Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 20:2/3 (1993) ► pp.399–440

The origin and developmemt of generative semantics

| University of Waterloo
Against the background of the controversial and polarized work of Frederick Newmeyer and Robin Tolmach Lakoff, this paper chronicles the early development of generative semantics, an internal movement within the transformational model of Chomsky’s Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The first suggestions toward the movement, whose cornerstone was the obliteration of the syntax-semantics boundary, were by George Lakoff in 1963. But it was the work conducted under the informal banner of “Abstract Syntax” by Paul Postal that began the serious investigations leading to such an obliteration. Lakoff was an active participant in that research, as were Robin Tolmach Lakoff, John Robert (“Háj”) Ross and James D. McCawley. Through their combined efforts, particularly those of McCawley on semantic primitives and lexical insertion, generative semantics took shape in 1967: positing a universal base, importing notions from predicate calculus, decomposing lexical structure, and, most contentiously, rejecting the central element of the Aspects model, deep structure.
Published online: 1 January 1993
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.20.2-3.07har
References (163)
References*
*Where relevant, the composition date, in brackets, follows the publication date.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1976 [1966]. “Concerning the Notion ‘Base Component of a Transformational Grammar’”. McCawley 1976a. 113–128. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1967. “ Have and Be in English”. Language 431.462–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1968[1967]. “Nouns and Noun Phrases”. Bach & Harms 1968.91–124.Google Scholar
. 1977. “Comments on the Paper by Chomsky”. Culicover et al. 1977.133–155.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Robert T. Harms, eds. 1968. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bain, Alexander. 1879. Logic. 21 vols. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1954. “Logical Syntax and Semantics”. Language 301. 230–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, Woodford A., et al., eds. 1977. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Chicago Linguistics Society Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. & Peter S[tephen] Rosenbaum. 1970. “Some Lexical Structures and Their Empirical Validity”. Jacobs & Rosenbaum 1970.3–19.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred & Karl Erich Heidolph, eds. 1970. Progress in Linguistics: A collection of papers. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L[eMerton]. 1991[1974, 1988]. “First Person, not Singular”. Koerner 1991.19–46.Google Scholar
Booles, George N. D. [1854]. An Investigation of the Laws of Thought. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael K. 1976. Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Brekle, Herbert Ernst. 1969. “Generative Semantics vs. Deep Syntax”. Kiefer 1969.80–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1970[1968]. Generative Satzsemantik und transformationeile Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
. 1978. Generative Satzsemantik im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. München: Wilhelm Fink. [= 2nd ed. of Brekle 1970.]Google Scholar
Carden, Guy. 1968a. “A Note on None ”. Aiken Computation Laboratory Technical Report NSF-20-X:1-3. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.Google Scholar
. 1968b. “English Quantifiers”. Aiken Computation Laboratory Technical Report NSF-20-IX:1-45. Ibid.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1937[1934]. The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1967a. “Language as Symbolization”. Language 431.57–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967b. Review of Katz (1966). IJAL 331.248–254.Google Scholar
1970a. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1970b. A Semantically Based Sketch of Onondaga. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, [Avram] Noam. 1957a. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1957b. “Logical Structures in Language”. American Documentation 81.284–291. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1964a[1962]. “The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory”. Lunt 1964. 914–977.Google Scholar
. 1964b[1963]. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1965[1964]. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York & London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
. 1972a. Language and Mind. Enlarged ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
. 1972b. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, The Hague: Mouton. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975[1955–1956; preface dated 1973]. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
. 1979[1976]. Language and Responsibility. Transl. by John Viertel. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1982 [1979–80]. The Generative Enterprise: A discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1991[1989]. “Linguistics and Adjacent Fields: A personal view”. Kasher 1991.3–25.Google Scholar
