Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:53:21.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic Models and Recent Criticism: Transformational-Generative Grammar as Literary Metaphor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Jacqueline Henkel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because the stated focus of transformational-generative grammar was on speakers' “knowledge of language,” early reader-oriented critics found this linguistic theory an attractive literary analogy. But as the generative model became a critical metaphor, both its internal, mental interests and its semantic aims were necessarily distorted to suit literary problems. The set-defining apparatus of generative grammar came to be read as a text-processing mechanism, its syntactic claims as a rudimentary theory of discourse. Yet recent critics have attacked, not the limitations of this model as revised for criticism, but the putative authoritarianism of linguistic study itself. This rhetorical strategy defines criticism against an outside field while masking the character of its own interdisciplinary efforts.

Type
Special Topic: The Politics of Critical Language
Information
PMLA , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , May 1990 , pp. 448 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1990

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

Works Cited

Black, Max. Models and Metaphors- Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT P, 1965.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, ed. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North-Holland-Elsevier, 1977.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger, 1986.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1975.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. “On the Nature of Language.” Origin and Evolution of Language. Ed. Harnad, Steven R., Steklis, Horst D., and Lancaster, Jane. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280. New York: New York Acad, of Sciences, 1976. Rpt. in Chomsky, Essays 63–77.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam “Questions of Form and Interpretation.” Linguistic Analysis 1 (1975): 75–109. Rpt. in Chomsky, Essays 25–59.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. New York: Mouton, 1957.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. Towards a New Cold War: Essays on the Current Crisis and How We Got There. New York: Pantheon, 1982.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1982.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1975.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. “Towards a Linguistics of Writing.” Fabb et al. 173–84.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. “Ergativity.” Language 55 (1979): 80–96.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel, and Durant, Alan. “Introduction: The Linguistics of Writing: Retrospect and Prospect after Twenty-Five Years.” Fabb et al. 1–14.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel, and Durant, Alan. “Ten Years On in the Linguistics of Writing.” Prose Studies 10.1 (1987): 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel, et al., eds. The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature. New York: Methuen; Oxford: Manchester UP, 1987.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. “Anti-foundationalism, Theory Hope, and the Teaching of Composition.” The Current in Criticism: Essays on the Present and Future of Literary Theory. Ed. Koelb, Clayton and Lokke, Virgil. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1987. 65–79.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. “Consequences.” Critical Inquiry 11 (1985): 433–58. Rpt. in Mitchell, Against Theory 106–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen, 1977.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Henkel, Jacqueline. “A Comment on ‘Deconstruction and Linguistic Analysis.‘” College English 50 (1988): 454–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henkel, Jacqueline. “Speech-Act Theory Revisited: Rule Notions and Reader-Oriented Criticism.” Poetics 17 (1988): 505–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, Edward S., and Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon, 1988.Google Scholar
Hitchens, Christopher. “The Chorus and Cassandra: What Everyone Knows about Noam Chomsky.” Grand Street 5.1 (1985): 106–31.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. “Discourse Analysis: Grammar and Critical Theory in the 1980s.” Profession 88. New York: MLA, 1988. 18–24.Google Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J.Language and Other Abstract Objects. Totowa: Rowman, 1981.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Fodor, Jerry. “The Structure of a Semantic Theory.” Language 39 (1963): 170–210. Rpt. in The Structure of Language. Ed. Jerry, A. Fodor and Jerrold Katz. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1964. 479–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Paul, M. Postal. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge: MIT P, 1964.Google Scholar
Lanser, Susan Sniader. The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. Noam Chomsky. New York: Viking, 1970.Google Scholar
MacCabe, Colin. “Language, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature.” Theoretical Essays: Film, Linguistics, Literature. Oxford: Manchester UP, 1985. 113–30. Rpt. in Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. Ed. Lodge, David. New York: Longman, 1988. 432–44.Google Scholar
MacCabe, Colin. “Opening Statement: Theory and Practice.” Fabb et al. 286–306.Google Scholar
Mailloux, Steven. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1982.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. Rev. of Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, by Noam Chomsky. Language 64 (1988): 355–65.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.J.T., ed. Against Theory: Literary Studies and the New Pragmatism. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1985.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.J.T., ed. “Introduction: Pragmatic Theory.” Mitchell, Against Theory 1–10.Google Scholar
Morson, Gary Saul, ed. Bakhtin: Essays and Dialogues on His Work. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986.Google Scholar
Morson, Gary Saul, ed. “Who Speaks for Bakhtin?” Critical Inquiry 10 (1983): 225–43. Rpt. in Morson, Bakhtin 1–19.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Its Possibilities. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. Linguistic Theory in America: The First Quarter-Century of Transformational Generative Grammar. New York: Academic, 1980.Google Scholar
Norris, Christopher. “Theory of Language and the Language of Literature.” Journal of Literary Semantics 7.2 (1978): 91–98.Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary Louise. “The Ideology of Speech-Act Theory.” Centrum ns 1.1 (1981): 5–18. Rev. as “Ideology and Speech-Act Theory.” Poetics Today 7 (1986): 59–72.Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary Louise. “Interpretive Strategies/Strategic Interpretations: On Anglo-American Reader-Response Criticism.” Boundary 2 11 (1982–83): 201–31.Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary Louise. “Linguistic Utopias.” Fabb et al. 48–66.Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary Louise. Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1977.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van, and Williams, Edwin. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: MIT P, 1986.Google Scholar
Schauber, Ellen, and Spolsky, Ellen. The Bounds of Interpretation: Linguistic Theory and Literary Text. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1986.Google Scholar
Schleifer, Ronald. “Deconstruction and Linguistic Analysis.” College English 49 (1987): 381–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleifer, Ronald. “Ronald Schleifer Responds.” College English 51 (1989): 331–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. “Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics.” New York Review of Books 29 June 1972:16–24. Rpt. in On Noam Chomsky: Critical Essays. Ed. Harman, Gilbert. Garden City: Anchor-Doubleday, 1974. 2–33.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. “An Exchange on Deconstruction.”New YorkReview of Books 2 Feb. 1984: 48–49.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. London: Cambridge UP, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge UP, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. “The Word Turned Upside Down.” Rev. of On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, by Jonathan Culler. New York Review of Books 27 Oct. 1983: 74–79.Google Scholar
Stewart, Susan. “Shouts on the Street: Bakhtin's Antilinguistics.” Critical Inquiry 10 (1983): 265–81. Rpt. in Morson, Bakhtin 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar