Van Gompel gain arau generatibo-transformazionalak (2013): "... because these rules [arau transformazionalak] could not be applied until the end of the sentence, they were incompatible with experimental evidence for incrementality, ..."

Jarraitu nahi genuke komentatzen Dryer-en hemengo argudioak (non saiatuko garen gehiago mintzatzen gain kontzeptuak nola thema edo rhema) baina ez gaur, zeren, irákurriz herenegungo pasarte hau (Van Gompel, 2013:1):

However, in the early seventies, it was realised that the transformational rules formu­lated by theoretical linguists did not account for processing difficulty during sentence processing (e.g., Fodor, Bever, & Garrett, 1974). Furthermore, because these rules could not be applied until the end of the sentence, they were incompatible with experimental evidence for incrementality, that is, for the most part, language comprehenders interpret sentences word-by-word rather than delaying their interpretation until the end (Just & Carpenter, 1980; Marslen­Wilson, 1973, 1975). [Gompel, 2013:1]

gogoratu gara kin ondorengo sarrera titúlatzen:

• Eredu linguistiko generatiboa versus eredu linguistiko funtzional-diskursiboa

non justuki kritikatzen genuen eredu generatibo-transformazioanala (kin transformazioak a posteriori), zeinen ondoan kokatzen genuén eredu funtzional diskursiboa, arian arikoa. Horrá sarrera:

Genioen atzo nóla gramatika generatiboa (chomskyarra) dá...

...saiatzen deskribatzén ustezko prozedimendu generatibo sintaktiko batzuk, zeinekin, adibidez, estruktura pasibo batera heltzeko, lehenago pasatu beharko zén, haren (momentuko) generazioan, ti estruktura oinarrizkoago bat, previoa, zeini aplikatuko zitzaion arau-multzo bat, osatúz transformazio bat, edo derivazio bat. Baina, estruktura pasibo bat emateko, zergátik pasatu beharko nintzake ti estruktura aktibo bat?

Esan nahi baita ze, noiz-ere nahi dugun emán estruktura pasibo bat, gure burmuninean, previoki, generatu beharko zén estruktura aktibo bat, kin bere sujeto transitiboa eta bere osagarri zuzena, ondo definituak, afin gero gure burmuinak burutu ahal dezán transformazio estruktural bat non oinarrizko ordena aktibo hori alderantzizkatuko zen. Eta hala izanen zen aldioro noiz sortu edo generatu nahi dugun esaldi pasibo bat.

Atzo aipatutako Crystal-ek, liburu berean, dio ("The Cambridge encyclopedia of language", 1987:97):

The link between active and passive sentences, for example, could be shown - such as the horse chased the man (active) and the man was chased by the horse (passive). The kind of formulation needed to show this is:

NP1 + V + NP2 → NP2 + Aux + Ven + by + NP1

(...) If this formula were to be translated into English, four separate operations would be recognized:

(i) ...

(ii) The second noun phrase in the active sentence (NP2) is placed at the beginning of the passive sentence.

(iii) ...(iv)

This rule would generate all regular active-passive sentences.

Hortaz, esaldi pasiboaren sujetua (hots, NP2 an NP2 + Aux + Ven + by + NP1) dá lehenago sortu nola bukaerako objetua e esaldi aktibo regular bat (hots, NP2 an NP1 + V + NP2), nondik desplazatu baita afinda pasiboa derivatu dadin. Hori, sorbide itxia da, ez-diskursiboa, ez-irekia, an zentzua ze hiztunak hasieratik ere jakin eta transformatu behar du hala estruktura nola edukia e esaldia zein eman behar dun (soilik horrela burutu ahal izanen du desplazamendu hori). Bistan denez, prozedimendua (eredua) itxia da, eta ondorioz, kostutsua gana giza-garuna eta komunikatiboki ere.

Ikuspegi diskursibotik, aldiz, hiztuna sinpleki hasiko litzake kin sujeto tematiko bat, zeintaz mintzatu nahi den ("the man"). Behin hori esandakoan, hiztunak erabakiko du nóla jarraitu aukeratuz arten posibilitate teknologiko komunikatiboak zein hizkuntza bakoitzak ematen dizkion:

The man ...

The man was exhauted.

The man was chased by the horse.

The man, which was chased by the horse, entered the house when he got exhausted.

The man, exhausted, was chased by the horse.

The man became exhausted when he was chased by the horse that I like so much.

Sinpleki, hiztuna arian-arian, diskursiboki, doa hautatzen arten aukerak zein hizkuntzak ematen dizkion afinda ahalik eta hobekien adierazí bere mezua, zeinen estruktura (eta edukia bera) joango den erabakitzen arian-arian ere (jakina, aurretik ere pentsa dezake). Hiztunak thema ematen duenean, bádaki zertaz mintzo nahi duen, baina ez du zértan erabaki hasieratik zér esan behar duen eta nóla. Dá arian-ariko jarduna, zein ez datorren ti estruktura previo bat, previoki guztiz definitua, zein transformatzen den.

Antzeko norabidean doa goragoko aipua ere:

... , because these rules [arau transformazionalak] could not be applied until the end of the sentence, they were incompatible with experimental evidence for incrementality, ... [Gompel, 2013:1]

Ikus ere:

• Chomsky et al. (2019): '...this entails that the nominal is displaced from its original position...'
• Estruktura pasibo bat emateko, zergátik abiatu beharko ginake ti estruktura aktibo bat?