Corum, Claudia, et al., eds. 1973. Papers from the Ninth Regional Chicago Linguistic Society Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian, eds. 1977. Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dinneen, Francis P., S.J., ed. 1966. Report of the 17th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies [GURT 1966]. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Ray C. 1970. “Recent Studies on Language Universals”. Foundations of Language 61.505–561.Google Scholar
1974. “Generative Semantic Methods: A Bloomfieldian conter-revolution”. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 31.255–286.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning in Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elgin, Suzette Haden. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J[ohn]. 1966. “A Proposal Concerning English Prepositions”. Dinneen 1966.208–231.Google Scholar
. 1968[1967]. “The Case for Case”. Bach & Harms 1968.1–90.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J[ohn], & D. Terrence Langendoen, eds. 1971. Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A[lvin], & Jerrold J[acob] Katz, eds. 1964. The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fought, John. 1982. Review of Newmeyer (1980a). Language in Society 111. 317–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frantz, Donald [Gene]. 1974. Generative Semantics: An introduction. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
Fujimura, Osamu, ed. 1973. Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute for Advanced Studies of Language.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Reviews of Brame (1978, 1979). Journal of Linguistics 181.464–473. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1989. Review of van Riemsdijk & Williams (1987). Language 651.150–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974[1972]. Semantics and Syntactic Irregularity. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H[arold], ed. 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (2nd ed.,1966.)Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S[teven]. 1976[1965, 1967]. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics . New York: North-Holland. [Original titles: “Studies in lexical relations” and “Functions of the lexicon in formal descriptive grammars”.]Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1987. Linguistics and Pseudo-Linguistics: Selected essays, 1965–1985. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen. 1990. The Life and Death of Generative Semantics. Ph.D. dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, generative semantics, and the rhetoric of science. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Harris, Zellig S[abbettai]. 1954. “Distributional Structure”. Word 101.140–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1968. The Mathematical Structures of Language. Dordrecht/Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hayes, Curtis W., Jacob Ornstein & William W. Gage. 1977. ABCs of Languages and Linguistics: A practical primer to language sciences in today’s world. The new, revised, and expanded ed. Silver Spring, Md.: The Institute of Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Hill, Archibald A[nderson]. 1991[1974–76]. “The Linguistic Society of America and North American Linguistics, 1950–1968”. HL 181.49–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Householder, Fred W[alter], Jr. 1970. “Reviewer’s Reply [to Robin Tolmach Lakoff]”. Language Sciences No. 10.35–36.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey J. & John Goldsmith. Forthcoming. The Deep Structure Debates.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick A. & Peter S[tephen] Rosenbaum, eds. 1970. Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin, ed. 1957. Readings in Linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Kasher, Asa, ed. 1991. The Chomskyan Turn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J[acob]. 1966. The Philosophy of Language. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J[acob], & Jerry A. Fodor. 1964[1963]. “The Structure of a Semantic Theory”. Fodor & Katz 1964.479–518.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J[acob], & Paul M[artin]. Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Martin. 1970[1967]. “From Semantics to Syntax”. Bierwisch & Heidolph 1970.114–126.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc, ed. 1969. Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimball, John [Price]. 1973. The Formal Theory of Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, [René] Paul [Viktor]. 1973[1970]. “How Abstract is Phonology?”. Fujimura 1973.5–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, [René] Paul [Viktor] & Carol Kiparsky. 1970[1967]. “Fact”. Bierwisch & Heidolph 1970. 143–173.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. Konrad, ed. 1991. First Person Singular II: Autobiographies by North American Scholars in the language sciences (= Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 61.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad. 1975. “Discussion of Ray C. Dougherty’s ‘Generative Semantics Methods: A Bloomfieldian counterrevolution’”. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 41.159–161.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1968[1966]. Deep and Surface Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
