Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T16:27:41.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rigid strings and flaky snowflakes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

GEOFFREY SAMPSON*
Affiliation:
University of South Africa
*
*Address for correspondence: tsampsgr@unisa.ac.za.

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

references

Aarsleff, Hans (1970). The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky. Language, 46, 570585.Google Scholar
Annan, Noel (1999). The dons: mentors, eccentrics and geniuses. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: a life of dissent. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, Robert D. (Ed.) (1994). Biblical Hebrew and discourse linguistics. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., & Chomsky, Noam (2011). The biolinguistic program: the current state of its development. In Maria di Sciullo, Anna & Boeckx, Cedric (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise (pp. 1941). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [My quotation is taken from an online prepublication version of the chapter.]Google Scholar
Calvet, Louis-Jean (1998). Language wars and linguistic politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control, 1, 91–112. Reprinted in Luce et al. (1965), vol. 2, pp. 125155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1963). Formal properties of grammars. In Duncan Luce, R., Bush, Robert R., & Galanter, Eugene (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 323418). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1966). Cartesian linguistics: a chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1972). Problems of knowledge and freedom. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1976). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1991). Linguistics and cognitive science: problems and mysteries. In Kasher, Asa (Ed.), The Chomskyan turn (pp. 2653). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 122.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2007). Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, 927.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2009a). The mysteries of Nature: how deeply hidden? Journal of Philosophy, 106, 167200.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2009b). Noam Chomsky on language’s great mysteries. Interview on video at <bigthink.com/videos/noam-chomsky-on-languages-great-mysteries> (recorded 18 August 2009, last accessed 17 February 2015).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, & Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (1967). The algebraic theory of context-free languages. In Braffort, P. & Hirschberg, D. (Eds.), Computer programming and formal systems (pp. 118161). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Cohn, Werner (1988). The hidden alliances of Noam Chomsky. New York: Americans for a Safe Israel.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. (1999). Minimalist architectures. Journal of Linguistics, 35, 137150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy (2000). Syntactic change in Akkadian: the evolution of sentential complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, & Levinson, Stephen C. (2009). The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429448.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul (1975). Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert (2006). Review of Seuren, Chomsky’s Minimalism. Mind, 115, 469472.Google Scholar
Fischer, Klaus (1992). Die Wissenschaftstheorie Galileis – oder: Contra Feyerabend. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 23, 165197.Google Scholar
Gil, David (2001). Escaping Eurocentrism: fieldwork as a process of unlearning. In Newman, Paul & Ratliff, Martha (Eds.), Linguistic fieldwork (pp. 102132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J., & Norenzayan, Ara (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 6183.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane (2007). Obituary: William Oliver Bright. Language, 83, 628641.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, John E., & Ullman, Jeffrey D. (1969). Formal languages and their relation to automata. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kennard, Matt (2013). BB interviews … Noam Chomsky. Beyond BRICS 15 February 2013, online: <blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/02/15/bb-interviews-noam-chomsky/> (last accessed 24 February 2015).Google Scholar
Kornai, András, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1990). The X-bar theory of phrase structure. Language, 66, 2450.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., & Galanter, Eugene (Eds.) (1965). Readings in mathematical psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1991). Chomsky, 3rd ed. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter K. (1973). Feyerabend and Galileo: the interaction of theories, and the reinterpretation of experience. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 4, 146.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo (Ed.) (1980). Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (2003). “(Virtually) conceptually necessary”. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 599620. [A revised version is in Postal, Skeptical linguistic essays (pp. 323–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.]Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (2014). Chomsky’s methodological fakery. Lingbuzz, January 2014, online: <ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002006> (last accessed 3 February 2015).Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey (2011). On the mathematical foundations of Syntactic Structures . Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 20, 277296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, W. D. (1981). Chomsky and the neo-Nazis. Quadrant, October 1981, 814.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey (1979). What was Transformational Grammar? (Review article on Chomsky 1975.) Lingua, 48, 355378. [A version is reprinted in Sampson, Empirical linguistics (pp. 141–64). London: Continuum, 2001.]Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey (1980). Making sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey (2002). Exploring the richness of the stimulus. In Ritter, Nancy A. (Ed.), A review of the poverty of stimulus argument (a special issue of The Linguistic Review, 19(1/2)), 73104.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey (2005). The “language instinct” debate, rev. ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, & Babarczy, Anna (2014). Grammar without grammaticality. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (1963). On context-free languages and push-down automata. Information and Control, 6, 246264. [Reprinted in Luce et al. (1965), vol. 2, pp. 204–222.]Google Scholar
Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (1996). Les failles du Darwinisme. La Recherche, 283, 8790.Google Scholar
Schweizer, Peter (2005). Do as I say (not as I do). New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Smith, Neil (1999). Chomsky: ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John (2012). The mental corpus: how language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar