Cover not available
Review article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 37:1/2 (2010) ► pp.165–191
Review article

Two Notions of ‘Research Program’ and the Historiography of Generative Linguistics

| University of Debrecen
Published online: 21 May 2010
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.37.1-2.07ker
References
Bloor, David
1976 Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Herbert
1931 The Whig Interpretation of History. London: Bell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1959 Review of Skinner (1957). Language 351.26–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1976 “On the Biological Basis of Language Capacities”. The Neuropsychology of Language: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg ed. by Robert W. Rieber, 1–24. New York: Plenum. (Repr. in Chomsky, Rules and Representations, 185–216. New York: Columbia University Press 1980.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986 Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York & Westport, Conn.: Prager.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002 On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson
1983 [1955] Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther
1995 “Interview mit Noam Chomsky: Über Linguistik und Politik”. Sprache als Organ – Sprache als Lebensform by Grewendorf, 219–236. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen
1993 The Linguistics Wars. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul
1989 Die Wissenschaftsphilosophie Thomas S. Kuhns. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey J. & John A. Goldsmith
1995 Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Noam Chomsky and the Deep Structure Debates. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell & John Fought
1981 American Structuralism. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2002 Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Ludwig
1993 “ ‘Language, what ever that may be’: Die Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft als Erosionsgeschichte ihres Gegenstandes”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 121.77–106.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E.
1995 “The Structure of Linguistic Revolutions”. Historiographia Linguistica 221.379–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K.
1995 “Historiography of Linguistics”. Concise History of the Language Sciences: From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists ed. by E. F. K. Koerner & R. E. Asher, 7–16. Oxford & New York: Pergamon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “The ‘Chomskyan Revolution’ and Its Historiography”. Toward a History of American Linguistics, 151–209. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S.
1970 [1962] The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1977 [1959] “The Essential Tension”. The Essential Tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change by Thomas S. Kuhn, 225–239. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre
1970 “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge ed. by Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave, 91–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1989 “The Way We Were; or; the real truth about Generative Semantics. A memoir”. Journal of Pragmatics 131.939–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappin, Shalom, Robert D. Levine & David D. Johnson
2000a “The Structure of Unscientific Revolutions”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 181.665–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b “The Revolution Confused: A response to our critics”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 181.873–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “The Revolution Maximally Confused”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 191.901–919. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry
1977 Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H.
1967 Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert D.
2002 Review of Uriagereka (1998). Language 781.325–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1976 “Introduction”. Notes from the Linguistic Underground ed. by James D. McCawley, 1–19. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1993 Grammatical Theory in the United Staes from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Stephen O.
1981 Review of Newmeyer (1980). Historiographia Linguistica 71.107–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 “Recent Studies of American Linguistics”. Historiographia Linguistica 161.14–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America: A social history. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
1986 “Has There Been a ‘Chomskyan Revolution’ in Linguistics?”. Language 621.1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oesterreicher, Wulf
1977 “Paradigma und Paradigmenwechsel: Thomas S. Kuhn und die Linguistik”. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 31.241–284.Google Scholar
Percival, W. Keith
1976 “The Applicability of Kuhn’s Paradigms to the History of Linguistics”. Language 521.285–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piatelli-Palmarini, Massimo
1998 “Foreword”. Uriagereka 1998 xxi–xxxvi.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas
1976 Plausible Reasoning. Assen & Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Peter
1998 “Der Begriff des Forschungsprogramms als metahistoriographische Kategorie der Wissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung der Linguistik”. Metahistoriography: Theoretical and methodological aspects of the historiography of linguistics ed. by Peter Schmitter & Marijke van der Wal, 133–152. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Searle, John
1972 “Chomsky’s Revolution in Linguistics”. The New York Review of Books 191.16–24.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter
1985 Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: An introduction to Government-Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M.
1996 Semantic Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1998 Western Linguistics: An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Chomsky’s Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F.
1957 Verbal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang
ed. 2007 Data in Generative Grammar. (= Theoretical Linguistics 33: 3.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thorne, James Peter
1965 Review of Paul M. Postal, Constituent Structure: A study of contemporary models of syntactic description (Bloomington: Indiana University; The Hague: Mouton 1964) Journal of Linguistics 11.73–76.Google Scholar
Tomalin, Marcus
2008 [2006] Linguistics and the Formal Sciences: The origins of Generative Grammar. Paperback ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
1998 Rhyme and Reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve
1988 Science: The very idea. Chichester: Harwood; London: Tavistock.Google Scholar