Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:46:06.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

R. C. Berwick & A. S. Weinberg, The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: language use and acquisition, Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press, 1984. Pp. xviii + 325.

Review products

R. C. Berwick & A. S. Weinberg, The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: language use and acquisition, Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press, 1984. Pp. xviii + 325.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

N. V. Smith
N. V. Smith
Affiliation:
University CollegeLondon.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 222 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Berwick, R. & Weinberg, A. (1982). Parsing efficiency, computational complexity, and the evaluation of grammatical theories. LIn 13. 165–191.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. & Weinberg, A. (1983). The role of grammars as components of models of language use. Cognition 13. 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. & Weinberg, A. (1985). The psychological relevance of transformational grammar: a reply to Stabler. Cognition 19. 193–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bresnan, J. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Introduction: grammars as mental representations of language. In Bresnan, J. (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. xvii–lii.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (forthcoming). Knowledge of language: its nature, origins and use.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. LIn 12. 155–184.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1982). Phrase structure grammar. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. (eds.), The nature of syntactic representation, Dordrecht: Reidel. 131–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, M. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1985). Assuming some version of the X-bar theory. SRC-85–01, Cowell College; University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Shieber, S. M. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics & philosophy 8. 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stabler, E. (1984). Berwick & Weinberg on linguistics and computational psychology. Cognition 17. 155–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during comprehension: (re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 18. 645–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar