Criticism
Linguist Noam Chomskymaintained that structural linguistics was efficient for phonology and
morphology, because both have a finite number of units that the linguist can
collect. However, he did not believe structural linguistics was sufficient for
syntax, reasoning that an infinite number of sentences could be uttered,
rendering a complete collection impossible. Instead, he proposed the job of the
linguist was to create a small set of rules that could generate all the
sentences of a language, and nothing but those sentences. Chomsky s critiques
led him to found generative grammar.
One of Chomsky s key objection to structural linguistics was its
inadequacy in explaining complex and/or ambiguous sentences. As philosopher John R. Searle writes:
..."John is easy to please" and "John is eager to please"
look as if they had exactly the same grammatical structure. Each is a sequence
of noun-copula-adjective-infinitive verb. But in spite of this surface
similarity the grammar of the two is quite different. In the first sentence,
though it is not apparent from the surface word order, "John"
functions as the direct object of the verb to please; the sentence means: it is
easy for someone to please John. Whereas in the second "John"
functions as the subject of the verb to please; the sentence means: John is eager
that he please someone. That this is a difference in the syntax of the
sentences comes out clearly in the fact that English allows us to form the noun
phrase "John s eagerness to please" out of the second, but not
"John s easiness to please" out of the first. There is no easy or
natural way to account for these facts within structuralist assumptions.