Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-246sw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T16:32:44.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on Chomsky on form and function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Frederick J. Newmeyer
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has become commonplace in the anti-generative literature to portray Chomsky as denying that any systematic relationship exists between linguistic form on the one hand and meaning and function on the other and, in particular, that the latter might exert any direct influence on the former. The purpose of this note is to challenge such portrayals by making reference to some of Chomsky's relevant published statements over the past three and one half decades.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 245 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.) The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–73.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. (Janua linguarum series minor 4.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). Explanatory models in linguistics. In Nagel, E., Suppes, P. & Tarski, A. (eds.) Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 528–550.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. (Janua linguarum series minor 38.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind (Enlarged edition). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1979). Language and responsibility. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. (Studies in generative grammar 9.) Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua lectures. (Current studies in linguistics 16.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1991a). Linguistics and adjacent fields: a personal view. In Kasher, (1991b), 3–25.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1991b). Linguistics and cognitive science: problems and mysteries. In Kasher, (1991b), 26–55.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1991c). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, R. (ed.) Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 417–454.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1991). Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15, 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasher, A. (1991a). Pragmatics and Chomsky's research program. In Kasher, (1991b), 122–149.Google Scholar
Kasher, A. (ed.) (1991b). The Chomskyan turn: generative linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, and psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1986). Linguistic theory in America (2nd edn.). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1972). Chomsky's revolution in linguistics. New York Review of Books, June 29th.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1985). Conditional markers. In Haiman, J. (ed.) Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar