From the detailed discussions above，we can see that there are significant differences between Chomskyan generativism and Bloom-fieldian structuralism.One of these has to do with their attitudes towards linguistic universals.Bloomfield and his followers emphasized the structural diversity of languages.Generativists，in contrast，are more interested in what languages have in common.In this respect，generativism represents a return to the older tradition of universal grammar.

T-G Grammar，concerns itself with the native speaker's norm，i.e.，what he considers as ungrammatical or rejects as ungrammatical（the native speaker's‘competence’）rather than with the extent to which he obeys the norm，his performance；transformational generative grammar emphasizes the difference between deep and surface structure，it was believed that it can deal more effectively with structural similarities，differences，and ambiguities than structuralism and can provide better insight into language；T-G Grammar had incorporated a semantic element，and it was therefore able to meet the charge against structuralism of an excessive concern with the purely formal characteristics of a language；T-G Grammar was more interested in the native speaker's competence than his performance，the question of the phonetic manifestations of language was no longer so central；TG Grammar was emphasis on the productive or creative character of language，which had no place in structuralism and other contemporary linguistic theories；T-G Grammar，on the other hand concerned itself with the common elements—the universals underlying all natural languages.

Structuralist grammar describes a language in use in a particular community at a particular time；structuralist grammar describes the spoken language which the pupil needs as an instrument of communication；structuralist grammar sets up precise and verifiable definitions in that it is based exclusively on formal and distributional criteria；structuralist grammars present an incomplete description of the grammatical system of language；structuralist grammars attach excessive weight to grammatical fads of secondary importance（e.g.morphological or morphophonological rules）；in structuralist grammars much more than in traditional grammars，syntactic relations very often receive slight treatment；structuralist grammars only describe the surface structure of sentences，they clearly cannot adequately take account of important grammatical facts；structuralist grammars generally provide insufficient explanation to guarantee clear comprehension and correct usage，the learner is much more easily led into error；in ignoring notions of degree of grammatically and deviance，structuralist grammar does not provide an adequate descriptive instrument for error analysis and stylistic analysis；structuralist grammar does not provide satisfactory bases for contrastive analysis and translation，since in asserting the individual character of each language and in remaining at the surface structure level of utterances，it is prevented to establishing a middle level between the systems of two or more languages；structuralist grammar has been primitive as compared with traditional grammar.

From the discussions above，it can be stated that both transformational grammar and structuralist grammar that are closelyrelated with the G-T Method are worth exploring.