Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 20:2/3 (1993) ► pp.355–398

A minimalist program for linguistics

The work of zellig harris on meaning and information

 | Bolt Beranek & Newman/University of Pennsylvania
Zellig S. Harris (1909–1992) is a familiar icon of American structuralism. According to received views of the history of linguistics in the 20th century, he is an exemplar of ‘taxonomic linguistics’ seeking practical discovery procedures whereby one could mechanically derive a grammar from distributional analysis of a corpus of utterances without reference to meaning, and a proponent of empiricist and behaviorist views that have been overthrown by the revolution of Generative linguistics. An examination of what he actually wrote, however, shows a lifelong concern with the analysis and representation of meaning. Harris’ approach to the evaluation of alternative tools of analysis, alternative grammars, and alternative theories of language arises from a crucial but little acknowledged dilemma of linguistics grounded in a fundamental property of language, namely, that it contains within itself virtually unrestricted metalinguistic capacities, upon which any description of language whatever either directly or indirectly depends.
Published online: 1 January 1993
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.20.2-3.06nev
References (89)
References
Bateson, Gregory. 1967. “Cybernetic Explanation”. American Behavioral Scientist 10:8.29–32. (Repr. in Bateson 1972:399–410.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1968. “Redundancy and Coding”. Chap 22 in Animal Communication: Techniques of study and results of research ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. (Repr. in Bateson 1972:411–425.)Google Scholar
. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
. 1979. Mind and Nature: A necessary unity. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1927a. “On Recent Work in General Linguistics”. Modern Philology 251:211–230. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970:173–190.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1927b. Review of Jespersen, Philosophy of Grammar (London: Allen & Unwin, 1924). Journal of English and Germanic Philology 261. 444–446.Google Scholar
. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
. 1939. Linguistic Aspects of Science. (= International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 1:4.) Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. (9th impression, 1965.)Google Scholar
. 1942. “Philosophical Aspects of Language”. Studies in the History of Culture: The disciplines of the humanities, 173–177. Menash, Wis.: George Banta. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970:400–405.)Google Scholar
. 1943. “Meaning”. Monatshefte für Deutschen Unterricht 351.101–106. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970:400–405.)Google Scholar
. 1970. A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Ed. by Charles F. Hockett. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Borel, Emile. 1928. Leçons sur la théorie des fonctions. 3e ed. Paris: Gauthier-Villars & Cie.Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome S[eymour]. 1983. Child’s Talk: Learning to use language. With the assistance of Rita Watson. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Campbell, Jeremy. 1982. Grammatical Man: Information, entropy, language and life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. “Three Models for the Description of Language”. IRE Transactions on Information Theory vol.IT, No.3, 113–124. Cambridge, Mass.: Inst. of Radio Engineers, M.I.T.Google Scholar
. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1971. “Onward and Upward with the Arts: John is easy to please”. The New Yorker, 8 May 1971, 44–87. [Interview with Noam Chomsky by Ved Mehta.]Google Scholar
. 1975a [1955–56]. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
. 1975b. “Questions of Form and Interpretation”. The Scope of American Linguistics ed. by Robert Austerlitz, 159–106. Lisse/The Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press. (Repr. in Essays on Form and Interpretation, 25–59, New York: Elsevier-North Holland, 1977.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. (= MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1.) Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics & Philosophy, M.I.T..Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1958. “The Importance of Distribution versus Other Criteria in Linguistic Analysis”. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists ed. by Eva Sivertsen et al., 156–182. Oslo: Univ. of Oslo Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerrold A. 1980. “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology”. Published in J. A. Fodor, Re-Presentations, 225–253. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1982. Reasons for Realism: Selected essays of J. J. Gibson. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Grishman, Ralph & Richard Kittredge, eds. 1986. Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains: Sublanguage description and processing. Ibid.Google Scholar
