Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T20:43:48.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redefining what matters: Syntactic explanation in American linguistics, 1955-1970

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Janet Martin-Nielsen
Janet Martin-Nielsen*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The postwar decades are well known for having brought dramatic change to American linguistics on many fronts. This paper explores an internally focused aspect of this change: conditions of explanation. The two questions at stake are, firstly, what counts as explanation in linguistics? and, secondly, how is this decided? I argue that transformational grammarians dominated the setting of explanatory criteria in 1960s American syntax, and that this dominance was essential to the overall success of that theory. Importantly, rival grammarians were forced to devote as much time and effort to fitting their theories to the transformational criteria as they were to advancing their own explanatory priorities. By successfully naming the conditions for explanation, transformationalists provided their own supporters with significant questions to pursue and, simultaneously, drew energy away from rivals. This monopoly over explanatory criteria was central to the dominant position transformational grammar established in the American academic linguistics community.

Résumé

Résumé

Les décennies de l’après-guerre ont été caractérisées par des changements importants dans la linguistique américaine. Cet article explore un aspect interne de ces changements : les conditions d’explication. Deux questions sont enjeu ici : premièrement, en quoi consiste l’explication en linguistique? et en deuxième lieu : Comment décide-t-on en quoi consiste l’explication? Je soutiens que les grammairiens transformationnels ont imposé le choix des critères d’explication de la syntaxe américaine au cours des années 1960 et que cette domination était essentielle au succès global de la grammaire transformationnelle. Les grammairiens rivaux ont dû consacrer autant de temps et d’effort à adapter leurs théories aux critères transformationnels qu’à avancer leur propres priorités d’explication. En réussissant à définir les critères d’explication, les transformationalistes ont nourri leur propres partisans de questions importantes à poursuivre en même temps qu’ils ont drainé les énergies de leurs rivaux. Ce monopole des critères d’explication était central à la position dominante que la grammaire transformationelle a établie dans la communauté linguistique universitaire américaine.

Keywords

syntaxexplanationtransformational grammarhistorytheory debatessyntaxeexplicationgrammaire transformationnellehistoiredébats de théories
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 331 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algeo, John. 1969a. Linguistics: Where do we go from here? The English Journal 58:102–112.Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 1969b. Stratiflcational grammar. Journal of English Linguistics 3:1–7.Google Scholar
Allen, Robert L. 1966. Written English is a ‘second language’. The English Journal 55:739–746.Google Scholar
Austin, William M. 1967. Logicalism and formalism in linguistics. In Papers in linguistics in honor of Leon Dostert, ed. Austin, William M., 15–22. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1964. An introduction to transformational grammars. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1971. Syntax since Aspects. In Report of the twenty-second annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. O’Brien, Richard J., 1–17. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, M.A.R. 1964. Klamath grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G., Katz, Jerrold J., and Langendoen, D. Terence, ed. 1976. An integrated theory of linguistic ability. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Biligiri, H.S. 1959. Kannada verb: Two models. Indian Linguistics 2:66–89.Google Scholar
Borgida, Alexander T. 1977. Formal aspects of stratiflcational theory. In Fourth LACUS Forum, ed. Paradis, Michael, 391–399. South Carolina: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert. 1996. Modern phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1968. Review of Sydney M. Lamb’s Outline of stratiflcational grammar. Language 44:593–603.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2:113–124.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1962. A transformational approach to syntax. In Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, 9-12 May 1958, ed. Hill, Archibald, 124–158. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Formal properties of grammars. In Handbook of mathematical psychology, ed. Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 323–418. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Topics in the theory of generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2002. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. [1957.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Miller, George A.. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Handbook of mathematical psychology, ed. Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 269–321. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cooper, William S. 1974. Set theory and syntactic description. The Hague: Mouton. [1964.]Google Scholar
Di Pietro, Robert J. 1973. New vistas in a post-transformational era. In Some new directions in linguistics, ed. Shuy, Roger W., 35–49. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1963. Review of Roman Jakobson’s (ed.) Structure of language and its mathematical aspects. International Journal of American Linguistics 29:174–178.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1972. Syntactic retrieval: A first approximation to operational machine translation. In On machine translation (selected papers), ed. Garvin, Paul L., 83–89. The Hague: Mouton. [1960.]Google Scholar
Gleason, H.A. 1964. The organization of language: A stratificational view. In Report of the fifteenth annual (first international) Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, 1964, ed. Stuart, C.I.J.M., 75–95. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Gleason, H.A. 1988. Theories in conflict: North American linguistics in the fifties and sixties (a memoir). Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. 1987. Review of Charles F. Hockett’s The state of the art. In Linguistics and pseudo-linguistics: Selected essays, 1965-1985, ed. Hall, Robert A., 58–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [1974.]Google Scholar
Hammel, E.A., ed. 1965. Formal semantic analysis. American Anthropologist 67 (5), part 2:1–316.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric P., Dallaire, Raimonde, Gage, William W., Garvin, Paul L., and Postal, Paul M.. 1962. The transformation theory: advantages and disadvantages (Panel I). In Report of the thirteenth annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study, 1962, ed. Woodworth, Elisabeth D. and Pietro, Robert J. Di, 2–50. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert H. 1963. Generative grammars without transformation rules: A defense of phrase structure. Language 39:597–616.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert H. and Yngve, Victor H.. 1963. Generative grammars without transformational rules. Quarterly Progress Report (Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 68.Google Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen. 1993a. Generative semantics: Secret handshakes, anarchy notes, and the implosion of ethos. Rhetoric Review 12:125–159.Google Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen. 1993b. The linguistics wars. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1964. Transformations in linguistic structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 108:418–422.Google Scholar
Hayes, Curtis W. 1967. Syntax: Some present-day concepts. The English Journal 56:89–96.Google Scholar
Hill, Archibald A. 1962. Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English (9-12 May 1958). Austin: University of Texas. [1958.]Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1961. Linguistic elements and their relations. Language 37:29–53.Google Scholar
Howren, Robert. 1967. The generation of Old English weak verbs. Language 43:674–685.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey J. and Goldsmith, John A.. 1998. On comparing linguistic theories: Further notes on the generative semantics/interpretive semantics debate in American linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica 25:345–372.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1964. Mentalism in linguistics. Language 40:124–137.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. and Bever, Thomas G.. 1976. The rise and fall of empiricism. In An integrated theory of linguistic ability, ed. Bever, Thomas G., Katz, Jerrold J., and Langendoen, D. Terence, 11–64. New York: Crowell, Thomas Y..Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1989. The way we were; or; the real actual truth about generative semantics: A memoir. Journal of Pragmatics 13:939–988.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1962a. On the mechanization of syntactic analysis. In 1961 International Conference on Machine Translation of Languages and Applied Language Analysis, 673–684. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1962b. Outline of stratificational grammar. Berkeley: Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC).Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1964. The sememic approach to structural semantics. American Anthropologist 66:57–78.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1965. The nature of the machine translation problem. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4:196–210.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1967. Review of Noam Chomsky’s Current issues in linguistic theory and Aspects of the theory of syntax. American Anthropologist 69:411–415.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1973. Kinship terminology and linguistic structure. In Readings in stratificational linguistics, ed. Makkai, Adam and Lockwood, David G., 229–257. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. [1965.]Google Scholar
