Competence
5 17.20 3.58 17.26 3.32
16.59 3.11
6 17.21 4.21 17.80
4.75 18.03 3.86
7 12.63 4.62 11.52 4.09
10.46
3.59
Language Performance 8
17.35 3.32 17.38 3.64 16.90 3.23
9 16.39
3.21 15.54 4.03 15.93 2.71
T ra ns fo rma t i ona1 10 16.70
5.95 16.71
6.80
13.37
6.26
Ru 1 es 11 15.84 4.36 14.14
4.97
13.62 3.36
12
16.63 3.40 16.38
3.97 14.96 2.50
13 14.95
5.81 14.61
4.75
13.84
3.39
Grammati calness 14 17.14 4.11
17.35 4.01 16.43 4.93
15 17.93 3.86 18.66 , 3.96 18.03 2.62
o
00
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summarv
The purpose of this study was to determine i f there were
any s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of selected concepts
in transformational theory as held by high school teachers of
English, prospective high school teachers of English, college
teachers of English, and prospective college teachers of English.
Eight hypotheses were tested and the results were presented in
Chapter IV.
A booklet containing instructions, d e fin itio n s , a question
naire, and the semantic d iffe r e n tia l with fiv e instruments was sent
to a l l respondents in the sample a fte r they had been id e n tifie d via
personal correspondence or telephone.
Each respondent provided data about himself or h e rs e lf on
fiv e questions and then rated the fiv e concepts (deep and surface
structures, language competence, language performance, tran s
formational rules, and grammatical ness) against a set o f 15 b ip o lar,
109
a d je c tiv a l scales. The keypunched data were handled s t a t i s t i c a l l y
by a sin gle c la s s ific a tio n analysis of variance. These results were
also shown in Chapter IV.
A comprehensive review of the lite ra tu re revealed no studies
or w ritings which have d ealt with the problem in this study. Some
of the work cited in the fie ld s of lin g u is tic s , psycholinguistics,
and education was peripherally related in the areas of concept-
i formation, concept-order (as related to in s tru ctio n ), and meaning.
| Since no previous attempt had beemrmade to determine the per
ceptions o f and attitu d es toward basic concepts in a grammatical
theory as held by various segments of the English teaching pro
fession, the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique was selected as an
appropriate instrument fo r this study.
Although there were no studies which dealt d ir e c tly with the
problem a t hand, there were a number of studies which might be con
sidered ta n g e n tia lly related. Most of these studies f a l l rather
conveniently into the newly emerging d is cip lin e of psycholinguistics,
which has been at least p a rtly responsible fo r attempting to wed
language with approaches to the teaching and learning of language.
The current study is one small attempt to promote this relatio n sh ip
in the sense that i t presents a possible ( i f not hypothetical)
approach to the organization and treatment of concepts in a s p e c ific
grammatical theory.
The review of related lite r a tu r e suggested that psycholin-
I 1I
guistics is indeed a bona fide area of study for both applied and
th eo retica l lin g u ists and for educators as w e ll. A d d itio n a lly , the
review suggested that the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique is an
appropriate instrument to use in measuring perceptions and psycho
logical rather than lin g u is tic meanings.
Conclusions
This study has assumed throughout that the semantic d i f f e r
e n tia l is, in fa c t, a re lia b le instrument, and fu rth e r, th a t i t is a
v a lid instrument fo r the task described. Moreover, i t was assumed
that the sampling was adequately made and that i t re fle c ts the
larger population from which i t was extracted.
While findings on the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l are generally
discussed in thePr re la tio n to a number of semantic d if f e r e n t ia l
facto rs, only three of these factors were handled in this study. They
are evaluation, potency, and a c t iv it y , and of these, the f i r s t is
most important. The evaluation factor throughout the semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l contains the highest facto r loadings and accounts for
most of the v a ria tio n in the instrument. As such, variables
fallin g ^o n the E fa c to r tend to have greater significance than
those th at do not.
Given the above, six hypotheses were considered tenable and
two were not. These conclusions w ill be discussed below, point by
point, with th e ir im plications.
Discussion and Implications
The f i r s t of the eight null hypotheses was considered tenable
since no s ig n ific a n t differences were found in the perceptions of
selected concepts in transformational theory between college teachers
of English and prospective college teachers of English.
i
I
J The absence of s ig n ific a n t differences here may be a ttrib u te d
| to the nature of the contact between these two groups. There is
; reason to believe that prospective college teachers of English tend
j
to adopt the ideas and a ttitu d e s of th e ir professors, e sp ecially in
i regard to the theoretical ramifications and import of a given d is c i-
■ p lin e . I t is lik e ly that the prospective college teacher's assim i-
i
| la tio n o f the cognitive and a ffe c tiv e areas of his undergraduate and
I graduate experience w ill form the basis of his own work as a teacher.
I t seems probable that professors do influence th e ir students, but to
date, th is influence has not been q u a n tifia b le . The issue which
remains is how and to what extent the college teacher grows once he
has completed his formal tra in in g and obtained the Ph.D. degree.
The second null hypothesis was also considered tenable. This
hypothesis focuses upon the same kind of relationship between
teacher groups that was c h ara c te ris tic of the f i r s t hypothesis, the
d iffe re n ce residing in the la t t e r 's concern with the secondary
le v e l. In e ffe c t, the same kinds of conclusions might be suggested
for both hypotheses.
Student teachers at the secondary level work more closely
with high school teachers ( t h e ir master teachers) than they do with
th e ir college or u n iv ers ity supervisors. Consequently, th e ir per
ceptions about th e ir work in-terms of concepts and methodology is
lik e ly to be more s im ila r than d iffe r e n t. In addition, when pros
pective high school teachers of English are compared to high school
teachers of English, th e ir academic preparation is quite s im ila r.
A ll o f this stands in c le a r contrast to the college teacher of
English whose preparation was discussed e a r l i e r . Attitudes of pros
pective college teachers appear to be formed over a period of years
i while secondary teachers appear to undergo a more dramatic and rapid
j metamorphosis.
The secondary teaching experience quickly shapes the a t t i -
I tudes and expectations of those engaged in i t — in terms of subject
matter selection and importance. In many ways these attitudes and
expectations are ambivalent (stemming from and directed towards two
sources, namely, the high school approach and the college approach
to teaching and learn in g ). I t is, therefore, surprising to note
that prospective high school teachers of English, even w ithin a very
short period of time (one semester or less), adopt subject matter or
concept a ttitu d e s more akin to th e ir intended level of teaching than
to the fo u r- or fiv e -y e a r, recently completed, c o lleg iate experience.
Results for hypothesis 3 showed the greatest number of s ig
n ific a n t v a ria b le s . This hypothesis cannot be considered tenable
since s ig n ific a n t differences were found on six of the 15 semantic
114
d iffe re n tia ? factors. Moreover, four of those factors were of the
evaluation type, and th is increases the significance of the finding.
Whereas the f i r s t two hypotheses were designed to e l i c i t differences
among like groups, the th ird combined re la tiv e ly unlike groups,
college teachers of English and high school teachers o f English.
The above findings suggest that major differences do e x is t in
the tra in in g and development of these two groups of teachers in
relation to th e ir perceptions of concepts w ithin a given d is c ip lin e .
While these differences were made quite apparent on the semantic
d if f e r e n t i a l , they are even more apparent in Appendix IV (Anecdotal
Records). Further, i t may be concluded that the teaching and
learning of a given grammatical theory would have to be m a terially
d iffe re n t on these two levels since preparation, competency* and
a ttitu d in a l response on the part of teachers in both groups preclude
the p o s s ib ility of any meaningful overlap in subject matter or in
its o rie n tatio n .
The fourth hypothesis follows much the same pattern and
rationale as the th ir d . The only substantive difference is that i t
brings together prospective teachers rather than practicing teachers.
That the s t a t is t ic a l findings of hypotheses 3 and 4 are so s im ila r
is, in i t s e l f , s ig n ific a n t. I f nothing else, i t shows that patterns
in thinking and a ttitu d in a l development follow very rig id lines.
The single curious feature from a l l of this is the tendency of
prospective high school teachers to be more influenced by practicing
high school teachers than by the college and u n iversity professors
who were so instrumental in th e ir degree and credential objectives.
Hypothesis 4, lik e the one immediately preceding i t , showed
four of fiv e s ig n ific a n t variables on the semantic d if f e r e n t i a l 's E
fa c to r, i t may be concluded that the E scale of the semantic d i f
fe re n tia l is s ig n if ic a n tly related to revealing differences in
j
| perceptions toward some of the concepts in the study.
Hypothesis 5 had two variables above the .05 level of
| sig nificance; yet the hypothesis was considered tenable because
j neither of the varia b les was a s ig n ific a n t factor on the semantic
!
I d i f f e r e n t i a l . This hypothesis stated that there would be no s ig -
I
[
| n ific a n t d ifferen ce in the perceptions of respondents toward
i
selected transformational concepts as a function of th e ir f a m ilia r it y
(in years) with the theory.
I t should be noted, however, that substantial m odification
and refinement occurred w ith in the theory precisely at the point
which divides the two groups. This period includes the years 1965
and 1966.
Those who accumulated knowledge about the theory p rio r to
1965 may have found themselves engaged in considerable study ju s t
to keep abreast of developments during the two crucial years cited
e a r l i e r . Those who came to understand the theory a f t e r 1966 may not
have experienced th is problem. Hence, a fte r a period of time
(approximately fiv e years in this case, 1966- 1 9 7 1 ) the two groups
! ' ' ' ' 116
were found to be more s im ila r than d iffe re n t in th e ir perceptions
of selected transform ational concepts.
Thus, i t can be concluded that no s ig n ific a n t difference in
the perceptions of selected concepts in transformational theory can
be a ttrib u te d to the amount of time a group has been fa m ilia r with
j the theory. Hypothesis 5 was considered tenable.
| The te s t of hypothesis 6 revealed only one s ig n ific a n t
i difference in perceptions as a function of source of knowledge,
j This finding leads to some in teresting speculations,
j There were f u l l y a th ird as many respondents who indicated
i
| that they had not obtaineu th e ir knowledge of transformational theory
in a degree-oriented program in English or lin g u istic s as opposed to
those who had. The larger group included those who acquired th e ir
knowledge through independent study, extension or in s titu te work,
or through a degree program in another f ie ld such as anthropology,
psychology, or foreign language.
