Where does grammar collide?

The internal system of rules and principles in a speaker's mind that lets them produce and understand an unlimited number of sentences. In Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), a grammar is the knowledge a native speaker has of their language, a finite system that generates the infinite set of well-formed sentences. This knowledge is largely unconscious, and Chomsky argues it grows from an innate capacity shared by all humans. The thing being named here is a cognitive system inside a person, studied by asking which sentences speakers accept as natural, not a set of rules printed in a style guide or a device for parsing code.[1]

Unit

A speaker's internal rule system for generating sentences

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Probed through native-speaker judgments of which sentences sound well-formed

In computer science and mathematics, a grammar is a precise set of rewriting rules that generates all and only the strings of a formal language. In Chomsky's Three Models for the Description of Language (1956), grammars are ranked by the power of their rules, a scheme now called the Chomsky hierarchy, running from regular through context-free and beyond. Each rule replaces one string of symbols with another, and starting from a start symbol and applying rules produces the sentences the grammar defines. These grammars drive parsers and compilers, and the thing being named is a formal mechanism over symbols, with no claim about anyone's mind.[2]

Unit

A set of production rules that generate the strings of a language

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Assessed by which strings the rules can and cannot generate, and by the grammar's place in the hierarchy

In schools and style guides, grammar is the body of rules that mark speech and writing as correct or incorrect, such as not splitting an infinitive or not ending a sentence with a preposition. Pinker's The Language Instinct (1994) draws a sharp line between this prescriptive grammar and the descriptive grammar of linguists: the first says how people ought to write, while the second records how they actually speak. Many prescriptive rules, Pinker argues, are conventions of a prestige dialect rather than facts about the language. The thing being named here is a social standard of good usage, taught and enforced, not a mental system or a formal mechanism.[3]

Unit

A standard of correct usage taught as right or wrong

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Set by usage authorities and style guides, and judged against a prestige standard rather than by what speakers actually do

Outside language, grammar is borrowed as a metaphor for the regularities that govern any rule-based system, such as images, layouts, or ornament. Kress and van Leeuwen's Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2006) proposes that pictures have their own grammar, in which the placement, size, and framing of elements carry meaning much as syntax does in a sentence. Here grammar names the patterned ways that parts combine into a meaningful whole, applied to a domain that is not spoken language. The thing being named is an analogy: a set of conventions treated as if it were the syntax of a visual or design language.[4]

Unit

A borrowed name for the combining rules of a non-verbal system

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Described by analysts who read recurring patterns in how visual elements are arranged and combined