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 (54)
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