Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:53:49.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Lyons' ‘Introduction to theoretical linguistics’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

W. Haas
W. Haas
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University of Manchester
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
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1973 , pp. 71 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Ajdukiewicz, K. (1935). Die Syntaktische Konnexität. Studia Philosophica (Warszawa) I. 1–28.Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J. (1970). Intuitions in linguistic theory. Actes du Xe Congrès International des Linguistes. Editions de l'academie de la République Socialiste de Roumanie, Bucarest.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1968). Nouns and noun phrases. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1964). On categorial and phrase structure grammars. In Bar-Hillel, Y.Language and information. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1964). Three misconceptions of grammaticalness. Georgetown University, Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 17. 3–9.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1968). Judgments of grammaticality. Lingua 21. 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1969). Categories, features, attributes. Brno Studies in English, Vol. 8, 37–41. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the theory of Generative Grammar. In Sebeok, T. E. (ed.) Current trends in linguistics, vol. 3. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, & Jakobovits, (eds.) Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1951). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. LI I. 4.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. (1952). The structure of English: an introduction to the construction of English sentences. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Haas, W. (1954). On defining linguistic units. TPhS. 54–84.Google Scholar
Haas, W. (1956). Proc. VII Int. Cong. Linguistics, 1952, London. 25 f; 241–43.Google Scholar
Haas, W. (1960). Linguistic structures. Word 16. 251–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, W. (1966). Linguistic relevance. In Bazell, C. E. et al. , (eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth, London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Haas, W. (1972). What is surface structure? In Proceedings XIth International Congress of Linguists.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17. 241–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New horizons in lingnistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1957). Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Lg 33. 283–340.Google Scholar
Hays, D. G. (1964). Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Lg 40. 511–25.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1943). Prolegomena to a theory of language, tr. Whitfield, F. J.Bloomington: Indiana University, 1953.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1955). A manual of phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1968). The state of the art. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1964). Semi-sentences. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.) The structure of language; readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1965). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1967). Language and its structure: some fundamental linguistic concepts. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Lejewski, C. (1965). Parts of speech. Suppl. Proc. Aristotelian Soc., 39. 189–204.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1970). Generative syntax. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New horizons in lingtiistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1967). Review of Aspects of the theory of syntax. JL 3. 119–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. P. (1968). The role of semantics in a grammar. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1969). A synopsis of English syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1965). A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of human behaviour. (Janua Linguarum Series Maior, 24). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. (1964). Constituent structure: a study of contemporary models of syntactic descriptions. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1970). Grammar and philosophy. Suppl. Proc. Aristotelian Soc. 44. 1–20.Google Scholar
Wells, R. S. (1947). Immediate constituents. Lg 23. 81–117.Google Scholar