Syntactic Structures. Noam Chomsky

1958 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Voegelin

Reviews - Noam Chomsky. Syntactic structures. Janua linguarum, Studia memoriae Nicolai van Wijk dedicata, series minor no. 4. Mouton & Co., ‘s-Gravenhage1957, 116 pp. - Noam Chomsky. Three models for the description of language. A reprint of XXIII 71. Readings in mathematical psychology, volume II, edited by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, London, and Sydney, 1965, pp. 105–124. - Noam Chomsky. Logical structures in language. American documentation, vol. 8 (1957), pp. 284–291. - Noam Chomsky and George A. Miller. Finite state languages. Information and control, vol. 1 (1958), pp. 91–112. Reprinted in Readings in mathematical psychology, volume II, edited by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, London, and Sydney, 1965, pp. 156–171. - Noam Chomsky. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and control, vol. 2 (1959), pp. 137–167. Reprinted in Readings in mathematical psychology, volume II, edited by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, London, and Sydney, 1965, pp. 125–155. - Noam Chomsky. A note on phrase structure grammars. Information and control, vol. 2 (1959), pp. 393–395. - Noam Chomsky. On the notion “rule of grammar.”Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics, vol. 12, American Mathematical Society, Providence 1961, pp. 6–24. - Arthur Sard, Noam Chomsky, W. P. Livant, A. G. Oettinger, L. M. Court. Comments. Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics, vol. 12, American Mathematical Society, Providence 1961, pp. 255–257.

1966 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-251
Author(s):  
J. F. Staal

1984 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.F.K. Koerner

Critical Remarks on American Linguistics and its Hitoriography The paper argues that, contrary to recent accounts offered as definitive history of the development of linguistic theory in North America, the 1950s witnessed much more of a continuity than the alleged discontinuity and break with the past. Indeed, it is suggested that a scientific revolution in the Kuhnian sense did not take place following the publication of Syntactic Structures in 1957, but that essential ingredients of transformational theory had been available in post-Bloomfieldian circles (of which Chomsky was a part) from the late 1940s onwards. Zellig S. Harris' "Transfer Grammar" and Charles F. Hockett's "Two Models of Grammatical Description", both published in 1954 (though developed several years earlier), are cited as just two instances in which a générative model of language processing was proposed. Moreover, it is suggested that Noam Chomsky, Morris Halle, and their associates had engaged, from early on, in 'revolutionary rhetoric' (Stephen Murray) which, for social, economic, and other reasons, produced the impression of a paradigm change in the minds of many of the younger generation at the time, where in effect little else than a further articulation of a structuralist conception of language took place.


Author(s):  
Jaime Mejía R.

Este artículo sigue los lineamientos teóricos de la gramática generativa-transformacional de acuerdo con las ideas presentadas por Noam Chomsky en sus libros Syntactic Structures (1957) y Aspectos de la Teoria de la Sintaxis (1970).Con el propósito de llevar a cabo un análisis de verbos transitivos e intransitivos, ha sido necesario consultar las siguientes obras: Peter S. Rosembaum, The Crammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions (1968); Collier-Macmillan International, The Key to English Two-word Verbs, (1966); y Albert Sydney Hornby, A Cuide to Patterns and Usage in English (1959).