I t is c le a r that teachers and prospective teachers of
English at both the secondary and college levels tend to acquire
th e ir knowledge of s p e c ific th eo retical developments through other
than formal channels. This is supported by the findings in the test
of hypothesis 6 and also by the number of respondents in each cate
gory tested. Though this single finding is not e n tire ly surprising
among college teachers of English, i t was surprising to note that
even among high school teachers of English "independent reading and
1 *....’........ 117
i
i study" was listed as the primary source o f knowledge.
I
Hypothesis 7 was also considered tenable even though four
of the 15 variables were found to be s ig n ific a n t at the .05 level.
However, only one of these variables appeared on the E fac to r, i t
appears then that one's undergraduate preparation is not an impor
tant factor in accounting for one's perceptions of selected concepts
i in transformational theory.
Hypothesis 8 was designed to re la te respondents' perceptions
to undergraduate and graduate degrees earned by them. The results
were inconclusive and, th erefo re, the hf^iothesis was considered
• tenable.
I
! The three s ig n ific a n t v ariab les, two of them on the E factor,
involved only two of the fiv e transformational concepts. Although
results from the te s t of hypothesis 8 leave l i t t l e room for specu
latio n , an overview o f a ll findings leads to at least one additional
6
observation.
I t is lik e ly that one's experiences with his d is c ip lin e , a
f ie ld w ithin that d is c ip lin e , or a theory w ithin the f ie ld determine
the cognitive and a ffe c tiv e lim its o f his a b i li t y to understand and
u ltim ately transmit to others the s ig n ific a n t concepts in his work.
The further he pursues his learning, whether formally or inform ally,
the greater may be his a b i l i t y to accept ideas and concepts for
application to contexts which may become wider or narrower
depending on external v aria b les . This is borne out p artly in the
s t a t is t ic a l findings and p a rtly in the anecdotal records (Appendix
IV ).
More research w ill be required and more evidence w ill be
necessary to determine the sig nificance o f the findings in this study.
Most of this research w ill f a l l w ithin the domain of psycholinguis
tic s , and i t w ill be concerned with such topics as c o n c e p t-s ig n ifi-
cance, concept-formation and concept-development, and concept-
I teaching and concept-learning.
| This study has touched on a few of these topics with an
i approach which cuts across several d is c ip lin e s . In any event, i t
I w ill be the task of lin g u is ts , psychologists, and psycholinguists
i
| together with practicing teachers at a ll levels to^direct th e ir
! ;
| c o lle c tiv e a tte n tio n to these and o*her s im ila r topics so that
| lin g u ists and educators may have a basis for making judgments about
the essentials o f what is to be taught and what is to be learned. I f
nothing more is gained than an understanding of what needs to be
learned and how i t might be taught, much w ill have been gained.
Recommendat i ons
i
The following recommendations are based e n tire ly on the
s t a t is t ic a l and anecdotal data together with the review of the
related lit e r a t u r e presented in Chapter [ I :
1. Textbooks and c u rric u la r m aterials would b e n efit from a
strong concept o rie n ta tio n sin ce'substantial agreement on concept-
s ig n ifican ce was found among th eoretical and applied linguists of
119
i
i
several persuasions.
2. The ra tin g of concepts by the panel of linguists along
with the values assigned to them on the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l by a ll
of the respondents suggests that a concept taxonomy in tra n s
formational theory fo r instructional purposes would be possible.
3. Teacher attitu d es toward transformational concepts do
| not m a te ria lly change as a result of years o f fa m ilia r it y , source of
; knowledge, undergraduate preparation, and undergraduate and graduate
| degrees earned. Textbook w riters and classroom teachers should
j
! re a lize that they are not necessarily handicapped in th e ir handling
of transform ational concepts i f they do not measure up to others on
the four points c ite d above.
4. A bstract and concrete concepts in transformational theory
should be handled a t the same time.
5. The psychological q u a litie s of language should be ex
plored by classroom teachers on a ll levels.
6. Teachers on a ll levels should be aware of student
a ttitu d e s toward language and language concepts. Teachers should
also be aware of those factors which tend to influence student
a ttitu d e s toward language and language concepts.
i
APPENDIX I
SAMPLES OF
INSTRUCTIONS, QUESTIONNAIRE AND
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
120
INSTRUCTIONS F O R COM PLETING SCA LES
Attached you w ill find a questionnaire and fiv e b r ie f sets of rating
scales fo r you to complete. The questionnaire has only fiv e items
and is self-ex p la n ato ry. Following the questionnaire are the fiv e
sets of scales, each headed by a concept from transformational
generative grammar. D efin itio n s of these concepts from Professor
Chomsky's works are given below so that everyone may rate them in a
common context.
1. Deep and Surface Structures
Surface structure (according to the Port-Royal theory)
corresponds only to sound--to the corporeal aspect of .
language; but when the signal is produced, with its
surface stru ctu re, there takes place a corresponding
mental analysis into what we may call the deep stru ctu re,
a formal structure that relates d ire c tly not to the
sound but to the meaning, (from Language and Mind, p. 14)
The former is the underlying abstract structure that
determines its semantic in te rp retatio n ; the la t t e r , the
s u p e rfic ia l organization of units which determines the
phonetic in te rp re ta tio n and which relates to the physical
form of the actual utterance, to its perceived or in
tended form . . . . Deep and surface structures need
not be id e n tic a l, (from Cartesian Linguistics, p. 33)
2. Language Competence
The speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language. The
most s trik in g aspect of lin g u is tic competence is what
we may c all the " c r e a tiv ity of language," th at is, the
speaker's a b i l i t y to produce new sentences, (from Topics
in the Theory of Generative Grammar, p. 11)
3. Language Performance
The actual use of language in concrete s itu a tio n s .
Performance provides evidence for the investigation
o f competence, (from Topics in the Theory of Generative
Grammar, p. 10)
4. Transformational Rules
(Transformational rules) convert deep to surface
structures, (from Cartesian L inguistics, p. 35)
122
Transformational rules apply in a cycle, f i r s t to the
smallest constituents of a s trin g , then to the next
largest constituents, (from Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory, p. 13)
(T -ru le s ) include both simple and generalized tra n s
formations. A transformational rule is defined by the
structural analysis of the strings to which i t applies
and the structural change that i t effects on these
s trin g s, (from Syntactic Structures, p. 11 k )
Grammatical ness
( I t ) belongs to the study of competence, (from Aspects of
the Theory of Syntax, p. 11)
. . . the degree of a c c e p ta b ility to a native speaker
(from Syntactic Structures, p. 13)
. . . not to be id e n tifie d with "meaningful" or
" s ig n ific a n t" in any semantic sense, (from Syntactic
S tru ctu res, p. 15)
One of the many factors that in teract to determine
a c c e p ta b ility , (from Aspects of the Theory of Syntax,
p. I D
D ire c tio n s fo r completing the ra tin g s c a le s :
The purpose of th is phase of the study is to measure the meanings of
c e rta in things to various people by having them judge fiv e concepts
against a series of d escrip tive scales. Please make your judgments
on the basis of what these concepts mean to you. On each sheet you
w i l l find a d iffe r e n t concept to be judged and beneath i t a set of
scales. You are to rate the concept on each of these scales in order.
Here is how you are to use these scales:
I f you feel th at the concept at the top of the page is very closely
! related to one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark
| as follows:
| f a ' r X :___ :____:____:___ :____:___ u n fair
or
f a i r ___ :____: :___:____:____ : X u n fair
I f you feel that the concept is quite closely related to one or the
other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your
check-mark as follows:
strong ___ : X ___ :___:____:____ :___ weak
or
strong ___ :___ :___ :___:____: X :_____weak
I f the concept seems only s lig h t ly related to one side as opposed to
the other side (but is not re a lly n e u tra l), then you should check
as follows:
active ___ :___ : X :___:____:____ :_____passive
or
active ___ :___ :___ :___: X :____ :_____passive
The d ire c tio n toward which you check, of course, depends upon which
o f the two ends of the scale seem most ch ara c te ris tic of the concept
you are judging.
I f you consider the concept to be neutra1 on the scale, both sides of
the scale equally associated with the concept, or i f the scale is
completely irre le v a n t and unrelated to the concept, then you should
Mb
op > .
place your check-mark in the middle space:
safe _____ :__:___ :____:______ :_:____ dangerous
IMPORTANT:
( l ) Place your check-marks in the middle of spaces, not on the
boundaries:
This Not this
: X :
. X
(2) Be sure you check every scale for every concept— do not
omit any.
(3) Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale.
Sometimes you may feel as though you've had the same item before on
the te s t. This w i ll not be the case, so do not look back and fo rth
through the items. Do not try to remember how you checked s im ila r
items e a r l i e r in the te s t. Make each item a separate and indepen
dent judgment. Work at f a i r l y high speed through this te s t. Do not
worry or puzzle over individual items. Your f i r s t impressions or
immediate "fee lin g s " are most important. On the other hand, please
do not be careless, because 1 ' want your true impressions.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Please c irc le the appropriate response fo r each question.
SAMPLE 1 (2) 3 4 S. Your age
1. 20 - 30 2. 31 - 40
3. 41 - 50 4. over 50
1. 1 2 3 4 A . Indicate your current status
1. teacher of English at the
secondary (senior) level
(grades nine or 10 to grade
12)
2. student teacher at the secon
dary (senior) level (grades
nine or 10 to grade 12)
3. college or u n iv ers ity teacher
of English or lin g u is tic s
(undergraduate or graduate
levels)
4. graduate student preparing
fo r college or u n iv e rs ity
teaching of English (or
1i ngui s tie s )
Several degrees are listed below.
C irc le the " I" i f you are working
fo r the degree. Ci rcle the "2"
i f you hold the degree. I f you
hold more than one M.A,, please
c ir c le the "3" in lin e b.
a. 1 2 ..............................................Bachelor's
b. 1 2 3 ...................................Master's
r l . 2 ..............................................Doctorate
What was the area o f your under
graduate major?
1. English
2. Foreign Language
3. Social Sciences
k . Other
NOTE;
Knowledge is often obtained in many
ways, and therefore, the following
question may require more than one
response. I f your knowledge of
grammatical and/or transforma
tio n a l theory has been obtained in
more than one of the ways listed
below, please rank these sources
according to the importance you
place on them.
How was your knowledge o f gramma
t ic a l and/or transformational
theory obtained? (C irc le the
appropriate number fo r each
response. For example, i f response
"3" is the primary source of your
knowledge, c irc le the " I " to the
l e f t o f that response. I f response
"5" is equally important, c irc le
the " I " to the l e f t of that re-
sponce. However, i f response " 5 "
or any other response is not. a
primary source, assign i t a rating
according to the importance you
place on i t . ) You need not rate
a l l fiv e sources.
Source
1. college or u n iv ers ity spon
sored in s titu te s ( i e . , NDEA
e t c .)
2. formal course work while pur
suing degree in this fie ld .
3. independent reading and
studying.
127
12 3 4
1 2 3 4
5. 1 2 3 4 E.
4. extension or evening courses,
workshops or in-service pro
grams.
5. formal course work while pur
suing degree in another f ie ld .
When did you f i r s t become fa m ilia r
with transformational theory so
th a t you were able to understand
and/or teach it? Reference is made
here s p e c ific a lly to the Chomsky
v a rie ty .
1. 1957 - 1959
2. I960 - 1962
3. 1963 - 1965
4. 1966 - 1969
You are invited to record below and on the reverse side any comments
which you may have regarding the teaching of transformational gen
e ra tiv e grammar at your s p e c ific lev e l. Such comments may deal with
the structure and effectiveness of textbooks and other m aterials,
concepts which are s p ecially d i f f i c u l t to teach, the reaction of
students to the theory, the impact and value of the theory in your
own teaching practices, and the l i k e . Thank you for your help.
I f you wish to be informed of the major findings of th is study,
please place your name and address below.
Name_____________________________________
Address
1 2 8
DEEP AND SURFACE STRUCTURES
VALUABLE :_____:_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ W O RTHLESS
WEAK :______:______ :______:______:________ STRONG
ACT IVE :______:______:______:______:______ ;______ PASS IVE
UNFAIR______ :______ :______ :_____ :______ :______ :______FAIR
CONSTRAI NED______ :______ :______ :_____ :______:______ :______FREE
SIMPLE :______:______ :______:______:______ :______ COMPLEX
C LEAR______:______:______:______:______ : :______ HAZY
LENI ENT :______:______ :______:______:_______ SEVERE
FAST :______:______:______:______:______:______ SLOW
UNSUCCESSFUL ______:______ :______:______:______:______ SUCCESSFUL
LARGE :______:______:______:______:______ :______ SMALL
DULL :______:______ :______:______:______ :______ SHARP
IMPORTANT :______:______:______:______ :______ :______ UNIMPORTANT
SHALLOW :______:______:______:______ :______:______ DEEP
A N G U LA R :_____:_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ R O U N D E D
129
LANGUAGE COMPETENCE
VALUABLE_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :____ W O R TH LE S S
WEAK______ :______ :______:______ :______ :______ :_____STRONG
ACTI VE______ :______ :______:______ :______:______ :_____PASS I VE
UN FA IR______ :______ :______:______ :______ :______ :_____FA IR
CONSTRAI NED______ :______ :______:______ :______ :______ :_____FREE
S1MPLE :______:______ :___ ________________________COMPLEX
CLEAR :______:______:______ :________ :______ HAZY
LENIENT :______ :______:______ :______ :______ SEVERE
FAST ___:_______:______ :______ :______:_____SLOW
UNSUCCESSFUL _____ :_______:______ :______:______ :_____SUCCESSFUL
LARGE______ :______ :______:______ :______:______ :_____SMALL
DULL______ :______ :______:______ :______:______ :_____SHARP
IMPORTANT______ :______ :______:______ :______:______:_____UNIMPORTANT
SHALLOW______ :______ :______:______ :______:______:_____DEEP
A N G U LA R_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :_____ :____ R O U N D E D
130
LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE
VALUABLE
W O R TH LE S S
WEAK_
ACTIVE,
UNFAIR,
CONSTRAINED,
SIMPLE
STRONG
CLEAR
LENIENT
FAST
UNSUCCESSFUL
LARGE
DULL
IMPORTANT
SHALLOW
PASSIVE
FAIR
FREE
COMPLEX
HAZY
SEVERE
SLOW
SUCCESSFUL
SMALL
SHARP
UNIMPORTANT
DEEP
ANG U LA R
R O U N D E D
VALUABLE.
WEAK
ACTIVE.
UNFAIR
CONSTRAINED.
SIMPLE.
CLEAR.
LENIENT
FAST
UNSUCCESSFUL.
LARGE.
DULL.
IMPORTANT.
SHALLOW.
ANGULAR
131 ]
TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES
.WORTHLESS
.STRONG
PASSIVE
.FAIR
FREE
COMPLEX
HAZY
SEVERE
.SLOW
.SUCCESSFUL
SMALL
.SHARP
UNIMPORTANT
.DEEP
ROUNDED
132
GRAMMATICALNESS
VALUABLE______ :______ :______ :______ :______ :______ :_____ WORTHLESS
WEAK :______:______ :______ :______ :_____________STRONG
ACT I VE______ :______ :______:______ :______:______ :_____PASS I VE
UNFA IR______ :______ :______ :______:______ :______ :_____FA IR
CONSTRAI NED______ :______ :______:______:______ :______ :_____FREE
s IMPLE :______:______ :______:_______ :______COMPLEX
CLEAR______ :______ :______:______ :______:______ :_____HAZY
LENI ENT :_______ :______ :______:______:______SEVERE
FAST______ :______ :______ :______:______ :______ :_____SLOW
UNSUCCESSFUL ___:______ :______ :______:______:______SUCCESSFUL
LARGE______ :______ :______:______:______ :______ :_____SMALL
DULL______ :______ :______:______ :______ :______ :_____SHARP
IMPORTANT :______:______ :______ :______:_____________ UNIMPORTANT
SHALLOW______ : ;______:______:______ :______ :_____DEEP
ANGULAR_______:______ :______ :______ :______ :______ :_____ ROUNDED
APPENDIX II
UNROTATED SQ.UARE ROOT FACTOR ANALYSIS
133
UNROTATED SQUARE ROOT FACTOR ANALYSIS3
Factor . Scales I U I I I IV V VI V I 1 V I 11 h2
1. valuable worthless 1.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 i.oo !
2. f a i r unfai r .50 -.0 3 .01
.29
-. 06 -.01 .00 .05 • 34 j
Evaluation 3. clear hazy • 51
.08 .29 . 06 .00 .06
.09
.12 .38 i
4. successful unsuccessfu1 .41 .04 .25
-.04 -.0 4 -.0 8 .16
.07 .27
5. important unimportant .38 .04 .31
.04 ..0 0 -.0 2
.09
.02
.25
6. strong weak .30 .40 .10 .12 .00 -.0 3 .04 .11 .28
7. free constrai ned -.1 6 .21 -.0 4 .04 .07 -.0 9 -.11 -.0 7 .10
Potency 8. lenient severe
-.25 .43 .04 -.0 4 .11 -.0 2
-.0 9
.14 .28 i
9. large smal 1
.09
.21 -.05 -.0 5 .03 .04 .02 .00 .06 i
10. deep shallow -.2 0 .48 -.0 2 .00 -.0 4 -.1 2 -.03 .01
.29 |
11. active passive
.17
. 12 .98 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.00 1
12. comp1ex s imple-
.17 .05 .25
-.02 . 06 . 12 .06 .00 .12
A ctivi ty 13. fa st s low .01 .26
.35 -.0 5 .15
-.01 .05 .15 .24 !
14. sharp dul 1 -.0 6
.17 .29 .03 .18 .09
.10 .05 •17 1
15. angular rounded -.1 2 .26 . 16 -.0 6
.95
.00 .00 .00 1.00 1
aAdapted from Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957
> PP.
53-62) |
APPENDIX I I I
SAMPLES OF RATING SCALES
AND COVER LETTERS
r
136
Sample l e t t e r sent to panel o f judges
Professor Noam Chomsky
Professor of Linguistics
Massachusetts In s titu te of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Dear Professor Chomsky:
The enclosed rating form is part of a doctoral study I am doing at
the University of Southern C a lifo rn ia . I am attempting to assess
; the impact of transformational generative grammar on the teaching
I of English by applying the Osgood semantic d iffe r e n tia l to a s t r a t i
fied random sample of high school and college teachers of English.
i
' A number of expert judges have been selected to reduce the concepts
i in transformational generative grammar to those which are most basic
| and essential to the teaching of English. Judges were selected on
; the basis of th e ir in te re s t in and contributions to the f i e l d of
i lin g u is tic theory generally and to transformational theory speci-
| f i c a l l y .
I respectfully request a few minutes of your time for this p ro ject.
A stamped, self-addressed envelope is provided for your convenience.
Previous commitments to my Ph.D. committee require that I have this
data processed in the next month. May 1 also ask for your assistance
in this regard.
Thank you for your in terest and a tten tio n in this matter.
Si nee rely,
Edward J. Borowiec
137
Sample rating sheet sent to panel of judges
Prof. Chomsky______________
Please select the ten (10) concepts which you feel are most basic and
essential to the teaching of transformational generative grammar.
Number your selections (l to 10) according to the importance you place
on them. Feel free to place additional concepts at the bottom of this
sheet. Thank you.
1 . Analyzabi 1 i ty
2 .___base component
3 .___base phrase-
markers
4 .___base rules
5 .___categ o rizatio n
6 .___ deep and surface
structures
7. de le tio n
8 .___d e riva tio n al
process
9 .___d escrip tive
adequacy
10 .___d is t in c t iv e
features
11 . empi rical
adequacy
12 . ___explanatory
adequacy
13 .___ g ramma t i ca1 ness
14 .___ in tu itio n
16.
J n fle c tio n a l
process
^kernel
sentences
17- language
competence
18. language
performance
19 . 1 i ngui s tic
change
20. _matrix
structures
21. morphological
processes
22. nomi na1i zation
23 .___optional and
obii gatory
transformations
24. phonological
component
2 5 .___phrase structure
grammar
26. pronominalization
2 7 .___ recurs iveness
2 8 .___redundancy
2 9 .___r e f l e x i v i -
zation
3 0 .___re la ti vi -
zati on
31 . semantic
component
32 .___semantic in
te rp re ta tio n
33 .___subcategori
zation rules
3 4 .___syntactic
component
3 5 - trans f o r
mat ional
rules
36 te rm in a l
strings
37 .___th eo retical
base
38. t ree-
branch i ng
diagrams
39 .___verb s tru c
ture (tense)
4 0 . ___________________
41.
138
Sample l e t t e r sen t to c o lle g e E n g lish departm ent chairm en
Chairman, Department of English
C a lifo rn ia State College at Los Angeles
Los Angeles, C a lifo rn ia
i Dear Si r:
I
I I am doing a small study in the area of the semantics of c ertain
concepts in grammatical theory, transform ational-generative theory
s p e c ific a lly . The study involves the use of the semantic d iffe r e n
t i a l technique and should not take any respondent more than ju s t a
few minutes to complete.
In this regard then, may 1 trouble you for a l i s t of English Depart
ment fa c u lty who have taught or studied transformational theory
during the past decade. In addition, I would lik e to secure a l i s t
of names and addresses of presently enrolled graduate students (in
the English language or in English lin g u is tic s ) who are currently
taking coursework from your facu lty. Perhaps your secretary might
I compile such a l i s t . I f this is not possible, I ' l l attempt to get
j these names d ir e c tly from the faculty l i s t you provide me.
! -
I w i ll contact each facu lty member and graduate student in d ivid u a lly
a t a la te r date and forward to them b r ie f explanatory m a te ria l, a
self-addressed stamped envelope, and the semantic d if f e r e n t ia l
technique booklet.
1 thank you for your time and atten tio n in this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward J . Borowiec
139
Sample of cover lette rs sent to coordinators of student
teachers
Coordinator of Student Teachers
Department of English
C a lifo rn ia State College at Los Angeles
5151 State College Drive
Los Angeles, C a lifo rn ia 90032
I
i
| Dear S ir:
I am doing a small study in the area of the semantics of certain
concepts in grammatical theory, transformational generative theory
s p e c ific a lly . The study involves the use of the semantic d iffe r e n
t i a l technique and should not take any respondent more than ju s t a
few minutes to complete.
In this regard then, may I trouble you or your secretary fo r a l i s t
j of names and addresses of current and/or prospective student
teachers who have a p a rtic u la rly strong background in grammatical
| theory. These names might be obtained from those on your facu lty
who supervise the teaching of English at the secondary level or
I from those who teach courses such as Teaching Engl?sh or Methods in
| Secondary English.
!
I w ill contact each student teacher or prospective student teacher
in d ivid u a lly at a la ter date and forward to them b rie f explanatory
m aterial, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and the semantic
d if f e r e n t ia l technique booklet.
I thank you very much fo r your time and a tte n tio n in this matter.
