Syntactic concepts and terminology in mid-20th century American Linguistics
This paper deals with the notions and terminology that figure in the syntactic works of Bloomfield, Fries, Hockett, Gleason, and early Chomsky. Notwithstanding Bloomfield’s commitment to constituent structure and his profound influence on syntactic research in the United States, constituency had a surprisingly peripheral role in such works as Fries (1952) “Immediate constituents” (is the last of its syntactic chapters) and notions of dependency structure a much more central role. Many false generalizations by descriptivists (e.g., treatments of Therer-insertion as inversion) result from a failure to consider complex expressions as constituents of the various constructions. Notwithstanding descriptivists’ denunciations and generativists’ endorsements of traditional grammar, it is the descriptivists whose syntactic category notions came closer to those of traditional grammar. The unusual category scheme of Fries did not deviate all that much from traditional schemes, and its innovations were not applied consistently. 1960s generative syntax shared with Fries’s approach a conception of gender features and referential indices in English as borne by Ns rather than by NPs, and a failure to treat inter- and intra-saentential anaphora uniformly. Gleason (1965) is the most honorable exception to the dismal quality of this era’s literature on parts of speech.
References (19)
References
Bloch, Bernard & George L. Trager. 1942. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Balti-more, Md.: Linguistic Society of America.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1942. [All but first section of Chapter 5 (Syntax)]. Bloch & Trager 1942.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam A. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam A. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fries, Charles C. 1952. The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gleason, Henry A. Jr. 1965. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janda, Richard & David Kathman. 1992. “Shielding Morphology from Exploded INFL”. Papers from the 28th Meetimg of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol.II1, 141–157. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin; New York: Henry Holt & Co. (Repr., with an Introduction by James D. McCawley, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1970. “Some Remarks on English Manner Adverbials”. Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics ed. by Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto, 378–396. Tokyo: TEC.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCawley, James D. 1968. “Concerning the Base Component of a Transformational Grammar”. Foundations of Language 41.243–269.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCawley, James D. 1981. “An Un-Syntax”. Current Approaches to Syntax ed. by Edith Mo-ravcsik & Jessica Wirth (=
Syntax and Semantics, 13), 167–193. New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCawley, James D. 1991. “Contrastive Negation and Metalinguistic Negation”. Papers from the 27th Meetimg of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol.II1, 189–206. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCawley, James D. 1992. “Modifiers Hosted by Indefinite and Interrogative Pronouns”. Lin-guistic Inquiry 231.663–637.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Percival, Keith. 1976. “On the Historical Sources of Immediate Constituent Struc-ture”. Notes from the Linguistic Underground ed. by James D. McCawley (=
Syn-tax and Semantics, 7), 229–242. New York: Academic Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Postal, Paul M. 1964. Constituent Structure. (= Supplement to IJAL
.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Postal, Paul M. 1970. “Anaphoric Islands”. Papers from the 5th Meetimg of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 205–239. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Matos, Maria Amelia & Maria de Lourdes R. da F. Passos
2006.
Linguistic sources of Skinner’s verbal behavior.
The Behavior Analyst 29:1
► pp. 89 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.