Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:04:23.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which syntax: A consumer's guide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

J. C. Marshall  and
R. C. Wales
J. C. Marshall
Affiliation:
M.R.C. Psycholinguistics Unit, Institute of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford1
R. C. Wales
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The present paper is a critique of Halliday's ‘Syntax an;’, the consumer' (1964).2 As avid consumers of linguistic theory (our interest stemming from; a very general concern with the psychology of language) we are naturally delighted that Halliday has our welfare at heart. He states that a theory of competence should not be regarded as the terminal point of syntactic study, but that ‘the explanation of linguistic performance’ and ‘the description of language for the purpose of various specific applications’ are important and reasonable goals. With this attitude we enthusiastically concur. Halliday outlines his basic point of departure with the following question (1964: 11–12): ‘Language may be described for a wide range of purposes, or, if that is begging the question I want to ask, there is a wide range of purposes for which a description of language may be used. The question is: do these various aims presuppose different ways of using the same description, or are they best served by descriptions of different kinds? Is there one single “best description” of a language, or are there various possible “best descriptions” according to the purpose in view?’

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , October 1966 , pp. 181 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T., Fodor, J., & Weksel, W. (1965). On the acquisition of syntax: a critique of ‘contextual generalization’. Psychological Review 72. 467–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellugi, U. & Brown, R. (eds.) (1964). The Acquisition of Syntax. (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 29, No. 1.) Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). Explanatory models in linguistics. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (eds. Nagel, E., Suppes, P. & Tarski, A.). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Miller, G. A. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2 (eds. Luce, R., Bush, R. & Galanter, E.). New York: Wiley. 260–321.Google Scholar
Clowes, M. (1966). Perception, picture processing and computers. Machine Intelligence 65 (ed. Michie, D.). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1965). Explanations in Psychology. Philosophy in America (ed. Black, M.London: Allen & Unwin. 161–79.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17. 241–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1964). Syntax and the consumer. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, 17 (ed. Stuart, C. I. J. M.). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., Mclntosh, A. & Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Fodor, J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Lg. 39. 170–210.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Postal, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kirsch, R. A. (1964). Computer interpretation of English text and Picture patterns. I.E.E.E. Transactions on Electronic Computers, Vol.EC–13, No.4. 363–76.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E., Nichols, I. & Rosenberger, E. (1964). Primitive stages of language development in mongolism. Disorders of Communication (Research Publications, Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol.42). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. 119–37.Google ScholarPubMed
Marshall, J. C. & Newcombe, F. (1966). Syntactic and semantic errors in paralexia. Neuropsychologia 4. 160–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1965). Developmental psycholinguistics. (Paper presented to the conference on language development in children, Old Point Comfort, Va., 25–28 April.)Google Scholar
Mehler, J. (1963). Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 2. 346–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language-users. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol.2, (eds. Luce, R., Bush, R. & Galanter, E.). New York: Wiley. 419–91.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Isard, S. (1963). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2. 217–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, J. (1964). A model for continuous language behaviour. Language and Speech, 7. 40–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmann, R. (1964). Generative grammars and the concept of literary style. Word 20. 423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. (1964). Constituent Structure. (Publication 30 of the Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.) IJAL 30. 1. Part 3.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. (1966). Sentence Structure and the Reading Process. ‘s-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. (1965 a). Stylistics and generative grammars. Journal of Linguistics 1. 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, J. P. (1965 b). Review of Postal (1964). Journal of Linguistics 1. 73–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wales, R. J. & Marshall, J. C. (1966). The organization of linguistic performance. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. J. (eds.), Papers in Psycholinguistics. (Proceedings of the Edinburgh Conference, March 1966.) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 29–80.Google Scholar