Revisiting the Origin Transformational Generative Grammar by Noum Chonsky 
- Claims of Transformational Generative Grammar
- T. G. is the only linguistic theory that recognizes the ability of the native speakers to produce infinite grammatically correct and acceptable in the language. This is because it is a theory of the language which recognizes the internalized grammar in the native speakers and when one talks about
- T.G. is the only grammar that recognizes deviance. Deviances does not necessarily mean logic or lack of it but what is not acceptable to native speakers of the language for example: ‘colourless green idea flew out of the window’.
- T. G. is the only one that has the ability to recognize grammatical relations e.g in the two sentences:
(i) I asked Chike what to do​I do it

(ii) I told Chike what to do​Chike does it 

The subject of the non-finite verb to do in the first sentence is I, while in the second sentences Chike or he does the thing

Example II: I persuaded him to eat ​He eats 

​I promised him to eat​I eat

In the first sentence, the subject of the non-finite verb or infinitive verb to eat is he in the deep structure while in the second sentence, the subject of the infinite is I in the deep structure.

- TG is the only grammar to recognize ambiguity e.g His son has grown another foot means (i) His son now has three feet or the child added one foot to his height.
- TG is the only grammar that recognizes lack of parallelism in a sentence e.g Abola enjoyed at the party

Abalu enjoyed himself at the party. There is no parallelism in No I because ‘enjoy’ is obligatorily transitive and must therefore given an object.

Examples II: This will enable him do it

​This will enable him to do it

Enable takes a full infinite and therefore must go with infinitival marker ‘to’