The Sound-Meaning Relation in the Standard Theory of Transformational Grammar

1. Introduction. Theoretical Assumptions and Aims 1.1 In the present paper, we attempt to compare two simultaneous descriptions of natural language with a view to semiotic questions. The linguistic theories we have chosen to this end are, on the one hand, the standard theory of transformational grammar (TG), formulated in the mid-1960's by Noam Chomsky, and, on the other hand, an early version of the functional generative description (FGD), formulated at about the same time by Petr Sgall as an alternative to Chomsky's transformational grammar. A semiotic view refers to the way in which both theories have grasped and described the relation between units of linguistic form and meaning. The reason we have selected two algebraic theories of language from among the various general linguistic theories may not have been graver than that both TG and FGD have included a theoretical account of the relation between form and meaning among their primary aims. Our chief effort, then, will not be to reemphasize what seems a well-established fact today, namely that the way in which both linguistic conceptions meet their primary theoretical aims is different in principle (see also Sova 2005). In the following sections we will rather focus on some of the linguistic and formal aspects directly related to, and resulting from, this difference. In particular, we intend to provide the reader with several clues regarding the extent to which both theories may be considered as capable of reflecting linguistic reality. In this respect, we will point out some of the theoretical and formal features we have come to see as either enhancing, or hindering such capability. Our intention to demonstrate these issues on the opposition of TG and FGD has resulted from an inevitable need to choose such parallel alternatives of the generative description of language as we have had a chance to study in greater detail. Indeed, with regard to our major aim, the actual timing of both theories is irrelevant. What does matter, however, is a requirement on conceptual proximity of both linguistic descriptions, met in