D. V. Demidov

3. Kinds of syntactic theories. 
Transformational-Generative 
Grammar. 
The 
Transformational grammar was first suggested by American 
scholar Zelling Harris as a method of analyzing sentences and was 
later elaborated by another American scholar Noam Chomsky as a 
synthetic method of ‗generating‘ (constructing) sentences 
[17, p. 165]. The main point of the Transformational-Generative 
Grammar is that the endless variety of sentences in a language can 
be reduced to a finite number of kernels by means of 
transformations. These kernels serve the basis for generating 
sentences by means of syntactic processes. Different language 
analysts recognize the existence of different number of kernels 
(from 3 to 39). The following 6 kernels are commonly associated 
with the English language: 
(1) NV – John sings.
(2) NVAdj. – John is happy.
(3) NVN – John is a man.
(4) NVN – John hit the man.
(5) NVNN – John gave the man a book.
(6) NVPrep.N – The book is on the table. 
It should be noted that (3) differs from (4) because the 
former admits no passive transformation.
Transformational method proves useful for analysing 
sentences from the point of their deep structure:
Flying planes can be dangerous. 
This sentence is ambiguous, two senses can be 
distinguished: a) the action of flying planes can be dangerous; 

---

81 
b) the planes that fly can be dangerous. Therefore it can be 
reduced to the following kernels: 
a) Planes can be dangerous b) Planes can be dangerous
X (people) fly planes X Planes fly 
Constructional Syntax. Constructional analysis of 
syntactic units was initiated by Prof. G. Pocheptsov in his book 
(,,Конструктивный 
анализ 
структуры 
предложения‖) 
published in K yiv in 1971. This analysis deals with the 
constructional significance/insignificance of a part of the sentence 
for the whole syntactic unit. The theory is based on the obligatory 
or optional environment of syntactic elements. For example, the 
element him in the sentence I saw him there yesterday is 
constructionally significant because it is impossible to omit it. At 
the same time the elements there and yesterday are 
constructionally insignificant – they can be omitted without 
destroying the whole structure.