Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T17:51:34.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The anthropomorphosis of syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

J. Raymond Reid
J. Raymond Reid*
Affiliation:
University of Victoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper comprises some of the reactions of a psycholinguist to a book which has already attracted considerable critical attention: D. T. Langendoen’s The Study of Syntax: the Generative-Transformational Approach to the Structure of American English. These views are not essentially at variance with the theoretical and pedagogical criticisms of Sampson (1970), Householder (1971), or Chambers (1971), but rather complement and supplement them. The questions raised here are of a somewhat more fundamental nature in the context of linguistic inquiry, having to do with certain assumptions most formal linguists take for granted – assumptions concerning the validity of introspective data and the formalizability of presuppositions. In a sense, the present critique is a general indictment of some current trends in linguistics, but The Study of Syntax, in its eclectic attempt to epitomize them all, invites the brunt of the criticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Spring 1974 , pp. 18 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1974

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

Bach, Emmon 1968 Nouns and noun phrases. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pp. 91–122.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1971 A paraplasm of English grammars. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 16:2.113–38.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1959 Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35.26–58.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Derwino, Bruce L. 1973 Transformational Grammar as a Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. and Garrett, M. 1966 Some reflections on competence and performance. In Lyons, John and Wales, R. J. (eds.), Psycholinguistics Papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pp. 135–79.Google Scholar
Harris, Peter R. 1970 On the interpretation of generative grammars. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1971 Review of D. T. Langendoen’s The Study of Syntax. Language 47.453–65.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. and Fodor, Jerry A. 1964 The structure of a semantic theory. In Fodor, Jerry A. and Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 479–518.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence 1969 The Study of Syntax; the Generative-Transformational Approach to the Structure of American English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1968 Some assumptions in the metatheory of linguistics. Linguistics 39.87–102.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 1970 Review of D. T. Langendoen’s The Study of Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 6.267–77.Google Scholar
Stuart, C. I. J. M. 1969 On the empirical foundations of linguistic description. Actes du Xe congrès international de linguistes (Bucharest, 1967) 1.393–99.Google Scholar
Stuart, C. I. J. M. 1972 On analytical and natural linguistics. Presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Montreal.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1970 The free-ride principle and two rules of complete assimilation in English. Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 579–88.Google Scholar