Si nee rely ,
Edward J . Borowiec
Sample o f s p e c ia l l e t t e r sen t to c o lle g e teach ers
Dear Col league:
I am doing a study in the area of the semantics of certain concepts
in transformational generative grammar. This study employs the
semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique and should not take more than ju s t
a few minutes to complete.
I
j Your name was given me as one who has studied and/or taught tra n s
formational theory during the past decade. Your assistance in com
p leting the fiv e -ite m questionnaire and rating the five trans
formational concepts on an id en tical set of scales w ill be g re atly
appreciated.
In add itio n , would you please d is trib u te the enclosed m aterials to
fiv e of your graduate students (or upper d iv is io n students) in the
English language or in lin g u is tic s . These m aterials include the
j semantic d if f e r e n t ia l booklet and a self-addressed and stamped
manila envelope.
j Thank you very much for your help.
| Sincerely,
Edward J. Borowiec
Sample o f cover le t t e r sent to high school English department
chai rmen
Chairman, Department of English
Loara High School
1765 W. C erritos Avenue
Anaheim, C a lifo rn ia
Dear S ir :
j 1 am doing a small study in the area o f the semantics o f certain
concepts in grammatical theory, transform ational-generative theory
s p e c ific a lly . This study involves the use of the semantic d i f f e r
e n tial technique and should not take any respondent more than ju s t
1 a few minutes to complete.
i
In th is regard then, may I trouble you for a l i s t of names of
English teachers who have studied and/or taught transformational
j theory s p e c ific a lly or grammatical theory generally. You may have
[ teachers on your s t a f f who have not studied grammatical theory
formally in the classroom but who have nevertheless acquired a
! mastery of the subject s u ffic ie n t to teach i t . I would c e rta in ly
| welcome the names of such individuals.
J
Uppn receiving your l i s t , I w i11 contact each teacher in d ivid u a lly
and forward to th a t teacher b r ie f explanatory m aterial, a s e l f -
addressed stamped envelope, and the semantic d iffe r e n tia l technique
booklet.
I thank you very much for your time and atten tio n fn th is matter.
Si ncerely,
Edward J. Borowiec
142
Sample of cover le t t e r sent to high school teachers, high school
student teachers, graduate students, and some college teachers
Dear Col league:
I am doing a study in the area of the semantics of c e rta in concepts
in transformational generative grammar. This study employs the
semantic d if f e r e n t ia l technique and should take no more than ju s t
a few minutes to complete.
! Your name was given me as one who has some f a m ilia r it y w ith trans-
| formational theory. In this connection, may I ask for your assis-
j tance in this project? A ll you need do is to complete the f iv e -
i item questionnaire and rate the fiv e transformational concepts on
! an identical set of scales.
| A self-addressed stamped manila envelope is enclosed fo r your con-
I venience. Thank you very much for your help.
I
j
Sincerely,
Edward J. Borowiec
143
Panel of judges who were asked to p a rtic ip a te in the rating of
concepts
Noam Chomsky
Robert B. Lees
Robert B. Kaplan
Peter Rosenbaum
Owen Thomas
Emmon Bach
Phi 1 ip Cook
Charles Fillmore
G ilb e rt Harman
A lbert Marckwardt
Francis Christensen
R. L. Gunter
Sheldon Klein
James D. McCawley
Verna Newsome
Dan I . Slobi n
Frank Zidonis
Kellogg W. Hunt
Harold B. A1len
Robert P. Stockwell
Carlota Smith
Robert Lado
Bernard J. Spolsky
Sol Saporta
J. C. Catford
J. D. Bowen
Charles A. Ferguson
Leonard Newmark
Hans P. Guth
Janet Sawyer
P a r tic ip a tin g C a lifo r n ia S tate Colleges
C a lifo rn ia Polytechnic College at San Luis Obispo
C a lifo rn ia State College at Fullerton
C a lifo rn ia State College at Long Beach
C a lifo rn ia State College at Los Angeles
San Diego State College
San Fernando Valley State College at Northridge
P a r tic ip a t in g C a lif o r n ia high schools
Antelope Valley High School, Lancaster
Arcadia High School, Arcadia
Arroyo High School, El Monte
Bakersfield High School, Bakersfield
Banning High School, Banning
Banning High School, Wilmington
Bars tow High School, Barstow
Bel 1 High School, Bel 1
i B ellflow er High School, B ellflow er
Big Bear High School, Big Bear Lake
Birmingham High School, Van Nuys
B la ir High School, Pasadena
Bolsa Grande High School, Garden Grove
Brea-01inda High School, Brea
Buena Park High School, Buena Park
Burbank Senior High School, Burbank
Burroughs High School, Ridgecrest
C a b rillo Senior High School, Lompoc
Carson High School, Carson
Charter Oak High School, Covina
Chatsworth High School, Chatsworth
| Clairemont High School, San Diego
j Claremont High School, Claremont
j Colton High School, Colton
j Crescenta Valley High School, La Crescenta
Dorsey High School, Los Angeles
Edison High School, Huntington Beach
El Dorado High School, Placentia
El Monte High School, El Monte
Excelsior High School, Norwalk
Foothill High School, Bakersfield
Fountain Valley High School, Fountain Valley
J. H. Francis Poltechnic High School., Sun Val
Fremont High School, Los Angeles
Fullerton Union High School, Fullerton
Gahr High School, Cerritos
Granada H ills High School, Granada H ills
Granite H ills High School, El Cajon
Grant High School, Van Nuys
Hawthorne High School, Hawthorne
Helix High School, La Mesa
Hoover High School, Glendale
Hoover High School, San Diego
P a r tic ip a t in g C a lif o r n ia high schools (continued)
j
Hueneme High School, Oxnard
Imperial High School, Imperial
Indio High School, Indio
La Serna High School, W h ittie r
Lakewood Senior High School, Lakewood
Manual Arts High School, Los.Angeles
Mar Vista High School, Imperial Beach
M illik a n High School, Long Beach
Mission Bay High School, San Diego
Monte Vista High School, W h ittie r
j Montebello Senior High School, Montebello
Moorpark Memorial Union High School, Moorpark
Neff High School, La Mirada
Oceanside High School, Oceanside
; Owens Valley High School, Independence
Oxnard High School, Oxnard
; Palmdale High School, Palmdale
Pasadena High School, Pasadena
Poway High School, Poway
Rancho Alamitos High School, Garden Grove
Reseda High School, Reseda
I Riverside Polytechnic High School, Riverside
| Rolling H ills High School, Rolling H ills Estates
I San Diego High School, San Diego
i San Dieguito High School, C a rd iff
San Gabriel High School, San Gabriel
San Gorgonio High School, San Bernardino
Santa Ana Senior High School, Santa Ana
Santa Monica High School, Santa Monica
Santa Paula Union High School, Santa Paula
Savanna High School, Anaheim
Upland High School, Upland
Valencia High School, Placentia
V i l l a Park High School, V i ll a Park
Westchester High School, Los Angeles
Westminster High School, Westminster
APPENDIX IV
ANECDOTAL RECORDS
147
CHAPTER IV
ANECDOTAL RECORDS
A ll respondents in this study were asked to include in the
semantic d if f e r e n t ia l booklet any comments re la tin g to th e ir
experience with transformational theory. S p e c ific a lly they were
asked about the structure and effectiveness of textbooks in
transformational grammar, concepts which are e specially d i f f i c u l t
to teach, student reaction to the theory, and the general impact
and value of the theory in th e ir own classroom work.
Approximately 20 percent o f the respondents provided such
commentary although a number of these were not relevant to this
study. Only the more s ig n ific a n t comments, those related d ire c tly
to the c r it e r i a lis te d above, were included. They appear below
ranging in order from the college level to the secondary level.
College Teacher - Doctorate
For the lin g u istic s teacher in a college or u n iv ers ity English
department, the main problem today is to teach a course that is at
the same time up to date and relevant to English studies ( i e . , not
overly theoretical and overly te c h n ic a l), for the history of linguis
tics in the past 20 years (and esp e c ially the las t 13) has been a
move toward increasing abstraction.
I question the value of generative-transform ational grammar to
native speakers of English, except on the th eo retical level to
lin g u is tic s majors. I think i t is of more value to non-native
speakers of English as a practical tool.
: My responses relate prim arily to my own experience and secondarily
j to the optimal ways in which T-G theory can (I believe) be taught,
j 1 don't think one need major in i t to understand i t w ell.
! College Teacher - M.A.
i
i I t is generally d i f f i c u l t to teach to students with l i t t l e or no
: language background. When they do grasp the theory, however,
j especially the concepts of "deep and surface s tru c tu re s ,1 1 the e n tire
i f ie ld seems to open up to them. I t a ll begins c lic k in g together
! with that discovery. Some of the good books— Langacker, Bolinger,
I Jacobs and Rosenbaum.
I
| High School Teacher - M.A.
I Transformational— plus— stresses the do's rather than the don'ts:
I minus--introduces a confusing myriad of terms which do not, can not
replace tra d itio n a l terms but merely adds to the grammarian's lexicon.
; U ntil we unify--and match our texts to our syllabus, no one w ill
1 receive a background in grammar.
' For a high school teacher there is so much bastardized Chomsky
i around that one's understanding as well as one's teaching is a
• hybrid of some kind. 1 ran a not very v a lid experiment with g ifte d
j 10th graders using A Grammar fo r English Sentences. Brown and White,
I published by Bobbs-Merri11, I prefer Jacobs and Rosenbaum, but now
| 1 'm not convinced i t need be taught at a l l . I t (T-grammar) is good
| for me, but questionable in the high school curriculum.
I
: 1 am prim arily concerned with the teaching of transformational
! generative grammar w ithin the larger lin g u is tic framework. At this
! level (senior high), exposure to various types of lin g u is tic research
i is more valuable than an understanding of a d etailed segment. For
I the teacher, I find Neil Postman's and Charles Weingartner's
| Linguistics; A Revolution in Teaching most valuable. Student texts
in transformational grammar include Jacobs/Rosenbaum's Grammar 1 and
j Grammar 2, published by Ginn and Company in 1967.
! Extremely in terestin g , but beyond the comprehension of 80-90% of
! high school students. Basic patterns and some simple transforms may
! be valuable, however.
| High School Teacher - B.A.
i
j At the present time, teaching slow 9th graders, and having to use
books presently provided me, I find l i t t l e opportunity to incor
porate the teaching of transformational generative grammar in my
everyday a c t iv it ie s .
150
High School Student Teacher - B.A.
The concepts I learned lib erated me from the regimented fru s tra tio n
of my own Latin grammar background. I have not taught any grammar
at a ll yet, but what i f Chomsky, too, becomes passe?
The lin g u is tic textbooks that I have seen in use in the secondary
schools in Orange County are watered down modifications of tra d itio n a l
grammar flying the false fla g of "modern lin g u is tic s ."
I feel that much of what transformational grammar has to o ffe r is
| valuable especially its o rie n ta tio n to knowledge (grammatical) as
i something present in any speaker of English and that grammatical ness
| and a ll usage is r e la tiv e . However, I feel that much of the jargon
: is unnecessary as i t places too much emphasis on terminology rather
| than concepts. In th is , transformational grammar has as' many e vils
as the old grammar.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A a rs le ff, Hans. "The History of Linguistics and Professor
Chomsky," Language, XLVl, No. 3 (September, 1970),
570-585.
Abraham, Samuel and K ie fe r, Ferenc. A Theory of Structural
Semantics. The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1966.
Aigeo, John. "L in g u istics: Where Do We Go from Here?."
English Journal, L V III, No. 1 (January, 1969J, 102-
112.
"L in g u is tic Marys, Linguistic Marthas: The Scope
of Language Study," Col lege English, XXXI, No. 3
(December, 1969) , 273-279.
A llen , Harold B. (e d .). Readings in Applied English L in g u is tic s .
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.
"From P ra irie s to Mountains: Linguistics and
Composition," College English, XXVI, No. 4 (January,
1965), 260-266.
^ et a i . New Dimensions in English. Wichita, Kan.:
McCormick-Mathers Publishing Company, In c ., 1966a.
. Linguistics and English L in g u istics . New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966b.
Ashida, Margaret Eleanor E l l i o t t . "Form, Syntax, and S t a t is
tics:, A (Quantitative Approach to W ritten Compo
s it i o n ." Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rtatio n , University
of Nebraska, 19 6 7•
Bach, Emmon. An Introduction to Transformational Grammars. New
York: H olt, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1964.
152
153
11 • ____________ , and Harms, Robert V. (e d s .). Universals In Lin
g u is tic Theory. New York: H olt, Rinehart and Win
ston, In c ., 1968.
12. Bateman, Donald R., and Zidonis, Frank J. The E ffect of a
Knowledge of Generative Grammar upon the Growth of
Language Complexity. Columbus: The Ohio State Uni
v e rs ity , 1964.
13. ____________. "The Effects of a Study of a Generative Grammar
upon the Structure of W ritten Sentences of Ninth and
Tenth Graders." Unpublished Ph.D. d issertatio n ,
The Ohio State U niversity, 1965.
14. , and Zidonis, Frank J. The E ffect of a Study of
Transformational Grammar on the W riting of Ninth-
and Tenth-Graders. NCTE Research Report No. 6.
Campaign, 111.: NCTE, 19 6 6.
15. Becker, Alton Lewis. "A Generative Description of the English
Subject Tagmemes." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
U niversity of Michigan, 19 6 7.
16. Bolinger, Dwight. "The Atomization of Meaning," Language,
XLI, No. 4 (October-December, 1965), 555-573.
17. Bonney, Margaret Kemper. "The New English in our School,"
English Journal, LV1, No. 4 (A p ril, 1967) , 585-590.
18. Bdpp, Joan. "A Q.uanti ta tiv e Semantic Analysis of Word Asso
c ia tio n in Schizophrenia." Unpublished Ph.D.
d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of I l l i n o i s , 1955-
19. Bouise, Oscar A. "Generating a Composition," English Journal,
LVI, No. 7 (October, 1967), 1011-1014.
20. Boyd, J ., and King, H. "Annotated Bibliography of Generative
Grammar." Language Learning. X II (March, 1962), 307-
312.
21. Boyd, Julian Charles. "Deep and Surface Structures in the
Accusative and I n f i n i t i v e Expressions in Modern
E n g lish ." Unpublished Ph.D. d is se rta tio n , Uni
v e rs ity of Michigan, 1965-
22. Brown, Roger W. "Is a Boulder Sweet or Sour?," Contemporary
Psychology. I l l (1958), 113-115.
154
23. . and B ellu g i, Ursula. "Three Processes in the
C hild's A cquisition of Syntax," Harvard Educational
Review. XXXIV, No. 1 (1964), 133-151.
24. Burke, W illiam T. "A L is t of Works Consulted for 'Notes on
English Syntax': A Reply to Roberts." Unpublished
bibliography presented with a paper before the
C a lifo rn ia Association o f Teachers of English Annual
Convention, Anaheim, C a lifo rn ia , February, 1965.
25. Burton, Dwight L., and Simmons, John S. (e d s .). The Teaching of
English in Today's High Schools. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1965.
26. Cain, Donald R. "What Do We Mean by L in g u istics? ," Engl?sh
Journal, LIV, No. 5 (May, 1965) , 399-404.
2 7. C a rro ll, John B. The Study of Languages: A Survey of Lin
guistics and Related D isciplines in America. Cam
bridge, Mass.: Harvard U niversity Press, 1953.
28. . Review of The Measurement of Meaning by Charles
Osgood, George Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum, Language,
XXXV (1959), 58-77.
2 9. . "Vectors of Prose S ty le ," Style in Language, ed.
Thomas A. Sebeok (New York; John Wiley and Sons,
I960), 194-203.
30. . "Linguistics and the Psychology of Language,"
Review of Educational Research, XXXIV (1964), 119-126.
31. . "Words, Meanings and Concepts," Harvard Educational
Review. XXXIV (1964), 178-202.
32. . "Basic and Applied Research in Education: D e fi
nitions, D is tin c tio n s , and Im p licatio n s," Harvard
Educational Review, XXXVIII, No. 2 (Spring, 1968),
263-276.
33. Chomsky, Avram Noam. "Transformational A n alysis." Unpublished
Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of Pennsylvania, 1955.
34. . "Semantic Considerations in Grammar." Report of
the Sixth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics
and Language Teaching (Monograph Series on Languages
and Linguistics, No. 8, 1955); 141-150.
"Three Models fo r the Description of Language."
IRE Transactions on Information Theory. Vol. I T . -2,
No. 3 (1956).
. Syntactic S tructures. The Hague: Mouton and Co.,
1957.
Review of Verbal Behavior, by B. F. Skinner,
Language. XXXV ( l 959), 26-58.
"Some Methodological Remarks on Generative Grammar,"
Word. X V II, No. 2 (1961), 219-239.
"Explanatory Models in L in g u is tic s ," in Logic,
Methodology, and Philosophy o f Science: Proceedings
of the i960 International Congress, ed. Ernest Nagel,
P atrick Suppes, and A lfred Tarsky (Stanford:
Stanford U niversity Press, 1962), 528-550.
. "Formal Properties of Grammars," Handbook of
Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. R. Luce, R. Bush,
and E. Galanter (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1963), 323-418.
"Introduction" to Roberts' English Syntax, New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World, In c ., 1964, ix-xv.
Current Issues in L in g u istic Theory. The Hague:
Mouton and Co., 1964.
"Formal Discussion o f 'The Development of Grammar
in Child Language' by Wick M i l l e r and Susan E rvin ,"
The A cguisition of Language, ed. Ursula Belugi and
Roger Brown (New York: Humanities Press, 1964), 35-39.
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1965.
Cartesian L in g u is tic s . New York: Harper and Row,
In c ., 1966.
"The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present
D ire c tio n s ," Col lege English, XXVII, No. 8 (May, 1966),
587-595.
Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. New
York: Humanities Press, 1966.
156
48. . "L in g u istic Theory," from the Northeast Conference
on the Teaching of Foreign Languages: Working
Committee Reports, ed. Robert C. Mead, J r. (1966),
43-49.
49. . Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, In c ., 1968.
50. . "Should T ra d itio n al Grammar Be Ended or Mended,"
Educational Review (School of Education, University
of Birmingham, England), X X II, No. 1 (November, 1969),
5-17.
51. Christensen, Francis. Notes Toward a New Rhetoric. New York:
Harper and Row, 1967*
52 . ___________ , and Munson, Marilyn M artin. The Christensen
Rhetoric Program: The Sentence and the Paragraph.
New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
53. Cook, P h ilip H. "Putting Grammar to Work: The Generative
Grammar in the Generative Rhetoric," English Journal.
LV II, No. 8 (November, 1968), 1:168-1175.
54. Cook, Walter A. S .J. On Tagmemes and Transforms. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown U niversity Press, 1964.
55. Cooper, David. "Concepts from Semantics as Avenues to Reading
Improvement," English Journal, L I I l , No. 2 (February,
1964), 85-90.
5 6. Corbin, Richard. "Grammar and Usage: Progress but not M ille n
ium, " Enc[JjjyT_Jou£naJ_, XLIX, No. 8 (November, 1960),
548-555.
57. Davis, Marianna White. "A Comparative Analysis of Sentences
W ritten by 8th Grade Students Instructed in Trans
formational Generative Grammar." Unpublished Ed.D.
d is s e rta tio n , Boston U niversity, 1966.
5 8 . Deese, James. "The Associative Structure of Some Common English
A d je c tiv e s ," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, I I I (1964), 347-357.
5 9. . Psycholi n g u is tics . Boston: A1lyn and Bacon, In c.,
1970.
157
60. Denby, Robert V. "NCTE/ERIC Report: Linguistic Instruction
in Secondary Classrooms,1 1 English Journal. LV II,
No. 9 (December, 1968), 1352-1358.
61. Dieboid, Richard A ., J r. "A Survey o f PsycholinguiStic
* Research, 1954-1964," Psycholinguistics: A Survey of
Theory and Research Problems, ed. Charles Osgood and
Thomas Sebeok (Bloomington: Indiana U niversity Press,
1965), 205-291.
62. Dingwall, W illiam Orr. Transformational Generative Grammar:
A Bibliographv. Washington: Center for Applied
Linguistics, 1965.
63. Di Vesta, Francis J. "Developmental Patterns in the Use of
Modifiers as Modes o f Conceptualization." Child
Development. XXXVI (1965), 185-213.
64. Ervin, Susan M., and Foster, G a rre tt. "The Development of
Children's Terms." Journal o f Abnormal and Social
Psychology. LXI ( I9 6 0 ), 271-275.
6 5 . E strin, Herman A. " A rtic u la tio n of High School and College
English: A Program in A c tio n ," English Journal. LV,
No. 2 (February, 1966) , 211-213.
66. Faust, Naomi Beatrice FI owe. "The Extent to Which Pivotal
Linguistic Concepts Are Incorporated into Selected
English Language Textbooks of Secondary Schools."
Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , New York University,
1963.
6 7 . Fillmore, Charles J. "The Position of Embedding Transformations
in a Grammar," Word, XIX, No. 2 (August, 1963, 208-
231.
68. ____________. In d irec t Object Constructions in English and the
Ordering of Transformations (Monograph on Linguistic
Analysis, l ) . The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1965.
6 9 . . "Toward a Modern Theory of Case," in Modern Studies
in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, ed.
David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane (Englewood
C lif f s , N .J .: P re n tic e -H a l1, In c ., 1969) , 361-375.
158
70. R a v e l 1, John H. "Meaning and Meaning S im ila r it y : The Semantic
D iffe r e n tia l and Co-Occurrence as Predictors of Judged
S im ila r ity in M eanin g/1 Journal of General Psychology.
LXIV (1961), 321-335.
71. Fodor, Jerry A ., and Katz, Jerrold J. (e d s .). The Structure of
Language. Englewood C l i f f s , N .J.: P ren tic e -H a l1,
In c ., 1964.
72. ____________. "Could Meaning Be an rm?," Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior. IV (1965)> 73-81.
73. Francis, Nelson W. "Revolution in Grammar," Quarterly Journal of
Speech. XL (October, 1954), 299-312.
74. . "The Present State of Grammar," English Journa1.
LI I, No. 5 (May, 1963), 317-321.
75. . "Linguistics and W ritten Composition (An A b s tra c t),"
Language. L in g u istics, and School Programs: Pro
ceedings of the Spring In s titu te s (Champaign, 111.:
NCTE, 1963), 95-100.
76. Frazier, Alexander (e d .). Ends and Issues. Champaign, 111.:
NCTE, 1966.
77- Fredrick, Wayne C., Blount, Nathan S ., and Johnson, Shelby L.
A Comparison of Verbal Statement, Symbolic Notation,
and Figural Representation of Grammar Concepts.
Technical Report No. 64 (Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin
Research and Development Center fo r Cognitive Learning),
1968.
78. Gleason, H. A. "What Grammar?," Harvard Educational Review. XXXIV
(Spring, 1964), 267-281.
79. ____________• Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: H o lt,
Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1965.
80. Goba, Ronald Joseph. "Grammar, Usage, Teachers of English, and
Paul Roberts," English Journal. L V III, No. 6 (Sep
tember, 1969)> 886-891.
81. Golub, Lester S. "Syntactic and Semantic Elements of Students'
Oral and W ritten Discourse: Implications for Teaching
Composition." Unpublished Ph.D. d is se rta tio n ,
Stanford U n iversity, 1967.
159
82. Grady, Michael. "The Uses of Linguistics in the Schools,"
English Journal. L V II, No. 6 (September, 1968), 870-
879.
83. Gunter, R. "A Problem in Transformational Teaching," Language