Landar, Herbert. 1967. Syntactic patterns in Navaho and Huichol. International Journal of American Linguistics 33:121–127.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1957. Review of Noam Chomsky, Syntactic structures. Language 33:375–408.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1968. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University. [1963.]Google Scholar
Lockwood, David G. 1972. Introduction to stratificational linguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd. 1964a. A formal account of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies. In Explorations in cultural anthropology: Essays in honor of George Peter Murdock. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd. 1964b. The structural analysis of kinship semantics. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. Lund, Horace, 1073–1093. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G., ed. 1964. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (Cambridge, MA, August 27-31 1962). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Makkai, Adam. 1975. Stratificational solutions to unbridgeable gaps in the transformational-generative paradigm: Translation, idiomaticity, and multiple coding. In The transformational-generative paradigm and modern linguistic theory, ed. Koerner, Konrad, 37–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Makkai, Adam and Lockwood, David G., ed. 1973. Readings in stratificational linguistics. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Manaster-Ramer, Alexis, and Kac, Michael B.. 1990. The concept of phrase structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 13:325–362.Google Scholar
Martin-Nielsen, Janet, 2009. Private knowledge, public tension: Theory commitment in postwar American linguistics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Matthews, P.H. 1993. Grammatical theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1976. Review of Thomas A. Sebeok’s (ed.) Current trends in linguistics, Vol. 3: Theoretical foundations. In Grammar and meaning: Papers on syntactic and semantic topics, 167–205. New York: Academic Press. [1968.]Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1980. Introduction: On syntactic approaches. In Current approaches to syntax, ed. Moravcsik, Edith A. and Wirth, Jessica R., 1–18. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Stephen O. 1993. Theory groups and the study of language in North America: A social history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1980. Linguistic theory in America: The first quarter-century of transformational generative grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. The politics of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Richard J., ed. 1971. Report of the twenty-second annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Parret, Herman. 1974a. Interview with Sydney M. Lamb (conducted in New Haven, CT, on 6 November 1972). In Discussing language: Dialogues with Wallace L. Chafe, Noam Chomsky, Algirdas J. Greimas, M.A.K. Halliday, Peter Hartmann, George Lakoff, Sydney M. Lamb, Andre Martinet, James McCawley, Sebastian K. Saumjan, and Jacques Bouveresse, 179–219. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Parret, Herman. 1974b. Interview with Wallace L. Chafe (conducted in Berkeley, California, on 11 October 1972). In Discussing language: Dialogues with Wallace L. Chafe, Noam Chomsky, Algirdas J. Greimas, M.A.K. Halliday, Peter Hartmann, George Lakoff, Sydney M. Lamb, Andre Martinet, James McCawley, Sebastian K. Saumjan, and Jacques Bouveresse, 1–25. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley and Ritchie, Robert W.. 1971. On restricting the base component of transformational grammars. Information and Control 5:483–501.Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley and Ritchie, Robert W.. 1973. On the generative power of transformational grammars. Information Sciences 6:49–83.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1962. On the limitations of context-free phrase-structure description. Research Laboratory of Electronics (Quarterly Progress Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 64: 231–237.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1964. Limitations of phrase structure grammars. In The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, ed. Fodor, Jerry A. and Katz, Jerrold J., 137–151. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1967. Constituent structure: A study of contemporary models of syntactic description. Bloomington: Indiana University. [1964.]Google Scholar
Reich, Peter A. 1970. Relational networks. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 15:95–110.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1970. Stratificational grammar: A definition and example. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Shipley, William F. 1964. Maidu grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1963. The transformational model of generative or predictive grammar. In Natural language and the computer, ed. Garvin, Paul L., 23–46. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Street, John C. 1969. Methodology in immediate constituent analysis. In Approaches in linguistics methodology, ed. Rauch, Irmengard and Scott, Charles T., 89–114. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, William J. 1976. Toward a logical definition of linguistic theory. In Third LACUS Forum, ed. Blunsitt, Edward L. and Pietro, Robert J. Di, 393–403. South Carolina: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, William J. 1980. Syntax and linguistic semantics in stratificational theory. In Current approaches to syntax, ed. Moravcsik, Edith A. and Wirth, Jessica R., 301–328. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. 1965. Nuclear models in Vietnamese immediate-constituent analysis. Language 41:610–618.Google Scholar
Tosh, Wayne. 1965. Syntactic translation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Waterman, John T. 1970. Perspectives in linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [1963.]Google Scholar