Grishman, Ralph, Lynette Hirschman & Ngo Thanh Nhan. 1986. “Discovery Procedures for Sublanguage Selectional Patterns: Initial experiments”. Computational Linguistics 12:3.205–215.Google Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen. 1993. “Origin and Development of Generative Semantics”. HL 20:2/3.399–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1941. Review of N. S. Trubetzkoy, Grundzüge der Phonologie (Prague, 1939). Language 171.345–349. (Repr. in Harris 1970:706–711.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1946. “From Morpheme to Utterance”. Language 22.3:161–183. (Repr. in Harris 1981:45–70.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1951a. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1951b. Review of Sapir (1949). Language 27.3:288–333. (Repr. in Harris 1970:712–764, and in Edward Sapir: Appraisals of his life and work ed. by Konrad Koerner, 69–114. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1984.)Google Scholar
1952a. “Discourse Analysis”. Language 281.1–30. (Repr. in Harris 1970:313–348.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1952b. “Discourse Analysis: A sample text”. Language 281:474–494. (Repr. in Harris 1970:349–372.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1952c. “Culture and Style in Extended Discourse”. Indian Tribes of Aboriginal America: Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of Americanists ed. by Sol Tax, 210–215. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1954. “Distributional Structure”. Word 10:2–3.146–162. (Repr. in Harris 1981:3–22.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1955. “From Phoneme to Morpheme”. Language 31:2.190–222. (Repr. in Harris 1970:32–67.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1956. Introduction to Transformations. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 2.) Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, Univ. of Pennsylvania Linguistics Department. (Repr. in Harris 1970:383–389.)Google Scholar
1957. “Co-Occurrence and Transformation”. Language 331.283–340. (Repr. in Harris 1970:390–457.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1959. Computable Syntactic Analysis: The 1959 computer sentence-analyzer. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 15.) Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, Univ. of Pennsylvania. (Excerpted in Harris 1970:253–277.)Google Scholar
1961. Strings and Transformations in Language Description. (= Papers on Formal Linguistics, 1.) Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
1962. String Analysis of Language Structure. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1963. Immediate-Constituent Formulation of English Syntax. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 45.) Ibid. (Repr. in Harris 1970:131–138.)Google Scholar
1965. “Transformational Theory”. Language 411.363–401. (Repr. in Harris 1970:533–577.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966. “Algebraic Operations in Linguistic Structure”. Paper read to the International Congress of Mathematicians, Moscow 1966. (Published in Harris 1970:603–611.)
1967. Morpheme Boundaries within Words: Report on a computer test. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 73.) Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, Univ. of Pennsylvania. (Repr. in Harris 1970:68–77.)Google Scholar
1968. Mathematical Structures of Language. (= Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 21.) New York: Interscience Publishers John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
1970. Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981. Papers on Syntax. Edited by Henry Hiz. Ibid. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982a. A Grammar of English on Mathematical Principles. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
1982b. “Discourse and Sublanguage”. Kittredge & Lehrberger 1982: 231–236).Google Scholar
1988. Language and Information. (= Bampton Lectures in America Delivered at Columbia University, 28.) New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1991. A Theory of Language and Information: A mathematical approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S., Michael Gottfried, Thomas Ryckman, Paul Mattick, Jr., Anne Daladier, Tzvee N. Harris & Suzanna Harris. 1989. The Form of Information in Science: Analysis of an immunology sublanguage. Preface by Hilary Putnam. (= Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 104.) Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1947. “Problems of Morphemic Analysis”. Language 231. 321–343. (Repr. in Joos 1957:229–242.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1952. “A Formal Statement of Morphemic Analysis”. Studies in Linguistics 101.27–39.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey & John A. Goldsmith. 1993. “Gaps in the Paradigm”. (= Contemporary Linguistics, 1.) Chicago: Department of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell & John Fought. 1981. American Structuralism. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1957. Readings in Linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies. (4th ed., Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966.)Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K. 1965. String Representation of Transformations. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 58.) Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
1969a. String Adjunct Grammars and Transformational Grammars. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 75II.) Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
1969b. “Formal Properties of Grammars with Mixed Types of Rules and Their Linguistic Relevance”. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics , Sänga Säby, Sweden, August 1969.
