No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Did a (Kuhnian) Scientific Revolution Occur in Linguistics?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2022
Extract
It has become commonplace to claim that a scientific revolution has taken place in linguistics as a result of Noam Chomsky's contributions to the theories of syntax, linguistic metatheory and the philosophy of mind. Although the label ‘revolutionary’ was applied to these developments almost from the start (cf., [19], p. 375), the cliche has also been encouraged by the appearance of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the early sixties at about the same time that the theory of transformational-generative grammar (hereafter abbreviated TG) was consolidating its position as the dominant school of linguistics and attracting the attention of the wider intellectual and scientific community. Because of this coincidence of currency, it was perhaps inevitable that many of those who were aware of the developments which had been taking place in linguistics would find themselves reading Chomsky's revolution into the pages of Kuhn's book.
- Type
- Part I. Philosophy of Social Science
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1976 by the Philosophy of Science Association
References
Chomsky, N. “A Transformational Approach to Syntax.” In Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on the Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English (1958). Edited by Hill, A.A.. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., 1968. Enlarged edition 1972.Google Scholar
Derwing, B.L. Transformational Grammar as a Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: The University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Fillenbaum, S. “Psycholinguistics.” Annual Review of Psychology 22 (1971): 251-308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. “The Case for Case.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory. Edited by Bach, E. and Harms, R.. Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, 1968, Pages 1-90.Google Scholar
Harris, Z.S. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.Google Scholar
Hockett, C.F. “Two Models of Grammatical Description.” Word 10 (1954): 210-231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J.J. and Postal, P.M. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Katz, J.J. and Bever, T.G. “The Fall and Rise of Empiricism.” To appear in An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. Edited by Bever, T.G., Katz, J.J. and Langendoen, D.T.. New York: T.Y. Crowell, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. (Second Edition, enlarged 1970. Page references to the latter.).Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. “Second Thoughts on Paradigms.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories. Edited by Suppe, F.. Urbana, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1974. Pages 459-482.Google Scholar
Lamb, S.M. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Lees, R.B. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington, Ind.: Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics, 1960.Google Scholar
Masterman, M. “The Nature of a Paradigm.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.. Cambridge: The University Press, 1970. Pages 59-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Baskin, W.. New York: The Philosophical Library, 1959.Google Scholar
Searle, J. “Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics.” New York Review of Books, June 29 (1972). Reprinted in On Noam Chomsky. Edited by Harman, G.. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1974. (Page reference to the latter.)Google Scholar