Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 32:1/2 (2005) ► pp.117–148

Structuralism and Autonomy

From Saussure to Chomsky

| Methoni Messinias, Greece

Structuralism sought to introduce various kinds of autonomy into the study of language, including the autonomy of that study itself. The basis for this was the insistence on categorial autonomy, whereby categories are identified language-internally (whether in a particular language or in language generally). In relation to phonology, categorial autonomy has generally been tempered by grounding: the categories correlate (at least prototypically) with substance, phonetic properties. This is manifested in the idea of ‘natural classes’ in generative phonology, for instance. Usually, however, and particularly since Bloomfield, no such grounding (in meaning) has been attributed to syntax. This attitude culminates in the principle of the autonomy of syntax which was put forward in transformational-generative grammar. Such an attitude can be contrasted not merely with most pre-structural linguistics but also, in its severity, with other developments in structuralism. In present-day terms, the groundedness of syntax assumes that only the behaviour of semantically typical members of a category determines its basic syntax, and this syntax reflects the semantic properties; groundedness filters out potential syntactic analyses that are incompatible with this.

Article language: German

Published online: 8 June 2005
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.32.2.06and
References
Anderson, John M.
1987 “The Tradition of Structural Analogy”. Language Topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday ed. by Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold, 33–43. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1997 A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Structural Analogy and Universal Grammar”. Lingua.Google Scholar
Apollonius Dyscolus
1910 “De Constructione (Peri Syntaxeos)”. Grammatici Graeci ed. by Gustav Uhlig, vol. II1, pts. 2–3. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Bally, Charles
1952 [1926] Le langage et la vie. 3rd ed. Geneva: Droz; Lille: Giard.Google Scholar
Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo & Patrick Honeybone
2005 Linguistic Knowledge: Perspectives from phonology and syntax ed. with an Introduction by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero & Patrick Honeybone. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [= Special issue of Lingua .]Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard
1946 “Studies in Colloquial Japanese, II: Syntax”. Language 221.200–248. (Repr. in Joos, ed. 1958.154–185.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1914 An Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co. (New ed., with an Introduction by Joseph F. Kress, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1983.)Google Scholar
1926 “A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language”. Language 21.153–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
1942 “Outline of Ilocano Syntax”. Language 181.193–200. (Repr. In Householder, ed. 1972.151–185.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bubrix, D. V.
1930 “Neskol’ko slov o potoke reči [A few words on the flow of speech]”. Bjuletin’ LOIKFUN 51.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel
2000 “Where and What is Phonology? A representational perspective”. Burton-Roberts et al., eds. 20001.39–66.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel, Philip Carr & Gerry Docherty
eds. 2000 Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966 Cartesian Linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
1969 “The Current Scene in Linguistics”. Modern Studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar ed. by David A. Reibel & Sanford A. Schane, 1–18. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
1972 “Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of Transformational Grammar”. Goals of Linguistic Theory ed. by Stanley Peters, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
1977 Essays on Form and Interpretation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & George A. Miller
1963 “Introduction to the Formal Analysis of Natural Languages”. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. II1 ed. by R. Duncan Luce, Robert Bush & Eugene Galanter, 269–322. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Crystal, David
1997 [1987] The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Linguistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engler, Rudolf
1962 “Théorie et critique d’un principe saussurien: L’arbitraire du signe”. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 191.5–66.Google Scholar
1962 “Compléments à l’arbitraire”. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 211.25–32.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli
1952 “Glossematics”. Paper presented to the Washington Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles C.
1952 The Structure of English: An introduction to the construction of English sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
1954 “Meaning and Linguistic Analysis”. Language 301.57–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fudge, Erik C.
1967 “The Nature of Phonological Primes”. Journal of Linguistics 31.1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Henry A.
1965 Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Godel, Robert
1957 Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale de F. de Saussure. Geneva: Droz; Paris: Minard.Google Scholar
1966 “F. de Saussure’s Theory of Language”. Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. III1: Theoretical Foundations, 479–493. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Charles Reiss
2000 “Phonology as Cognition”. Burton-Roberts et al., eds. 20001.161–184.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A., Jr.
1987 “Bloomfield and Semantics”. Leonard Bloomfield: Essays on his life and work ed. by Robert A. Hall, Jr. (with the collaboration of Konrad Koerner), 155–160. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harms, Robert T.
1968 Introduction to Phonological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S.
1946 “From Morpheme to Utterance”. Language 221.161–183. (Repr. in Joos, ed. 1958.142–153.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1951[1946] Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1957 “Co-Occurrence and Transformations in Linguistic Structure”. Language 331.283–340. (Repr. in Householder, ed. 1972.151–185.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Archibald A.
1958 Introduction to Linguistic Structures: From sound to sentence in English. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1938 “Essai d’une théorie des morphèmes”. Actes du quatrième Congrès International de Linguistes ed. by Kaj Barr et al., 140–151. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. (Repr. in Hjelmslev 1959.152–164.)Google Scholar
1948 [1944] Editorial. Acta Linguistica 41.v–xi. (Repr. in Hjelmslev 1959.21–26.)Google Scholar
1948 “Structural Analysis of Language”. Studia Linguistica 11.69–78. (Repr. in Hjelmslev 1959.27–35.)Google Scholar
1959 Essais linguistiques. (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 12.) Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1955 A Manual of Phonology. Baltimore, Md.: Waverly.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W.
ed. 1972 Syntactic Theory 1: Structuralist. Selected readings. Harmondsworth, Middlesex & Baltimore, Md.: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S.
1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
1976 “Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation”. Linguistic Inquiry 71.89–150.Google Scholar
1990 Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
2002 Foundations of Language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1971a “Quest for the Essence of Language”. Selected Writings, vol. II1, 345–359. The Hague: Mouton. (Repr. in Jakobson 1990.407–421.)Google Scholar
1971b “Linguistics in Relation to other Disciplines”. Selected Writings, vol. II1, 650–696. The Hague: Mouton. (Repr. in Jakobson 1990.451–488.)Google Scholar
1976 Six leçons sur le son et le sens. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. [Partial English transl. in Jakobson 1990.217–241.]Google Scholar
1990 On Language. Ed. by Linda R. Waugh & Monique Monville-Burston. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1950 [1912] English Phonetics: A handbook for Scandinavian students. 5th ed. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin
1958 Preface to Joos, ed., p.v1.Google Scholar
ed. 1958 Readings in Linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. (4th ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1966.)Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Paul M. Postal
1964 An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1979 “Metrical Structure Assignment is Cyclic”. Linguistic Inquiry 101.421–442.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K.
1973 Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his linguistic thought in Western studies of language. Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn.Google Scholar
1978a [1970] “Bloomfieldian Linguistics and the Problem of ‘Meaning’: A chapter in the history of the theory and study of language”. Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays, 155–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [First published in: Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien/German Yearbook of American Studies 151.162–183.]Google Scholar
1978b [1972] “Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th century paradigms”. Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays, 21–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [First published in Anthropological Linguistics 14:7.255–280 (1972); revised version in History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics ed. by Herman Parret, 21–54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1976.)Google Scholar
1988 Saussurean Studies/Études saussuriennes. Préface de Rudolf Engler. Geneva: Slatkine.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1949 “Le problème du classement des cas”. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 91.20–43.Google Scholar
Lepschy, Giulio C.
1982 [1970] A Survey of Structural Linguistics. 2nd ed. London: André Deutsch. [First published London: Faber & Faber 1970.]Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1966 “Towards a ‘Notional’ Theory of the ‘Parts of Speech’”. Journal of Linguistics 21.209–235.Google Scholar
1970 Chomsky. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
1973 “Structuralism and Linguistics”. Structuralism: An introduction ed. by David Robey, 5–19. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
1977 Semantics. Vol. II1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1985 Review of Grammatical Theory: Its limits and possibilities by Frederick J. Newmeyer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1983) Language 611.668–679.Google Scholar
Malmberg, Bertil
1964 New Trends in Linguistics. Stockholm & Lund: Naturmetodens Språkinstitut.Google Scholar
Martinet, André
1960 Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
2001 A Short History of Structural Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
1986 The Politics of Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pocklington, Jackie
1990 Charles Carpenter Fries: The humanist, the linguist, the teacher. A comparison with Leonard Bloomfield. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert.Google Scholar
Pulgram, Ernst
1970 Syllable, Word, Nexus, Cursus. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew
1988 Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Vivian
1969 Review of Chomsky (1966). Journal of Linguistics 51.165–187. (Repr. in Vivian Salmon, The Study of Language in 17th-Century England 1979, 2nd corrected ed., 63–85. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1988.)Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1931[1916] Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye, avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. 3rd corrected ed. Paris: Payot. [Note that all subsequent editions follow the pagination of the 2nd edition of 1922.]Google Scholar
Siertsema, Berthe
1965 [1955] A Study of Glossematics: Critical survey of its fundamental concepts. 2nd ed. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S.
1939 Grundzüge der Phonologie. (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7.) Prague. [Transl. by Jean Cantineau as Principes de phonologie, Paris: Klincksieck 1949, and as Principles of Phonology, transl. by Christine Baltaxe, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.]Google Scholar
Wells, Rulon S.
1947a “De Saussure’s System of Linguistics”. Word 31.1–31. (Repr. in Joos, ed. 1958.1–18.)Google Scholar
1947b “Immediate Constituents”. Language 231.81–117. (Repr. in Joos, ed. 1958.186–207.)Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Carr, Philip
2012. The Philosophy of Phonology. In Philosophy of Linguistics, ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Dessel, Adrienne B.
2011. Dialogue and Social Change: An Interdisciplinary and Transformative History. Smith College Studies in Social Work 81:2-3 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 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.