Junction grammar
Early generative grammars dealt with language from a syntactic perspective, i.e. as the problem presented by the task of creating rules able to combine words into well-formed (i.e., grammatical) sentences.
T-rules effected combinations and permutations of words in step-wise fashion to fill in structural gaps where P-rules alone could not generate the sentences which Harris had pointed out as problems.
Implementation of the novelties in question entailed: In sum, the junction grammar model of language moved the base into a sub-verbal semantic domain, added universally relevant linguistic operators to generation rules - thus, for example, solving the quandary of how to handle conjunction - incorporated auxiliary tracts together with specialized data types for voice, audition, etc., and added coding grammars to physically interface between tracts.
Transformations formulated to generate correct word order and otherwise massage surface strings were supplanted by coding algorithms or grammars in the JG model.
Despite polar differences, however, "Chomsky's objective of generating an infinite number of sentences with finite means, remained firmly intact in JG, as did the presumption of the fundamental innateness of natural language in the normal speaker/hearer."
Supplemental operators effect the requirements of data management in mental modeling and conversational settings, corresponding in large part to the conventional classification of deixis.
[9] The operands of the base are drawn from a dictionary of sememes (meaningful concepts) which are by definition non-lexical in JG and may be plausibly viewed as electromagnetic signatures in their neurobiological setting[10] arising in connection with the formation of the mental models which provide the content and sensory linkages for their meanings.
Structural diagrams reflecting this method strive to depict constituent clusters in the word stream supplemented by labels, perhaps, or other information of focal interest to the analyst - some of it perhaps semantic.
That grammar relegated the data to four levels of representation, corresponding to: Lytle employed one of the junction operators (subjunction) as a formal device to impose the properties of a governing category upon existing structure to obtain derived forms (e.g., transform-ation - Noun * Verb).
Early literature on JG was published in Junction Theory and Application, the journal of the BYU Translation Sciences Institute (TSI), and the proceedings of the university's Annual Linguistic Symposium.
[13] More widely distributed overviews and analyses of junction theory first appeared in monograph form under Mouton's Janua Linguarum Series,[14] followed by papers and research reports presented at LACUS forum proceedings[15] and linguistic conferences abroad.
Following these studies, it was concluded that the J-rules comprising the syntacto-semantic base of the model proffered a pool of structural possibilities from which all natural languages draw, but that none necessarily uses them all nor the same subset.
Among the memorable sentence types brought forward in class to challenge instructors and the chart were: Studies were conducted to determine whether exposure to the JG method of diagramming was useful as a point of reference in teaching and learning foreign languages.
[35] This endeavor relied on the escalating power of micro-computers to field JG-powered applications able to provide constructive feedback to student writers and their teachers in a writing-lab context.
Meanwhile, to test the utility of JG-related writing assessment in an internet environment, the JGPL analysis engine has been made available free of charge for experimentation in an online writing-lab setting.
The fact of the matter was that even though level 1 had been occupying space in the schematic from its inception, with the exception of voice synthesis, no order of specificity had as yet been implemented in JG to formalize the linkage between sememic data and forms of physical reality.
[42] Here then was the explanation for the relevance of JG's fundamental constituent relations to external relationships and the reason why Lytle had been able to represent articulatory structuring with junction operations.
To formally implement the linkage in question as a feature of the JG upgrade model, it was necessary to add notational symbolism able to describe the nature of the coding which transpires at the mind-reality interface.
[43] These notational addenda, when systematically organized and augmented with other pertinent formal devices, enable the linguist to write expressions for such diverse activities as mental modeling, conversation, putting one's words into action, and use of the empirical method for discovery.
Inasmuch as the system of classical junction rules can be derived directly from the new, more comprehensive symbolism, it is clear that the enhancements in question are a natural extension of the original model.
