Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Generative structuralism1

Generative structuralism1 Abstract According to the ‘official’ transformationalist view, generative grammar represents a radical break with the established tradition of stuctural linguistics. This claim, reiterated many times by Chomsky and his followers, persists despite occasional mild disclaimers by Chomsky himself, who now concedes that his interpretation of ‘structural linguistics’ may have been somewhat too narrow (cf. e.g. Chomsky 1968:19 and 1979:76–7). While there is some thruth to the claim, especially on this narrow interpretation, it appears to be vastly exaggerated on the whole. This has not gone unnoticed, and there are numerous references in the literature -by authors of diverse interests and persuasions -pointing out that generative grammar should properly be regarded as an offshoot of, rather than a departure from, structural linguistics. Some of these references will be given below; for the moment they may be exemplified by Anttila (1974:278), who notes that transformationalism, far from being a revolution, was a natural further development of structuralism, and by Bolinger (1976:238), who aptly characterizes generative grammar as a ‘reluctant but nevertheless legitimate heir’ of structural linguistics. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Taylor & Francis

Generative structuralism1

Bugarski, Ranko
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International , Volume 17 (1): 12 – Jan 1, 1982
Download PDF

Generative structuralism1

Abstract

Abstract According to the ‘official’ transformationalist view, generative grammar represents a radical break with the established tradition of stuctural linguistics. This claim, reiterated many times by Chomsky and his followers, persists despite occasional mild disclaimers by Chomsky himself, who now concedes that his interpretation of ‘structural linguistics’ may have been somewhat too narrow (cf. e.g. Chomsky 1968:19 and 1979:76–7). While there is some thruth...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/generative-structuralism1-P9bWyADmuI
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1949-0763
eISSN
0374-0463
DOI
10.1080/03740463.1982.10414896
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract According to the ‘official’ transformationalist view, generative grammar represents a radical break with the established tradition of stuctural linguistics. This claim, reiterated many times by Chomsky and his followers, persists despite occasional mild disclaimers by Chomsky himself, who now concedes that his interpretation of ‘structural linguistics’ may have been somewhat too narrow (cf. e.g. Chomsky 1968:19 and 1979:76–7). While there is some thruth to the claim, especially on this narrow interpretation, it appears to be vastly exaggerated on the whole. This has not gone unnoticed, and there are numerous references in the literature -by authors of diverse interests and persuasions -pointing out that generative grammar should properly be regarded as an offshoot of, rather than a departure from, structural linguistics. Some of these references will be given below; for the moment they may be exemplified by Anttila (1974:278), who notes that transformationalism, far from being a revolution, was a natural further development of structuralism, and by Bolinger (1976:238), who aptly characterizes generative grammar as a ‘reluctant but nevertheless legitimate heir’ of structural linguistics.

Journal

Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 1982

References