Junction grammar is a descriptive model of language developed during the 1960s by Eldon G. Lytle (1936–2010).http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/article_cc7e75b8-42d8-5ac8-889e-6a6a58bf48b9.html
Junction grammar is based on the premise that the meaning of language can be described and precisely codified by the way language elements are joined.
The model was used during the 1960s and 1970s in the attempt to create a functional computer-assisted translation system. It has also been used for linguistic analysis in the language instruction field.
Background 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. The rules used by these grammars were referred to as phrase-structure rules (P-rules). It was soon apparent, however, that a generative component composed solely of P-rules could not generate a wide variety of commonly occurring sentence types. In response to this dilemma, Harris proposed an explanation:
Some of the cruces in descriptive linguistics have been due to the search for a constituent analysis in sentence types where this does not exist because the sentences are transformationally derived from each otherHarris, Zellig S. (1981). "Co-occurrence and transformation." In Papers in Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1 edition. Synthese language library, vol.14, Henry Hiz, ed.
Chomsky's model of syntax - transformational grammar -picked up on this line of reasoning and added a supplementary set of transformations (T-rules). 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. The structural forms generated by P-rules alone were said to constitute deep structure. Surface structure was then derived transformationally by T-rules from the kernel structures first generated by the operation of P-rules. In this way, Chomsky proposed to generate an infinite number of sentences using finite means (the closed sets of P-rules and T-rules). Syntax-based models of this vintage set semantics and phonology apart as linguistic processes to be approached separately.
Advent of junction grammar Enter from the sidelines under these circumstances junction grammar (JG),Baird, Rey L. (1972) “Essentials of Junction Grammar.” LINGUISTICS SYMPOSIUM: AUTOMATIC LANGUAGE PROCESSING, 30–31 March 1972. Provo, Utah : BYU Language Research Center. a model of natural language created by Eldon Lytle in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Junction grammar did not propose an amendment to Chomsky’s model of syntax, but purported to eliminate the need for transformations altogether through theoretical innovation and a novel design for generative grammars. Innovations fundamental to the new approach rejected common-place reliance on existing mathematics and formal language theory as tools for linguistic modeling and description "in deference to the intuition of more fundamental structuring in the body and in natural language itself", which appeared to provide a "universal base for linguistic description" - not only for natural language but also for the synthetic notation systems employed at the time for linguistic description. Implementation of the novelties in question entailed:
Recasting the generative component in a semantic mold. This entailed dispensing with all operationally-deprived (and hence meaninglessJunction theory held that a simple concatenation of operands in linguistic formulations was as 'meaningless' as any string of mathematical operands devoid of operators.) concatenations of P-rules and replacing them with junction rules (J-rules). J-rules operationalized for the first time a set of structural relations having universal syntacto-semantic significance and were based on the proposition that natural language "has its own math". Indeed, the position of JG was that lucubrations advanced by Chomsky and others as to whether this or that rung of a given formal language hierarchy was in principle capable of generating the sentences of natural language were ultimately circular, natural language being the thing which had created them all. Lytle held, in effect, that natural language is the meta-language upon which all forms of synthetic notation (including mathematics) supervene.Lytle, Eldon G. (1974) “A Summary Comparison of Junction Grammar and Transformational Grammar.” First published in LINGUISTICS SYMPOSIUM: AUTOMATED LANGUAGE PROCESSING, 9 April 1974. Republished in JUNCTION THEORY AND APPLICATION, V. 2, no. 2, Spring 1979. Provo, Utah : BYU Translation Sciences Institute Complementing the base with biologically-oriented tracts (sometimes referred to in early JG literature as levels of representation) specializing in the distinct data types required to support lexicalization, articulation, orthography, etc. Junction theory explicitly prohibited the intermingling of distinct data types in a single representation, noting, for example, that one could not reasonably expect the vocal tract to have use for semantic data nor would the tract executing movements in the writing hand have any use for data driving the musculature of the vocal tract. Implementing Saussure's concept of signified-signifier linkagesDe Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. (1966) New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2 edition. by constructing coding grammars to transpose the structuring of one tract to the data type of another, as for example the transposition of J-rule structuring into the lexical strings required for writing or articulation. The essence of the departure from Chomsky's model in this case was that coding between biologically grounded tracts supplanted interpretation of deep structure in the abstract.
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 and their representations are superseded in JG The right-left, top-down representational format which forced everything into one big tree was dispensed with in favor of an ensemble of interfacing representations which employed as many data-specific descriptions as necessary to capture the functionality of the diverse neurobiological manifestations of linguistic behavior being dealt with. Because target structuring was generable directly by the powerful J-rule base component and its array of linguistic operators, structure-oriented transformations required to combine kernel sentences or otherwise manipulate constituent structure were no longer required. Transformations formulated to generate correct word order and otherwise massage surface strings were supplanted by coding algorithms or grammars in the JG model. In general comparison, whereas Chomsky's model of syntax was by design derivative (speaking of its roots in existing forms of notation), derivational, and manipulative, the JG model was seminal (speaking of its formal novelty), modular, and transpositional. 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."
J-rules The base/junction rules (J-rules) of junction grammars are a set of algebraic formulas which generate for natural language what is akin to the Periodic Table of elements in chemistry, namely, an enumeration of well-formed linguistic structuresMelby, Alan K. 1985. “Generalization and prediction of syntactic patterns in junction grammar”. In Linguistics and Philosophy. Festschrift for Rulon S. Wells, Makkai, Adam and Alan K. Melby (eds.). sometimes referred to as the periodic chart of constituent structures (PCCS).See Lytle, Eldon G.(2009) LANGUAGE in Capital Letters (eBook edition), Chapters 4, 8. Rose Valley, NV: Linguistic Technologies, Inc. J-rules generate composite structures consisting of the labeled operands entering into them plus the relations established by operators, and assign a category to the composite produced, to wit: X ∘ Y ≐ Z. Composites thus generated become potential operands for subsequent operations. The resulting algebra may be represented in string form (e.g., infix, postfix, reverse polish) or graphed as a branching diagram (J-tree).
Operators The universal operators utilized by these rules are subjunction (*), conjunction (&), and adjunction (+), plus subtypes required under particular circumstances, e.g., restrictive (.*) versus non-restrictive (=*=) under subjunction. Expressed in more familiar terms, subjunction joins modifiers and complements to their heads, conjunction bonds constituents of homogeneous category which are in some respect similar, and adjunctionNot to be confused with ‘Chomskyan adjunction.’ attaches relations and processes to their operands to form predicates, statements, and relational phrases. Supplemental operators effect the requirements of data management in mental modeling and conversational settings, corresponding in large part to the conventional classification of deixis.Lytle, Eldon G. (1979) “Doing More with Structure.” JUNCTION THEORY AND APPLICATION, V. 2, no. 2, Spring 1979. Provo, Utah : BYU Translation Sciences Institute.
Operands 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 settingSee Presman, A.S. (1970) Electromagnetic Fields and Life. New York:Plenum Press, 1 edition. Translation of “Elektromagnitnye polia i zhivaia priroda” by F.L. Sinclair; edited by Frank A. Brown, Jr. arising in connection with the formation of the mental models which provide the content and sensory linkages for their meanings.
Coding grammars While the link between signified and signifier (as per Saussure) may be separately represented in a junction grammar, the interfacing between J-rule structuring and the coding extant in other components of the model is provided by context-sensitive coding grammars formulated as algorithms in an appropriate pattern matching language. For example, JG incorporates a lexical coding grammar consisting of lexical rules (L-rules) which encodes unordered sememic structuring as ordered lexical strings in a separate coding space.See, for example, Billings, Floyd and Thompson, Tracy (1972). “Proposals for Ordering Well-formed Syntactic Statements.” LINGUISTICS SYMPOSIUM: AUTOMATIC LANGUAGE PROCESSING, 30–31 March 1972. Provo, Utah: BYU Language Research Center. A subsequent coding provides either the distinct patterning of the voice contour, or the formatting and punctuation of printed material.
Nature of JG analysis With the foregoing as a frame of reference, we draw renewed attention to significant differences between JG sentence analysis and conventional syntactic analysis. The more familiar syntax approach analyzes phrases and sentences in terms of outward (surface) appearance, i.e. in terms of the words which they contain and how intuition groups them. 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. A change in word order requires that the diagram be changed.