1972. “How Much Hierarchical Structure Is Necessary for Sentence Description?”. Plötz 1972:389–398.Google Scholar
1983. “How Much Context-Sensitivity is Required to Provide Reasonable Structural Descriptions: Tree adjoining grammars”. Natural Language Processing: Psycholinguistic, computational and theoretical perspectives ed. by David Dowty, Lauri Karttunen & Arnold Zwicky, 206–250. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., S. Rao Kosaraju & Hisao Yamada. 1969. String Adjunct Grammars. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 75.) [Dec. 1968; revised Feb. 1969.] Philadelphia: Linguistics Department, Univ. of Pennsylvania. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K. & Leon S. Levy. 1982. “Phrase Structure Trees Bear More Fruit Than You Would Have Thought”. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 6:2. 272–284.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., L. Levy & Masako Takahashi. 1975. “Tree Adjunct Grammars”. Journal of the Computer and System Sciences 10:1.136–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kittredge, Richard & John Lehrberger, eds. 1982. Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1970. “Bloomfieldian Linguistics and the Problem of ‘Meaning’: A chapter in the history of the theory and study of language”. Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien/German Yearbook of American Studies 151. 162–183. (Repr. in Koerner, Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays, 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1978.)Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. & Aravind K. Joshi. 1985. “The Linguistic Relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammar”. MS-CIS-85-16, LINC LAB 03. Philadelphia: Department of Computer & Information Science, Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip & Sheila E. Blumstein. 1988. Speech Physiology, Speech Perception, and Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munz, James. 1972. “Reflections on the Development of Transformational Theories”. Plötz 1972.251–274.Google Scholar
Nevin, Bruce E. M. S. [1989]. “Unbounded Dependencies in Operator Grammar”. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1980. Linguistic Theory in America: The first quarter-century of transformational generative grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Plötz, Senta, ed. 1972. Transformationelle Analyse: Die Transformationstheorie von Zellig Harris und ihre Entwicklung/Transformational Analysis: The transformational theory of Zellig Harris and its development. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1964. Constituent Structure. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Powers, William T. 1973. Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’”. Language, Mind, and Knowledge ed. by Keith Gunderson & George Maxwell (= Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7), 1–25. Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Ryckman, Thomas A. 1986. Grammar and Information: An investigation in linguistic metatheory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Univ., New York.Google Scholar
1991. “Zellig Harris’ Methodology of Language and Information”. Lecture, Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, 8 October 1991.Google Scholar
Sager, Naomi. 1975. Natural Language Information Processing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
. 1986. “Sublanguage: Linguistic phenomenon, computational tool”. Grishman & Kittredge 1986.1–18.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1929. “The Status of Linguistics as a Science”. Language 51. 207–214. (Repr. in Sapir 1949:160–166.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1949. Selected Writings of Edward Sapir. Ed. by David G. Mandelbaum. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. With an essay by Warren Weaver. Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
. 1956. “The Bandwagon”. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2:1.3. Cambridge, Mass.: Inst. of Radio Engineers, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1934. “The Phonemic Principle”. Language 101.117–129. (Repr. in Joos 1957.32–37.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, Rulon S. 1947. “Immediate Constituents”. Language 231.81–117. (Repr. in Joos 1957:186–207.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1962. “What Has Linguistics Done for Philosophy?”. Journal of Philosophy 591.697–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Gregory. 1992. A Bibliography of Hierarchical Perceptual Control Theory. Gravel Switch, Kentucky: CSG Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Nevin, Bruce
2020. Language and thought as control of perception. In The Interdisciplinary Handbook of Perceptual Control Theory, ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Millaku, Shkelqim
2017. Kontributi i Zellig Sabbetai Harris ppr gjuhhsinn (The Contribution of Zellig Sabbetai Harris for Linguistics). SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo
Graffi, Giorgio
1998. A survey of syntactic theories in the 20th century. Historiographia Linguistica 25:3 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
Koerner, E.F. Konrad
1995. [no title] - Randy Allen Harris. The Linguistics Wars. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. Pp. xii + 356. US$42.00 (hardcover).. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 40:2 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 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.