Compare george yule's and andrew radford's generative grammar (my prof Coursework

Compare george yules and andrew radfords generative grammar (my prof says they differ) - Coursework ExampleThere are a human activity of various kinds of generative grammar most of which have their roots in the transformational grammar developed in the 1950s by Noam Chomsky, a linguist who tried to produce a certain type of grammar that has a very clear system of rules stipulating and verifying the combination of basic elements that would result out of a well-shaped sentence. Both George Yule and Andrew Radford have attempt to present a survey of all the information about a actors line particularly with regard to the internal structures of a language. Inspired by Noam Chomsky,Yule move to develop a generative grammar based on a system of rules that can effectively specify the combination of elements required to form sentences. Although both Yule (2006) and Radford (2006) were heavily influenced and inspired by Chomsky, there are a number of differences in their approach of gener ative grammar.This paper critically analyzes the similarities as well as the differences in George Yules and Andrew Radfords generative grammar. ... The second aim installs use of minimalist concepts and assumptions as well, provides a description of a range phenomena in English phrase structure. It avoids the exuberant complex technicalities in English syntax and intends to be appropriate for people with only minimal grammatical information, and those who have already done fairly with syntax but desire to be familiar with more about simplicity. It is neither comparative in orientation, nor assume knowledge of alternative models of grammar. An important similarity in the midst of the two approaches however is that the two proponents of generative grammar focus more on meaning brought about by the sentences other than the structural organization of the sentence. As such(prenominal) it does not focus more on correctness of the grammar but the overall meaning intended in the senten ce therefore highlighting the importance of language as a tool of communication rather than structural organization of a given sentence. Radford believed that in making interrogative sentences, preceding sentences can be easy to teach and learn. An important area of contrast is that Yule (2006) violated binary branching by attempting to produce a perfect description or order of magnitude arrangements of elements in a linear structure borrowed from the original work of Noam Chomsky. On the other hand, Radford illustrates the syntax of a sentence using a tree diagram which is binary branching. It is however worth noting that Radford and Yule have used a similar approach while exploring on the rules of wh-movement in English in order to make interrogative sentences and relative sentences easier to demonstrate and learn. According to Yule, syntactic breakdown has taken rather a dissimilar approach and direction in trying to line for the types of