Learning. XI (1961), 119-124.
84. Guth, Hans P. English Today and Tomorrow. Englewood C l i f f s ,
N .J.: P ren tic e -H a l1, In c ., 1964.
85. H a lle , M orris. "On the R e a lity of Generative Grammars," Word.
X V III (1962), 18-25.
86. Harman, G ilb e rt H. "Generative Grammars Without Transformation
Rules: A Defense of Phrase S tru ctu res," Language.
XXXIX, No. 4 (October-December, 1963), 597-616.
8 7. H a rris, Z e llig S. "Transformational Theory," Language. XLI,
No. 3, Part 1 (July-September, 1965) , 363-401.
88. Hatch, Evelyn, Sheff J e ffre y , and Chastain, Diana. The F ive-
Year-Old 's Comprehension of Expanded and Transformed
Conjoined Sentences (Monograph. Southwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, Los Angeles), 19 6 9.
8 9. Hathaway, Baxter. A Transformational Syntax. New York: Ronald
Press, 1967.
90. Hawkins, James Preston. "The New English Grammar. A Study of
the Structural-Transform ational Foundations in
M aterials Designed fo r Secondary Schools." Unpublished
Ed.D. d is s e rta tio n , Colorado State College, 19 6 6.
91. Hayes, C urtis W. "Syntax: Some Present-Day Concepts," Engl?sh
Journal, LVl, No. 1 (January, 1967), 89-96.
92. Herdan, Gustav. "Q uantitative Linguistics or Generative
Grammar?," L? nguistics, IV (March, 1964), 5 6- 6 5 .
93. H i l l , Archibald A. "Grammatica1i t y , " Word. X V II, No. 1 (1962),
1- 10.
94. . Review of English Syntax, by Paul Roberts, Harvard
Educational Review, XXXVI, No. 1 (W inter, 1966), 77-83.
95. ____________ • (e d .). Linguistics Today. New York: Basic Books,
1969.-
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
10 1.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
160
____________ . "Laymen, Lexicographers, and Linguists," Language.
XLVI, No. 2, Part 1 (June, 1970), 245-258.
Hogan, Robert F. The English Language in the School Program.
Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1966.
Howe, Edmund S. "Uncertainty and Other Associative Correlates
of Osgood's D4," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior. IV (1965), 498-509.
Hughes, John P. Linguistics and Language Teaching. New York:
Random House, In c ., 1968.
Hunt, Kellogg W. "How L i t t l e Sentences Grow into Big Ones,"
in New Directions in Elementary English, ed. A lex
ander Frazier (Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1966), 178-187.
lanni, Lawrence. "An Answer to Doubts About the Usefulness of
the New Grammar," English Journal. LI 11, No. 8
(November, 1964), 597-602.
Isaacs, Sal li e . "From Language to Linguistic C ritic is m ,"
English Journal. LV II, No. 1 (January, 1968), 47-51.
Iv ic , M ilka. Trends in L in g u is tic s . The Hague: Mouton and
Co., 1965.
Jackobson, Rodolfo. "The Role of Deep Structures in Language
Teaching," Language Learning, XVI, No's. 3 and 4
(1966), 153-159.
Jacobs, Roderick. Review of Linguistics and English Grammar,
by H. A. Gleason, Harvard Educational Review, XXXV
(Summer, 1965), 405-409.
__________ and Rosenbaum, Peter S. English Transformational
Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Co.,
1968.
. Grammar 1, 2, 3, 4: An Introduction to Trans
formational Grammar. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1970.
____________ . (eds. ) . Readings in English Trans formatianal
Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company, 1970.
109. Jakobovits, Leon A ., and Miron, Murray S. (e d s .). Readings in
the Psychology of Language. Englewood C l i f f s , N .J.:
P re n tic e -H a l1, In c ., 1967.
110. James, Carl. "Applied In s titu tio n a l Linguistics in the
Classroom," English Journal. LIX, No. 8 (November,
1970), 1096-1105.
111. John, Mel li e , and Yates, Pauline M. Building Better English.
4th ed. New York: American Book Company, 1965.
112. Johnson, Falk S. "Grammars: A Working C la s s ific a tio n ,"
Elementary English, XLIV, No. 4 (A p ril, 1967), 349-
352 and 362.
113. Kaplan, Robert B., et a l . Transformational Grammar: A Guide
fo r Teachers. Washington, D.C.: English Language
Services, In c ., 1968.
114. Katz, Jerrold J. "Semi-Sentences," The Structure of Language.
ed. Jerrold J. Katz and Jerry A. Fodor (Englewood
C l i f f s , N .J.: P ren tic e -H a l1, In c ., 1964), 400-416.
115. ____________, and Postal, Paul M. An Integrated Theory of
Linguistic Descriptions. Research Monograph No. 26
(Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press), 1964.
116. Kitzhaber, A lb e rt R., et a l . Language/Rhetoric 11. New York:
H o lt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.
117. K le in , Sheldon. "Control of Style with a Generative Grammar,"
Language, XLI, No. 4 (October-December, 1965), 619-631
118. Koutsoudas, Andreas. W riting Transformational Grammars: An
In tro d u ctio n . New York: McGraw-Hill, In c ., 19 6 6.
119. Lado, Robert. Language Teaching: A S c ie n tific Approach.
New York: McGraw-Hill, In c ., 1964.
120. Laird, Charlton. "Language: What To Do About a D ro p -In ,"
English Journal, L V III, No. 8 (November, 1969i,
1199-1205.
121. Lakoff, George. "On the Nature of Syntactic Ir r e g u la r it y ."
Unpublished Ph.D. d is se rtatio n , Indiana U niversity,
1965.
122. ____________. "Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept o f Deep
S tru c tu re ," Foundations of Language. IV (1968), 4-29.
123. Lakoff, Robin. "Transformational Grammar and Language Teaching,"
Language Learning. XIX, No. 2 (February, 1969)^ 171 “179
124. Lamb, Sydney M. "On A ltern atio n , Transformation, R e a liza tio n ,
and S t r a t if ic a t io n ," Georgetown Uni v e rs itv Monograph
Series on Languages and L in g u istics, XVII (1964), 105-
122.
125. Lamberts, J. J. "Basic Concepts for Teaching from Structural
L in g u istics ," English Journal. XLIX, No. 3 (March,
(960), 172-176.
126. Langacker, Ronald W. Language and its Structure: Some Funda
mental Linguistic Concepts. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, in c ., 1968.
127. Langendoen, D. Terence. The Study of Syntax. New York: H olt,
Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 19 6 9.
/
128. ___________ . "The A c c e s s ib ility of Deep S tru c tu re s," in Read-
ings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. Roderick
Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum (Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and
Company, 1970), 99-104.
129. ___________ . Essentials o f English Grammar. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1970.
130. Law, Alexander In g lis . "The Connotative Perceptions of Data
Processing by Public School Personnel." Unpublished
Ed.D. d issertatio n , U niversity of Southern C a lifo rn ia ,
1968.
131. Lees, Robert B. Review of Syntactic S tructures, by Noam
Chomsky, Language. X XX III (1957)> 375-408.
132. ____________. "The Grammar of English N om inalization," In t e r -
national Journal of American L in g u istics, XXVI, No. 3,
Part II (July, I960), i-xv and 1-205.
133. ______ ■ "The Promise of Transformational Grammar," English
Journal, LI I, No. 5 (May, 1963), 327-330 and 345.
134. . "On Very Deep Grammatical S tru c tu re ," in Reading
in English Transformational Grammar, ed. Roderick
Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum (Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and
__________________ C o m p a n y ,J 9 7Q ),1 3 4rl4 l._____________________________________
135- Lefevre, Carl A. Linguistics and the Teaching of L in g u is tic s .
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.
136. . "The Contribution of L in g u is tic s ," The In stru cto r.
LXXIV (March, 1965), 77-83.
137- Lester, Mark. "Transformational Grammar in Teaching Composi-
t io n ," College Composition and Communication. X V I I I ,
No. 5 (December, 1967) , 227-231.
138. _____________. "The Relation of Linguistics to L? t e r a t u r e ." Col lege
English. XXX, No. 5 (February, 1969), 366-375.
139* Levin, Miriam K. A Survey of Linguistic Units in the High
Schools. Princeton, N .J.: Educational Testing
Service, 1966.
140. L i l l y , R. S. "A Developmental Study of the Semantic D i f f e r
e n t i a l . " Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Princeton
University, 19 65.
141. Long, Ralph. "Linguistics, Grammarians, and P u r is ts ." Engl ish
Journal. LVII, No. 3 (March, 1968), 380-386.
142. . "English Grammar in the 1970's," Col lege Engli sh,
XXXI, No. 8 (May, 1970), 763-773.
143. Lorentzen, Arthur A. "Solving Problems Presented by Teaching
L in g u istics ." English Journal. LV1(1, No. 1 (January,
1969), 113-119.
144. Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical L in g u is tic s . Cam
bridge, England: Cambridge U n iv ers ity Press, 19 6 9.
145. MacIntyre, Alasdair. "Noam Chomsky's View of Language," The
Listener, LXXIX, No. 2044 (May, 1968), 686-691.
146. MacLeish, Andrew, and Seat, William R. I I I . M a te rials and
Methods for Teaching Structural and Generative Grammar
to High School Students and T h e ir Teachers (Final
Report). DeKalb, 111.: Northern I l l i n o i s U niversity
Curriculum Center, 1967.
147. McCullough, Constance M. "Linguistics, Psychology, and the
Teaching of Reading," Elementary English, XLIV, No. 4
(A p ril, 1967), 353-362.
164
148. McGuire, Eileen. "Sentence Building and Transformational
Grammar," English Journal. LVI, No. 5 (May, 1967),
747-750.
149. M altz, Howard E. "Ontogenetic Change in the Meaning of
Concepts as Measured by the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l, "
Chi Id Development. XXXIV (1963), 6 67- 6 7 4.
150. Marckwardt, A lbert H. "Linguistics Issue: An I n tro d u ctio n ,1 :'
Col lege E nglish. XXVI, No. 4 (January, 1965), 249-254.
151. ____________. Linguistics and the Teaching of English. Bloom
ington: Indiana University Press, 1966.
152. - ______ . Personal communication ( l e t t e r ) , January 14, 1970.
153. Matthews, P. H. Review of Aspects of the Theory of Syntax,
by Noam Chomsky, Journal of Linguistics, 111 (1967) ,
119-152.
154. May, Frank B. "Composition and the New Grammar," Elementary
Engl?sh, XLIV, No. 7 (November, 1967), 762-764.
155. Meckel, Henry C. "Research on Teaching Composition and
L ite ra tu re ," Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed.
N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963),
966- 1006.
156. Mellon, John C. Transformational Sentence-Combining: A Method
fo r Enhancing the Development of Syntactic Fluency in
English Composition (Final Report). Harvard R and D
Center on Educational Differences, Report No. 1.
O ffice of English Education and Laboratory fo r Re
search in Instruction, Graduate School of Education,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U niversity, 1967.
157. M ille r , George. "The Psycholinguists," Encounter. X X I I I , No. 1
(July, 1964), 29-37.
158. Moore, Terence Hugh. "The Topic-Comment Function: A Per
formance Constraint on a Competence Model." Un
published Ph.D. d issertatio n , U niversity of C a li
fornia at Los Angeles, 1967.
159. Murphy, Dennis Kevin. "A Study of the Effectiveness o f a
Linguistic Approach in Teaching Composition to
Secondary School English Students." Unpublished Ed.D.
d is se rta tio n , University of Rochester, 1967.
160. Newman, Paul. A Grammar of Tera: Transformational Syntax and
Tests. Berkeley: U niversity of C a lifo rn ia Press,
1969.
161. Newsome, Verna L. "Expansions and Transformations to Improve
Sentences," English Journal. LI I I , No. 5 (May, 196*0,
327-335.
162. Ney, James W. "Applied Linguistics in the Seventh Grade,"
English Journal, LV, No. 7 (October, 1966), 895-897
and 9 0 2.
i
| 163. ___________ . "Transformational A n alysis ," L?nquistics. XXXIV
(August, 1967), 35-45.
164. Nist, John. "A C ritique of Generative Grammar," L in g u istics,
XXXII (December, 1965), 102-110.
165. O'Donnell, Roy C. "Does Research in Linguistics Have Practical
| Applications?," English Journal, LIX, No. 3 (March,
| 1970), 410-412 and 420.
166. Ohmann, Richard. "Generative Grammars and the Concept of