Linguistica ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Rolf Müller

Unter diesem Titel möchte ich zunächst auf die Diskussion über linguistische Universalien vor fast einem halben Jahrhundert zuriickgreifen. Damals wurde der Universalienbegriff in die Linguistik, welche sich von der philologischen Sprachwissenschaft absetzte und gem als "modern" apostrophierte, eingeführt. Sie verstand sich als universelle, über einzelsprachliche Besonderheiten hinaus am lingual Wesentlichen interessierte Wissenschaft. Die Hinwendung zur Muttersprache, zu deren innerer Form und zur Deskription als inhaltsbezogener Grammatik wurde als weniger oder gar nicht mehr aktuell empfunden. Struktur und struktural/strukturell erfaßten als Termini statt dessen die leitenden Aspekte des Sprachverständnisses. Am weitesten gehend wurde durch die sog. "TG" die Formulierung der sprachlichen Äußerung als prozessualer Vorgang erklärt. Der ideale Sprecher/Hörer ist danach kompetent, unter Anwendung eines Apparates von Formulierungsregeln sowie entsprechender Auswahl aus einem Inventar von grammatischen Komponenten Sätze zu generieren, auch wenn diese völlig neu und nicht wiederholt sind. Aufgrund des prozessualen Vorgangs ist der Sprecher auch kompetent für die Auflösung einer Ambiguität von oberflächig gleichen Sätzen, indem er diesen differente Tiefenstrukturen zuordnet. Lange blieb die klassische Semantik eine Disziplin der Lexikologie. Die Semantik wurde erst nach einer Phase der Fortentwicklung als ein Aspekt in diese Grammatik eingeführt. Es ist klar, ich habe hier auf Grundzüge des mit dem Namen Noam Chomsky verbundenen Grammatikmodells hingewiesen. Die berühmten Titel markieren die Entwicklung: Syntactic Structures (1957) und Aspects of  the  Theory of Syntax  (1965)/(Dt.  1969). Es ist da von Syntax die Rede, und wirklich zielt diese Grammatik auf die Erklärung der Kompetenz des Sprechers/Hörers fiir die Formulierung der Sätze, also auf die Erklärung einer Satzkompetenz. Von Text, worauf sich in dieser Studie das Interesse richten soll, ist noch keine Rede.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Aleria Lage

Apresentação à <strong>Revista Linguí<span style="color: red;">ʃ</span>tica</strong> 14(2).


1959 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbins Burling

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-80
Author(s):  
Andrey Babanov ◽  
◽  
Ilia Afanasev ◽  

Description of syntactic structures in the early works of Zenon Klemensiewicz and Noam Chomsky The article focuses on the early works of Z. Klemensiewicz (mostly Składnia opisowa współczesnej polszczyzny kulturalnej, 1937), and N. Chomsky (mainly Syntactic Structures, 1957). These authors come from different linguistic paradigms: structural linguistics, and generative linguistics, respectively. Despite that, their ideas have strong similarities, and although there is no reason to consider Klemensiewicz’s work as a direct inspiration for Chomsky, it seems quite reasonable to argue that different schools of linguistic thought were at times literally one step away from pioneering the generative paradigm. Keywords: Polish language studies, generative linguistics, N. Chomsky, Z. Klemensiewicz, structural linguistics


1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-433
Author(s):  
HERBERT H. CLARK
Keyword(s):  

1984 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 551-551
Author(s):  
Rosemary J. Stevenson
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Virginia TASSINARI ◽  
Ezio MANZINI ◽  
Maurizio TELI ◽  
Liesbeth HUYBRECHTS

The issue of design and democracy is an urgent and rather controversial one. Democracy has always been a core theme in design research, but in the past years it has shifted in meaning. The current discourse in design research that has been working in a participatory way on common issues in given local contexts, has developed an enhanced focus on rethinking democracy. This is the topic of some recent design conferences, such PDC2018, Nordes2017 and DRS2018, and of the DESIS Philosophy Talk #6 “Regenerating Democracy?” (www.desis-philosophytalks.org), from which this track originates. To reflect on the role and responsibility of designers in a time where democracy in its various forms is often put at risk seems an urgent matter to us. The concern for the ways in which the democratic discourse is put at risk in many different parts of the word is registered outside the design community (for instance by philosophers such as Noam Chomsky), as well as within (see for instance Manzini’s and Margolin’s call Design Stand Up (http://www.democracy-design.org). Therefore, the need to articulate a discussion on this difficult matter, and to find a common vocabulary we can share to talk about it. One of the difficulties encountered for instance when discussing this issue, is that the word “democracy” is understood in different ways, in relation to the traditions and contexts in which it is framed. Philosophically speaking, there are diverse discourses on democracy that currently inspire design researchers and theorists, such as Arendt, Dewey, Negri and Hardt, Schmitt, Mouffe, Rancière, Agamben, Rawls, Habermas, Latour, Gramsci, whose positions on this topic are very diverse. How can these authors guide us to further articulate this discussion? In which ways can these philosophers support and enrich design’s innovation discourses on design and democracy, and guide our thinking in addressing sensitive and yet timely questions, such as what design can do in what seems to be dark times for democracy, and whether design can possibly contribute to enrich the current democratic ecosystems, making them more strong and resilient?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document