. 1970 [1965; degree awarded, 1966]. Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [Original (dissertation) title: “On the nature of syntactic irregularity”.]Google Scholar
. 1971 [1969]. “On Generative Semantics”. Steinberg & Jakobovits 1971.232–296.Google Scholar
. 1973. “Fuzzy Grammar and the Performance/Competence Terminology Game”. Corum et al. 1973.271–291.Google Scholar
. 1976[1963]. “Toward Generative Semantics”. McCawley 1976a.43–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. “Linguistic Gestalts”. Beach et al. 1977.236–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988a[1974]. “Syntactic Amalgams”. Schiller et al. 1988.25–45.Google Scholar
. 1988b. “Postscript”. Schiller et al. 1988.44–45.Google Scholar
. 1989. “Philosophical Speculation and Cognitive Science”. Philosophical Psychology 21.55–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & John Robert [Háj] Ross. 1976[1967]. “Is Deep Structure Necessary?” McCawley 1976a.159–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin [Tolmach]. 1968. Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. (= Research monograph, 49.) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1969. Review of Grammaire genérale et raisonnée (Lancelot & Arnauld 1966[1676]). Language 451.343–364.Google Scholar
. 1972. “The Pragmatics of Modality”. Peranteau et al. 1972.229–246.Google Scholar
. 1974. “Pluralism in Linguistics”. Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics 11:XIV-1–XIV-36.Google Scholar
. 1989. “The Way We Were; or, the Real Actual Truth about Generative Semantics: A memoir”. Journal of Pragmatics 131.939–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lancelot of Benwick [= Robert I. Binnick], Morgan le Fay [= Jerry L. Morgan] & The Green Knight [= Georgia Green]. 1976[1968]. “Camelot, 1968”. McCawley 1976a.249–274.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1968[1960; with prefaces dated 1962, 1964, and 1965]. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. 5th printing. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1970a[1967]. “On Very Deep Grammatical Structure”. Jacobs & Rosenbaum 1970.134–144.Google Scholar
1970b[1967]. “Problems in the Grammatical Analysis of English Nominal Compounds”. Bierwisch & Heidolph 1970.174–186.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. & Edward S. Klima. 1963. “Rules for English Pronominalization”. Language 391.17–28. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1972. Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Liefrink, Frans. 1973. Semantico-Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G., ed. 1964. The Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lyons, John, ed. 1970a. New Horizons in Linguistics. Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
, ed. 1970b. “Generative Syntax”. Lyons 1970a:130–151.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham. 1981. Review of Newmeyer (1980a). Lingua 531.371–380. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathews, G. Hubert. 1965. Hidatsa Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D[avid]. 1968[1965]. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
, ed. 1976a. Notes from the Linguistic Underground. (= Syntax and Semantics, 7.) New York: Academic Press. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976b. Grammar and Meaning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1980b. Review of Newmeyer (1980a). Linguistics 181.911–930.Google Scholar
. 1980b. Letter [reply to Newmeyer 1980b]. Linguistics 181.1099–1104.Google Scholar
. 1980c. “An Un-Syntax”. Moravscik & Wirth 1980.167–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. Thirty Million Theories of Grammar. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. In press. “Generative Semantics”. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford & New York: Pergamon.
Moravcsik, Edith A. & Jessica R. Wirth, eds. 1980. Current Approaches to Syntax. (= Syntax and Semantics, 13.) New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muntz, Jim. 1972. “Reflections of the Development of Transformational Theories”. Plötz 1972.251–274.Google Scholar
Murray, Stephen O. 1981. Review of Newmeyer (1980a). HL 8.1.107–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1981. Review of Newmeyer (1980a). Language 571.456–459. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J[aret]. 1980a. Linguistic Theory in America: The First Quarter-century of Transformational Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1980b. “A Reply to James McCawley’s Review of Linguistic Theory in America [= Newmeyer 1980a]”. Linguistics 181.931–937.Google Scholar
. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Bloomfield, Jakobson, Chomsky, and the Roots of Generative Grammar”. Manuscript of a paper delivered at The First Annual Meeting of the North American Association for the History of the Language Sciences (NAAHoLS), New Orleans, La., Dec. 1988.