L iterary S ty le ," Word, XX (December, 1964), 423-439.
16 7. ____________. "L iteratu re as Sentences," Col lege English, XXVII,
No. 4 (January, 1966), 261-267.
168. Olmstead, D. L. "On Some Axioms About Sentence Length,"
Language. X L I I I , No. 1 (March, 1967), 303-305.
169. Olson, Paul. "Transformations." Introductory Language Essays,
ed. Dudley W. Bailey (New York: W. W. Norton and
Co., Inc., 1965), 36-49.
170. O 'N e il, Wayne A. Kernels and Transforms. New York: McGraw-
H ill Book Company, In c ., 19 6 5•
171. Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J ., and Tannenbaum, Percy H.
The Measurement of Meaning. Champaign, 111.: Board
o f Trustees of the U niversity of I l l i n o i s , 1957.
172. Osgood, Charles E., and Sebeok, Thomas A. Psycholi ngui s ties :
A Survey of Theory and Research Problems.
Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1965.
166
173. Page, Robert Lincoln. "L in g u is tic Science and High School
English: An In vestig atio n of the Extent to Which
the Findings o f L in g u istic Science Have Influenced
the English Grammar and Usage Taught in American
Public Senior High Schools Today, with Speculations
on the Reasons for the Present S itu a tio n and In
terpretations in Relation to American C u ltu re ."
Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Yale U n iversity, 1968.
174. P eizer, David B., and Olmstead, David L. "Modules of Grammar
A cq u isitio n ." Language. XLV, No. 1 (March, 1969),
60-96.
175. Perlm utter, David. "Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax."
Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , MIT, 1968.
176. Pike, Kenneth Lee. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory
of the Structure of Human Behavior. 2d. ed. revised.
The Hague: Mouton and Co., 19 6 7-
177. Pooley, Robert C. Teaching English Grammar. New York: Apple
ton-Century-Crofts, In c., 1957.
178. ____________ . "What Grammar Shall I Teach?," English Journal.
XLV II, No. 6 (September, 1958), 327-333.
179. Postal, Paul M. P artic ip an t in the Thirteen th Annua 1 Round
Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies.
ed. Elisabeth D. Woodward (Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown U niversity Press, 1963), 8-10.
180. ____________ . "Constituent Structure: A Study of Contemporary
Models of Syntactic D escription," In te rn a tio n a 1
Journal o f American L in g u istics, XXX, No. 1 (1964a),
1-205.
181. . "Underlying and S u p erficial S tru c tu re ." Harvard
Educational Review. XXXIV, No. 2 (Spring, 1964b),
246-266.
182. . Review of L in g u is tic Science and Logic, by Robert
M. W. Dixon, Language X L I I , No. 1 (January-March),
84-93.
183. Postman, N e il, and Weingartner, Charles. Linguistics: A
Revolution in Teaching. New York: Dell Publishing
Company, 1966.
184. Postman, N e il. "Linguistics and the Pursuit of Relevance,"
English Journal. LVI, No. 8 (November, 1967), 1160-
. 1165.
185. Q.ui rk, Randolph, and S vartik, Jan. In vestig atin g Linguistic
Acceptabi1?t v . The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1966.
186. Ratekin, Ned Harry. "A Generative Analysis of Sentence
Structure in Two Fields of W ritin g ." Unpublished
Ph.D. d is se rta tio n , U niversity of Iowa, 1965.
187. Reynolds, William J. "Who's A fra id of L in g u is tic s ? ," English
Journal, LV, No. 6 (September, 1966), 7 5 8- 7 62.
188. Richards, Ivor Armstrong. "Why Generative Grammar Does Not
Help." English Language Teaching. XX11 (March, 1967),
101- 106.
189. Roberts, Paul. "Linguistics and the Teaching of E n g lis h ,"
Col lege English. XXII, No. 1 (October, I960), 1-9.
190. ____________. English Sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, In c ., 1962.
191. ____________• "Linguistics and the Teaching of Composition,"
English Journal, LI I, No. 5 (May, 1963), 331-335.
192. . English Syntax. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, In c ., 1964.
193. ____________. Review of The New English Grammar: Lessons in
English as a Foreign Language, by R. A. Close,
Language, XLI, No. 3, Part I (July-September, 1965),
520-525.
194. ____________. The Roberts English Series (Teacher's Manual).
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, In c ., 19 6 7 •
19 5. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Modern Grammar. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, In c ., 19 6 8.
196. Rogers, Robert W. "A rtic u latin g High School and College
Teaching of English," English Journal, LIV, No. 5
(May, 1965), 370-374 and 381/
197. Rogov in, S y re ll. Modern English Sentence S tru c tu re . New York:
Random House, In c ., 1964.
198. Rosenbaum, Peter S. "The Grammar of English Predicate Com
plement Constructions." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta
tio n , MIT, I 9 6 5.
199* ____________. "On the Role o f Linguistics in the Teaching o f
English," Harvard Educational Review. XXXV, No. 3
(Summer, 1965), 332-3^8.
200. Ross, John Robert. "Constraints on Variables in Syntax."
Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Mil*, 19 6 7.
201. Salus, Peter H. Li ngu is t i cs. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-
M e rrill Company, In c ., 1969.
202. Sanborn, Donald A. "What Can We Teach About Language?,"
English Journal. L V III, No. 8 (November, 1969),
1206-1213.
203. Sanders Gerald A lb e rt. "Some General Grammatical Processes in
English." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Indiana
U niversity, 1967 -
204. Saporta, Sol (e d .). Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 19 61.
205. ____________. Psycholinguistic Theories and Generative Gram
mars. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon State System of
Higher Education, 1967.
206. Schachter, Paul. Review of Transformational Grammar and the
Teacher o f English, by Owen Thomas, Harvard Edu
cational Review. XXXIV ( F a ll, 1965), 513-516.
207. Sebeok, Thomas A. (e d .). Current Trends in Linguistics:
Vol. 3: Theoretical Foundations. The Hague: Mouton
and Co., 1966.
208. Shane, Harold Gray. Linguistics and The Classroom Teacher:
Some Implications for In stru ctio n in the Mother
Tongue. Washington, D.C.: Association fo r Super
vision and Curriculum Development, 1967.
209. Shipley, Elizabeth F . , Smith, Carlota S ., and Gleitman, L ila R.
"A Study in the A cquisition of Language: Free Re
sponses to Commands," Language, XLV, No. 2, Part I
(June, 1969), 322-342.
169
210. Shugrue, Michael F. English in a Decade of Change. New York:
Western Publishing Company, In c ., 1968.
211. Silberman, Harry F. et a l . "The E ffects of Educational
Research on Classroom In s tru c tio n ," Harvard Educa
tional Review. XXXVI, No. 3 (Summer, 1966), 295“317.
212. Sledd, James. "Grammar or Gramarye?," English Journal. XLIX,
No. 5 (May, i 960) , 293-303.
213. ____________. "Syntactic S tru c tu re s ," The English L eaflet.
LXI (Midwinter, 19 6 1), 14-23.
214. . Review of Linguistics and English Grammar, by
H. A. Gleason, Language. X L I I . No. 4 (December. 1966),
797-809.
215. Slobin, Dan I. "Grammatical Transformation and Sentence Com
prehension in Childhood and Adulthood," Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, V (June, 1966),
219- 2 2 7.
216. Smith, Franklyn Leewood. The Genesis of Languages: A Psy
chol i ngui st ? c Approach. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1966.
217. Snider, James G., and Osgood, Charles E. (e d s .). Semantic
D iffe r e n tia l Technigue. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company, In c ., 1969.
218. Spangler, Wayne Emerson. "The Problem of Deviation in
Generative Grammar." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n .
Arizona State U n iv ers ity , I 9 6 8.
219. Stern, Arthur A. "Spatial and Temporal Grammar," English
Journal, LV1I, No. 6 (September, 1968), 880-883.
220. Stageberg, Norman C., and Goodman, Ralph. An Introductory
English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, In c ., 1965.
221. Stockwell, Robert. The Grammatical Structures of English and
Spanish. Chicago: U n ivers ity of Chicago Press,
1965.
222. Stratemeyer, Clara. "Using Your New English Textbook," Kentucky
Engli sh B u ile ti n, XVI I , No. 1 (F a ll, 1968), 3-18.
223. Tabory, R. "Semantics, Generative Grammars, and Computers,"
L? nguistics. XVI (September, 1965)> 6 8- 8 5.
224. Tannenbaum, Percy H. "Attitudes Toward Source and Concept as
Factors in A ttitu d e Change through Communications."
Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of I l l i n o i s ,
1953.
225. Tate, Gary. "The Open Mind: Linguistics and the W r ite r ,"
Teaching High School Composition, ed. Gary Tate and
Edward P. J. Corbett (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1970), 157-164.
226. Temperley, M. "Transformations in English Sentence P attern s,"
Language Learning. XI (1961), 125-133.
227. Thomas, Owen. "Generative Grammar: Toward U n ificatio n and
S im p lific a tio n ." English Journal. L I, No. 1 (January,
1962), 94-99.
228. . "Grammatici C e rta n t," English Journal. LI I, No. 5
(May, 1963), 322-326.
229. ____________. Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of
English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
In c ., 1965.
230. ____________. Metaphor and Related S ubjects. New York: Random
House, Inc., 1969.
231. ____________. Personal communication ( l e t t e r ) , November 13,
1969.
232. T ibbetts, A. M. "The Real Issues in the Great Language Con
troversy," English Journal, LV, No. 1 (January, 1966),
28- 38..
233. ____________• "In Grammar's F a ll, We Sinned A l l , " 111i nois
English B u ile ti n. LV (December, 1967)> 1“9.
234. Valdman, A lb e rt. Trends in Language Teaching. New York:
McGraw-Hill, In c ., 19 6 6.
235. V ie r t e l, John. "Generative Grammars." College Composition
and Communication. XV, No. 2 (May, 1964), 65-81.
236. Watt, W. C. Review of Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, by
Noam Chomsky, College Composition and Communication,
XXI, No. 1 (February, 1970), 75-80.
237- ____________. "On Two Hypotheses Concerning Psycholinguistics,"
Cognition and Development of Language, ed. J. R.
Hayes (New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c., 1970),
114-120.
238. Weaver, C. H. "Semantic Distance Between Students and
Teachers and Its E ffe c t upon Learning," Speech
Monograph. XXVI (1959), 273-281.
239. Weinreich, U rie l. "Travels Through Semantic Space," Word.
XIV (1958), 346-366.
240. Whitaker, Harry. Review of Psychol?nguistics, by James Deese,
Language. XLVI, No. 4 (December, 1970), 991-997.
241. Wilson, Graham Cunningham (e d .). A Linguistics Reader. New
York: Harper and Row, In c ., 1967.
242. Winter, Werner. "Transforms Without Kernels?," Language. XLI,
No. 3 (July-September, 1965), 484-489.
243. Winterowd, W. Ross. Rhetoric: A Synthesis. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1968.
244. ___________. Structure. Language, and S ty le . Dubuque, Iowa:
W m. C. Brown Co., In c ., 1969.
245. Wolfe, David L. "Some Theoretical Aspects o f Language Learning
and Language Teaching," Language Learning. XVI, No's.
3 and 4 (1966), 153-161.
246. Wolfe, Don M. "Grammar and Linguistics: A Contrast in
R e a litie s ." English Journal, L I I I, No. 2 (February,
1964), 73-78 and 100.
247. Woodward, Elisabeth D. ( e d .) . Report of the Thirteenth Annual
Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language
Studies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press, 1963.
248. Youmans, Peter N. "P racticing L in g u is tic s ," English Journal,
LIV, No. 4 (A p ril, 1965) , 331-333.
172
249. Zidonis, Frank. "Generative Grammar: A Report on Research,"
English Jo urnal. LIV, No. 5 (May> 1965), 405-409.
250. ____________. "Incorporating Transformational Grammar into the
English Curriculum." English Journal. LVI, No. 9
(December, 1967), 1315-1320.
251. Z ip f, George A. The Psycho-Biology of Language: An In tr o
duction to Dynamic P hilology. New York: Houghton
M iff lin Company, Inc., 1935*