. 1989. Review of Schiller et al. (1988). Language 651.392–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “Rules and Principles in the Historical Development of Generative Syntax”. Kasher 1991.200–230.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, W. R. 1974. “On Generative Gymnastics”. Archivum Linguisticum n.s. 5.53–82.Google Scholar
Palermo, David, & Walter Weimar, eds. 1974. Cognition and the Symbolic Processes. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Parret, Herman, ed. 1974[1972]. Discussing Language. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peranteau, Paul M. et al., eds. 1972. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley, ed. 1972. Goals of Linguistic Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Plötz, Senta, ed. 1972. Transformational Analysis: The transformational theory of Zellig Harris and its development. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M[artin]. 1964. “Underlying and Superficial Structure”. Harvard Educational Review 341.246–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1966. “On So-Called ‘Pronouns’ of English”. Dinneen 1966.177–206.Google Scholar
. 1971[1969]. “On the Surface Verb Remind ”. Fillmore & Langendoen 1971.180–270.Google Scholar
. 1972[1969]. “The Best Theory”. Peters 1972.131–170.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Topic … Comment: Advances in linguistic rhetoric”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 61.129–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert [“Háj”]. 1969[1967]. “Auxiliaries as Main Verbs”. Studies in Philosophical Linguistics 11.77–102.Google Scholar
. 1970a[1967]. “Gapping and the Order of Constituents”. Bierwisch & Heidolph 1970.249–259.Google Scholar
. 1970b[1968]. “On Declarative Sentences”. Jacobs & Rosenbaum 1970.222–272.Google Scholar
. 1973[1970]. “Nouniness”. Fujimura 1973.137–257.Google Scholar
. 1974. “Three Batons for Cognitive Psychology”. Palermo & Weimar 1974.63–124.Google Scholar
. 1986[1967]. Infinite Syntax! Norwood: ABLEX Publishing. [Original (dissertation) title: “Constraints on Variables in Syntax”.]Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991 [1982–89]. Syntax and Human Experience. Ed. and transl. by John Goldsmith. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1975. The Form of Language. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1949[1921]. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1962. Review of Lees (1960). IJAL 281.134–146.Google Scholar
Schiller, Eric, Barbara Need, Douglas Varley & William H. Eilfort. 1988. The Best of CLS: A selection of out-of-print papers from 1968 to 1975. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M., ed. 1974. Semantic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajicová & Eva Benecová. 1973. Topic, Focus, and Generative Semantics. Kronberg/Taunus: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. M. Y. 1979. A First Course in Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sinha, Anil C. 1977. “Some Issues in Semantics”. Semiotica 201.271–356. [Review of Seuren 1974.] DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, Danny D. & Leon A. Jakobovits, eds. 1971. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Tolmach Lakoff, see Lakoff, Robin [Tolmach].
Vater, Heinz. 1971. “Linguistics in West Germany”. Language Sciences No. 16.6–24.Google Scholar
Vroman, William Viera. 1976. Predicate Raising and the Syntax-Morphology-Semantics Cycle: Latin and Portuguese. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Wardaugh, Ronald. 1977. Introduction to Linguistics. 2nd ed. New York: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1976. “McCawley on Generative Semantics”. Linguistic Analysis 21.279–301.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1967[1964]. Explorations in Semantic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt/Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
. 1976 [1967]. “Mind and Body”. McCawley 1976a.129–158. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., Peter H. Salus, Robert I. Binnick & Anthony L. Vanek, eds. 1970. Studies out in Left Field: Defamatory Essays Presented to James D. McCawley. (= Current Inquiry into Language and Linguistics, 4.) Edmonton: Linguistic Research. (Repr, with a new foreword by Regna Darnell, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992.)Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Kertész, András
2010. From ‘scientific revolution’ to ‘unscientific revolution’: an analysis of approaches to the history of generative linguistics. Language Sciences 32:5 ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo
Joseph, John E.
1995. The Structure of linguistic revolutions. Historiographia Linguistica 22:3 ► pp. 379 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
Nevin, Bruce E.
1993. A minimalist program for linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica 20:2-3 ► pp. 355 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.