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Reading Achievement And In-Grade Retention Rate Differentials For Mexican-American And Black Students In Selected States Of The Southwest

PDF

The Community College Concept And The Developing World: A Planning Strategy With A Focus On Asia

PDF

A Critical Analysis Of An Intercultural Institute For Personnel And Curriculum Development On India

PDF

An Investigation Of Graduate Student Perceptions Of Campus Environment

PDF

A Phonemic And Phonetic Description Of The Speech Of Selected Negro Informants Of South-Central Los Angeles

PDF

City From Frontier: Symbols Of Urban Development In Nineteenth-Century San Francisco

PDF

The Effects Of Monetary Rewards On Reading Level, Attitude Toward Reading, And Self-Concept Of Ability And School Achievement

PDF

Comparative Effectiveness Of Three Instructional Formats In Small-Group Continuing Education For Physicians In Community Hospitals

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Significant Attitudinal Factors Related To Three Levels Of Academic Achievement Of Seventh Grade Students

PDF

The Preparation Of Teachers Of French And Spanish In Southern California Secondary Schools

PDF

Conflicts In Role Expectations For Academic Deans In Church-Related Colleges

PDF

Higher Education And Nursing Perceptions Affecting Student Learning And Development In The Clinical Environment

PDF

An Evaluation Of The United States Air Force Flying Safety Officer Courseat The University Of Southern California

PDF

Conventional Teaching Versus Team-Teaching In Selected Business Educationsubjects

PDF

A Descriptive Syntax Of King Alfred'S Soliloquies

PDF

A Comparison Of Principal, Teacher And Student Perceptions Of Selected Elementary School Principals' Effectiveness

PDF

Hegel And Dewey And The Problem Of Freedom

PDF

Existentialism In The Theater Of Alfonso Sastre

PDF

An Investigation Of Some Characteristics Of Men Which Seem To Be Related To The Degree Of Success In Teaching College Physical Education

PDF

Secondary School Physical Education Programs In Wyoming As Related To Professional Preparation Of Teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator Borowiec, Edward Joseph (author)

Core Title A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Selected Concepts In Transformational Theory

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Teacher Training,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wilbur, Leslie (committee chair), Handler, Harry (committee member), Kaplan, Robert B. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-527542

Unique identifier UC11362879

Identifier 7200539.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-527542 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7200539

Dmrecord 527542

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Borowiec, Edward Joseph

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA