Syntactic Structures

Syntactic Structures

First edition
Author Noam Chomsky
Language English
Subject Natural language syntax
Publisher Mouton & Co.
Publication date
February 1957
Pages 117
Preceded by The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (unpublished mimeographed or microfilm version)
Followed by Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

Syntactic Structures, first published in 1957, is a major work in linguistics by American linguist Noam Chomsky.[1] It introduced transformational generative grammar, a strictly formal approach to syntax (the study of sentence structures). At its base, this method uses phrase structure rules which break down sentences into smaller parts. Chomsky then combines these with a new kind of rules called "transformations" to give rise to different structures.[6] He aimed to explain (technically speaking, "generate"[7]) all grammatically acceptable sentences of a given language.[8]

Syntactic Structures is Chomsky's first book. It is a short monograph of about a hundred pages. Chomsky wrote it for specialists in linguistics. He based it on the lecture notes he had prepared for his students at MIT.[note 2] In it, he offered the now-famous sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously,"[9] which has no meaning. Grammar-wise, however, it still seems instinctively correct to a native English speaker. Following this, Chomsky claimed that the study of syntax is independent of semantics (the study of meaning).[10]

Chomsky wrote Syntactic Structures when he was still a relatively unknown scholar.[note 3] The book was released by Mouton, a small Dutch publisher.[note 4] Still, this dense technical work was well received in the beginning. It was even considered a welcome addition[11] to the existing tradition of language study.[note 5] Established older linguists soon began criticizing it, however, for its strikingly new views.[note 6] Unlike them, younger linguists eagerly adopted Chomsky's way of doing research.[note 7] And so linguistics changed course in the second half of the 20th century. It became normal to build more formal theories with syntax at their center. This way of study valued language's place in the mind over language behavior.[note 8]

Beyond linguistics, Syntactic Structures had a big impact on the study of knowledge, mind and mental processes. It also influenced, on a smaller scale, the research on computers and brain.[note 8] Some specialists have questioned Chomsky's theory. They think it wrongly describes language as an ideal system. They also say it gives less value to the gathering and testing of data.[note 9] At the turn of the second millennium, however, linguists and non-linguists alike praised the book. They recognized it as one of the most important scholarly works of the 20th century.[5][note 10][12]


Chomsky's interest in language started early. When he was twelve, he studied Hebrew grammar under his father.[note 11] He also studied Arabic in his first year at the University of Pennsylvania.[note 12] In 1947, he met Zellig Harris, the founder of the college's linguistics department. Harris was an established linguist who did research in the way laid out by American linguist Leonard Bloomfield.[13] He let Chomsky proofread a copy of his book Methods in Structural Linguistics (1951).This is how Chomsky came to know a formal theory of linguistics. He soon decided to major in the subject.[14]

For his thesis, Chomsky set out to apply Harris's methods to Hebrew. Following Harris's advice, he studied logic, philosophy, and mathematics.[15] He found Harris's views on language very similar to Nelson Goodman's work on philosophical systems.[note 13] Chomsky was also influenced by the works of W.V.O. Quine[note 14] and Rudolf Carnap.[note 15][note 16] Quine famously showed that one cannot completely verify the meaning of a statement through physical observations.[16] Carnap had developed a formal theory of language based purely on symbols and rules that did not refer to meaning.[17]

From there on, Chomsky tried to build a grammar of Hebrew that would generate the phonetic or sound forms of sentences. He organized Harris's methods differently to this end.[note 17] To describe sentence forms and structures, he came up with a set of recursive rules. These are rules that refer back to themselves. He also found that there were many different ways of presenting the grammar. He tried to develop a method to measure how simple a grammar is.[note 18] For this, he sought "generalizations" among the possible sets of grammatical rules.[note 19] Chomsky completed his undergraduate thesis The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew in 1949. He then published a revised and expanded version of it as his master's thesis in 1951.

In 1951, Chomsky became a Junior Fellow at Harvard University.[18] There, he tried to build a purely formal linguistic theory.[note 20] It was a clear break with the existing tradition of language study.[19] In 1953, Chomsky published his first scholarly paper.[20] In it he tried to adopt and adapt the symbol-based language of mathematical logic to describe the syntax of a human language. During his fellowship, Chomsky organized all his ideas into a huge manuscript. It was nearly 1000 typewritten pages long. He gave it the title The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (LSLT).[21]

In 1955, Chomsky found a job at MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE). He worked there as a linguist in the mechanical translation project.[22] The same year he submitted just the ninth chapter of LSLT to the University of Pennsylvania as his doctoral dissertation. He was granted a Ph.D. for his thesis titled Transformational Analysis.[23]


After receiving his doctorate in linguistics in 1955, Chomsky struggled at first to publish his theory and views on language.[24] He offered the manuscript of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (LSLT) for publication. But it was refused by MIT's Technology Press. He also saw a paper promptly rejected by the academic linguistic journal WORD.[note 21] So he remained an outsider to the field of linguistics. His reviews and articles at this time were mostly published in non-linguistic journals.[25][note 22]

Mouton & Co. was a Dutch publishing house based in The Hague. They had gained academic reputation by publishing works on Slavic Studies since 1954.[26] Particularly, they had published works by linguists Nicolaas Van Wijk and Roman Jakobson. Soon they started a new series called Janua Linguarum or the "Gate of Languages."[27] It was intended to be a series of "small monographs" on general linguistics.[note 23] The first volume of the Janua Linguarum series was written by Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle. It was called Fundamentals of Language, published in 1956.[28] Chomsky had already met Jakobson, a professor at Harvard University, during his fellowship years. Halle was Chomsky's graduate classmate at Harvard and then a close colleague at MIT. In 1956, Chomsky and Halle collaborated to write an article on phonology, published in a festschrift for Jakobson.[29] The festschrift was published by Mouton in 1956.

Cornelis van Schooneveld was the editor of the Janua Linguarum series at Mouton. He was a Dutch linguist and a direct student of Jakobson.[30] He was looking for monographs to publish for his series. Consequently, he visited Chomsky at MIT in 1956. With Morris Halle's (and possibly Jakobson's) mediation,[26] Chomsky showed van Schooneveld his notes for his introductory linguistics course for undergraduate students. Van Schoonefeld took an interest in them. He offered to publish an elaborate version of them at Mouton, to which Chomsky agreed.[note 24]

Chomsky then prepared a manuscript of the right size (no longer than 120 pages[note 25]) that would fit the series. After revising an earlier manuscript, Chomsky sent a final version in the first week of August in 1956 to van Schooneveld.[note 26] The editor had Chomsky rename the book's title to Syntactic Structures for commercial purposes.[note 27] The book was also pre-ordered in big numbers by MIT. These gave more incentives to Mouton to publish the book. Mouton finally published Chomsky's monograph titled Syntactic Structures in the second week of February 1957.

Soon after the book's first publication, Bernard Bloch, editor of the prestigious journal Language, gave linguist Robert Benjamin Lees, a colleague of Chomsky's at MIT, the opportunity to write a review of the book. Lees's very positive[note 28] essay-length review appeared in the July–September 1957 issue of Language.[31] This early but influential review made Syntactic Structures visible on the linguistic research landscape. Shortly thereafter the book created a putative "revolution" in the discipline.[note 29] As for LSLT, it would be 17 more years before it saw publication.[32]

Syntactic Structures was the fourth book in the Janua Linguarum series. It was the series's bestselling book. It was reprinted 13 times until 1978. In 1969, a French translation by Michel Braudeau was published by Éditions du Seuil. In 1973, Mouton published a German translation by Klaus-Peter Lange.


Goals of syntactic investigation

In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky tries to construct a "formalized theory of linguistic structure". He places emphasis on "rigorous formulations" and "precisely constructed models".[33] In the first chapter of the book, he gives a definition of human language syntax. He then talks about the goals of syntactic study. For Chomsky, a linguist's goal is to build a grammar of a language. He defines grammar as a device which produces all the sentences of the language under study. Secondly, a linguist must find the abstract concepts beneath grammars to develop a general method. This method would help select the best possible device or grammar for any language given its corpus. Finally, a linguistic theory must give a satisfactory description of all the levels of language analysis. Examples of these levels include sounds, words and sentence structures.[34]


A tree diagram of the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"

The second chapter is titled "The Independence of Grammar". In it, Chomsky states that a linguist should separate the "grammatical sequences" or sentences of a language from the "ungrammatical sequences".[7] By a "grammatical" sentence Chomsky means a sentence that is intuitively "acceptable to a native speaker".[7] It is a sentence pronounced with a "normal sentence intonation". It is also "recall[ed] much more quickly" and "learn[ed] much more easily".[35]

Chomsky then analyzes further about the basis of "grammaticality." He shows three ways that do not determine whether a sentence is grammatical or not. First, a grammatical sentence need not be included in a corpus. Secondly, it need not be meaningful. Finally, it does not have to be statistically probable. Chomsky shows all three points using a nonsensical sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."[9] He writes that the sentence is instinctively "grammatical" to a native English speaker. But it is not included in any known corpus at the time and is neither meaningful nor statistically probable.

Chomsky concludes that "grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning." He adds that "probabilistic models give no particular insight into some of the basic problems of syntactic structure."[10]

Carnap's influence

British linguist Marcus Tomalin stated that a version of "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" was suggested decades earlier by Rudolf Carnap.[36][37] This German philosopher offered in 1934 the pseudo-sentence "Piroten karulieren elatisch".[38] According to American linguist Reese Heitner, Carnap's sentence showed the autonomy of both syntactic and phonological structures.[note 30]

Grammar models and transformations

In the third chapter titled "An Elementary Linguistic Theory", Chomsky tries to determine what sort of device or model gives an adequate account of a given set of "grammatical" sentences.[39] To this end, he first discusses finite state grammar, a communication theoretic model which treats language as a Markov process.[40] Then in the fourth chapter titled "Phrase Structure", he discusses phrase structure grammar, a model based on immediate constituent analysis.[41] In the fifth chapter titled "Limitations of Phrase Structure Description", he claims to show that both these models are inadequate for the purpose of linguistic description. As a solution, he introduces transformational generative grammar (TGG), "a more powerful model ... that might remedy these inadequacies."[8]

The grammar model discussed in Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures (1957)

Chomsky's transformational grammar has three parts: phrase structure rules, transformational rules and morphophonemic rules.[42] The phrase structure rules are used for expanding grammatical categories and for substitutions. These yield a string of morphemes. A transformational rule "operates on a given string ... with a given constituent structure and converts it into a new string with a new derived constituent structure."[6] It "may rearrange strings or may add or delete morphemes."[43] Transformational rules are of two kinds: obligatory or optional. Obligatory transformations applied on the "terminal strings" of the grammar produce the "kernel of the language".[42] Kernel sentences are simple, active, declarative and affirmative sentences. To produce passive, negative, interrogative or complex sentences, one or more optional transformation rules must be applied in a particular order to the kernel sentences. At the final stage of the grammar, morphophonemic rules convert a string of words into a string of phonemes.[43] Chomsky then applies this idea of transformational rules in the English auxiliary verb system.[44]

Borrowing of terminology

In Syntactic Structures, the term "transformation" was borrowed from the works of Zellig Harris. Harris was Chomsky's initial mentor. Harris used the term "transformation" to describe equivalence relations between sentences of a language. By contrast, Chomsky's used the term to describe a formal rule applied to underlying structures of sentences.[45]

Chomsky also borrowed the term "generative" from a previous work of mathematician Emil Post.[note 31] Post wanted to "mechanically [derive] inferences from an initial axiomatic sentence".[46] Chomsky applied Post's work on logical inference to describe sets of strings (sequence of letters or sounds) of a human language. When he says a finite set of rules "generate" (i.e. "recursively enumerate"[47]) the set of potentially infinite number of sentences of a particular human language, he means that they provide an explicit, structural description of those sentences.[48]

Justification of grammars

In the sixth chapter titled "On the Goals of Linguistic Theory", Chomsky writes that his "fundamental concern" is "the problem of justification of grammars".[8] He draws parallels between the theory of language and theories in physical sciences. He compares a finite corpus of utterances of a particular language to "observations". He likens grammatical rules to "laws" which are stated in terms of "hypothetical constructs" such as phonemes, phrases, etc.[8] According to Chomsky, the criteria for the "justification of grammars" are "external conditions of adequacy", the "condition of generality" and "simplicity". To choose the best possible grammar for a given corpus of a given language, Chomsky shows his preference for the "evaluation procedure" (which uses the aforementioned criteria). He rejects the "discovery procedure" (employed in structural linguistics and supposed to automatically produce the correct grammar of a language from a corpus). He also dismisses the "decision procedure" (supposed to automatically choose the best grammar for a language from a set of competing grammars).[49]

Application of transformational grammar in English

In the seventh chapter titled "Some Transformations in English", Chomsky strictly applies his just-proposed transformation-based approach on some aspects of English. He treats at length the formation of English negative passive sentences, yes-no and wh- interrogative sentences, etc. He claims in the end that transformational analysis can describe "a wide variety of ... distinct phenomena" in English grammar in a "simple", "natural" and "orderly" way.[note 32]

Role of semantics in syntax

In the ninth chapter titled "Syntax and Semantics", Chomsky reminds that his analysis so far has been "completely formal and non-semantic."[50] He then offers many counterexamples to refute some common linguistic assertions about grammar's reliance on meaning. He concludes that the correspondence between meaning and grammatical form is "imperfect", "inexact" and "vague." Consequently, it is "relatively useless" to use meaning "as a basis for grammatical description".[51] To support his point, Chomsky considers a similar relation between semantics and phonology. He shows that in order to build a theory of phonemic distinction based on meaning would entail "complex", "exhaustive" and "laborious investigation" of an "immense", "vast corpus".[52] By contrast, phonemic distinctness can be easily explained in a "straightforward" way and in "completely non-semantic terms" with the help of "pair tests".[52] Chomsky also claims that a strictly formal, non-semantic framework of syntactic theory might ultimately be useful to support a parallel independent semantic theory.[note 33]

Rhetorical style

Randy Allen Harris, a specialist of the rhetoric of science, writes that Syntactic Structures "appeals calmly and insistently to a new conception" of linguistic science. He finds the book "lucid, convincing, syntactically daring, the calm voice of reason ... [speaking] directly to the imagination and ambition of the entire field." It also bridged the "rhetorical gulf" to make the message of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (a highly abstract, mathematically dense, and "forbiddingly technical" work) more palatable to the wider field of linguists.[53] In a more detailed examination of the book, Harris finds Chomsky's argumentation in Syntactic Structures "multilayered and compelling". Chomsky not only makes a logical appeal (i.e. logos) to a highly formalized model of language, but also appeals explicitly and tacitly to the ethos of science.[54]

Raymond Oenbring, a doctorate in the rhetoric of science, thinks that Chomsky "overstates the novelty" of transformational rules. He "seems to take all the credit for them" even though a version of them had already been introduced by Zellig Harris in a previous work. He writes that Chomsky himself was "cautious" to "display deference" to prevailing linguistic research. His enthusiastic followers such as Lees were, by contrast, much more "confrontational" and sought to drive a "rhetorical wedge" between Chomsky's work and that of post-Bloomfieldians, arguing that the latter does not qualify as linguistic "science".[55]


In an early review of the book, American structural linguist Charles F. Voegelin wrote that in Syntactic Structures posed a fundamental challenge to the established way of doing linguistic research. He stated that it had the potential to accomplish "a Copernican revolution" within linguistics.[56] Another American linguist Martin Joos called the Chomskyan brand of linguistic theory a "heresy" within the Bloomfieldian tradition.[57] These early remarks proved to be prescient. American linguist Paul Postal commented in 1964 that most of the "syntactic conceptions prevalent in the United States" were "versions of the theory of phrase structure grammars in the sense of Chomsky".[58] By 1965, linguists were saying that Syntactic Structures had "mark[ed] an epoch",[59] had a "startling impact"[60] and created a Kuhnian "revolution".[61] British linguist John Lyons wrote in 1966 that "no work has had a greater influence upon the current linguistic theory than Chomsky's Syntactic Structures."[62] British historian of linguistics R. H. Robins wrote in 1967 that the publication of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was "probably the most radical and important change in direction in descriptive linguistics and in linguistic theory that has taken place in recent years".[63] Another historian of linguistics Frederick Newmeyer considers Syntactic Structures "revolutionary" for two reasons. Firstly, it showed that a formal yet non-empiricist theory of language was possible. Chomsky demonstrated this possibility in a practical sense by formally treating a fragment of English grammar. Secondly, it put syntax at the center of the theory of language. Syntax was recognized as the focal point of language production, in which a finite set of rules can produce an infinite number of sentences. Subsequently, morphology (i.e. the study of structure and formation of words) and phonology (i.e. the study of organization of sounds in languages) were relegated in importance.[64]

Impact on other disciplines


The generative grammar of Syntactic Structures heralded Chomsky's mentalist perspective in linguistic analysis. Shortly after its publication, in 1959, Chomsky wrote a critical review[65] of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior.[66] Skinner had presented the acquisition of human language in terms of conditioned responses to outside stimuli and reinforcement. Chomsky opposed this behaviorist model. He argued that humans produce language using separate syntactic and semantic components inside the mind. He presented the generative grammar as a coherent abstract description of this underlying psycholinguistic reality.[65] Chomsky's argument had a forceful impact on psycholinguistic research. It changed the course of the discipline in the following years.[note 34]


Syntactic Structures initiated an interdisciplinary dialog between philosophers of language and linguists. American philosopher John Searle called it a "remarkable intellectual achievement" of its time. He compared the book "to the work of Keynes or Freud". He credited it with producing not only a "revolution in linguistics", but also having a "revolutionary effect" on "philosophy and psychology".[3] Chomsky and Willard Van Orman Quine, a stridently anti-mentalistic philosopher of language, debated many times on the merit of Chomsky's linguistic theories.[67] Many philosophers supported Chomsky's idea that natural languages are innate and syntactically rule-governed. They also believed in the existence of rules in the human mind which bind meanings to utterances. The investigation of these rules started a new era in philosophical semantics.[note 35][note 36]

Computer Science

With its formal and logical treatment of language, Syntactic Structures also brought linguistics and the new field of computer science closer together. Computer scientist Donald Knuth (winner of the Turing Award) recounted that he read Syntactic Structures in 1961 and was influenced by it.[note 37] Chomsky's "Three models" paper (Chomsky 1956), published a year prior to the Syntactic Structures and containing many of its ideas, was crucial to the development of the theory of formal languages within computer science.[note 38]


In 2015, neuroscientists at New York University conducted experiments to verify if the human brain uses "hierarchical structure building" for processing languages. They measured the magnetic and electric activities in the brains of participants. The results showed that "[human] brains distinctly tracked three components of the phrases they heard." This "[reflected] a hierarchy in our neural processing of linguistic structures: words, phrases, and then sentences—at the same time." These results bore out Chomsky's hypothesis in Syntactic Structures of an "internal grammar mechanism" inside the brain.[68]


Erroneous idealization

In his 1964 presidential address to the Linguistic Society of America, American linguist Charles Hockett considered Syntactic Structures one of "only four major breakthroughs in modern linguistics".[11][note 39] But he rapidly turned into a fierce critic of Chomskyan linguistics. By 1966, Hockett rejected "[Chomsky's] frame of reference in almost every detail".[69] In his 1968 book The State of the Art, Hockett writes that Chomsky's main fallacy is that he treats language as a formal, well-defined, stable system and proceeds from this idealized abstraction. Hockett believes such an idealization is not possible. He claims that there is no empirical evidence that our language faculty is, in reality, a well-defined underlying system. The sources that give rise to language faculty in humans, e.g. physical genetic transmission and cultural transmission, are themselves poorly defined.[note 40] Hockett also opposed Chomsky's hypothesis that syntax is completely independent of the study of meaning.[70]


Contrary to Hockett, British linguist Geoffrey Sampson thought that Chomsky's assumptions about a well-defined grammaticality are "[justified] in practice." It brought syntax "within the purview of scientific description". He considers it a "great positive contribution to the discipline".[71] However, he maintains that Chomsky's linguistics is overly "intuition-based". For him, it relies too much on native speakers' subjective introspective judgments about their own language. Consequently, language data empirically observed by impersonal third parties are given less importance.[72]

Influence of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory

According to Sampson, Syntactic Structures largely owes its good fortune of becoming the dominant theoretical paradigm in the following years to the charisma of Chomsky's intellect. Sampson writes that there are many references in Syntactic Structures to Chomsky's own The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (LSLT) in matters regarding the formal underpinnings of Chomsky's approach, but LSLT was not widely available in print for decades. Nevertheless, Sampson's argument runs, Syntactic Structures, albeit "sketchy", derived its "aura of respectability" from LSLT lurking in the background. In turn, the acceptance of Chomsky's future works rested on the success of Syntactic Structures.[23] In the view of British-American linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum, Syntactic Structures boldly claims that "it is impossible, not just difficult" for finite-state devices to generate all grammatical sentences of English, and then alludes to LSLT for the "rigorous proof" of this. But in reality, LSLT does not contain a valid, convincing proof dismissing finite-state devices.[73]


Pullum also remarks that the "originality" of Syntactic Structures is "highly overstated". For him, it "does not properly credit the earlier literature on which it draws".[73] He shows in detail how the approach in Syntactic Structures goes directly back to the work of the mathematical logician Emil Post on formalizing proof. But "few linguists are aware of this, because Post's papers are not cited."[73] Pullum adds that the use of formal axiomatic systems to generate probable sentences in language in a top-down manner was first proposed by Zellig Harris in 1947, ten years before the publication of Syntactic Structures. This is downplayed in Syntactic Structures.[73]

Necessity of transformations

In 1982, Pullum and another British linguist Gerald Gazdar argued that Chomsky's criticisms of context-free phrase structure grammar in Syntactic Structures are either mathematically flawed or based on incorrect assessments of the empirical data. They stated that a purely phrase structure treatment of grammar can explain linguistic phenomena better than one that uses transformations.[74][note 41]


In 2000, University of Minnesota's Center for Cognitive Sciences compiled a list of the 100 most influential works in cognitive science from the 20th century. In total, 305 scholarly works and one movie were nominated via the internet. Syntactic Structures was ranked number one on this list, marking it as the most influential work of cognitive science of the century.[note 10]

Syntactic Structures was included in The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written, a book on intellectual history by British literary critic and biographer Martin Seymour-Smith published in 1998.[75]

Syntactic Structures was also featured in a list of 100 best English language non-fiction books since 1923 picked by the American weekly magazine Time.[12]

Notes and references


  1. In Lees 1957, an influential review of Syntactic Structures, linguist Robert Lees wrote that "Chomsky's book on syntactic structures is one of the first serious attempts on the part of a linguist to construct within the tradition of theory-construction a comprehensive theory of language which may be understood in the same sense that a chemical, biological theory is ordinarily understood by experts in those fields. It's not a mere reorganization of the data into a new kind of library catalog, nor another speculative philosophy about the nature of Man and Language, but a rather rigorous explanation of our intuitions about language in terms of an overt axiom system, the theorems derivable from it, explicit results which may be compared with new data and other intuitions, all based plainly on an overt theory of the internal structure of languages".
  2. See the the "Publication" section of this article.
  3. Pullum 2011 writes: "[Chomsky] was at the time an unknown 28-year-old who taught language classes at MIT"
  4. See the "Publication" section of this article
  5. At that time, in the 1930s and 1940s, linguists studied languages with a descriptive, structuralist approach pioneered by American linguist Leonard Bloomfield.
  6. According to Joseph 2001: "Starting in 1957 and with rapidly accelerating force from about 196062 onward, the "transformational-generative linguistics" of Noam Chomsky set out to undo the underpinnings of American "structural" linguistics. Structuralism became the "vieux jeu" of the older "establishment" generation, swept aside by the transformational-generativism of the young rebels."
  7. See Harris 1993, Chapter 3 for details
  8. 1 2 See the "Reception" section of this article.
  9. See the "Criticisms" section of this article.
  10. 1 2 See the list of the 100 most influential works in cognitive science from the 20th century online here:
  11. Specifically, Chomsky read David Kimhi's Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol) (1952), an annotated study of a 13th century Hebrew grammar. It was written by his father, William Chomsky, one of the leading Hebrew scholars at the time. See Barsky 1997, p. 10
  12. For its similarity to Hebrew. See Barsky 1997, p. 47 and "Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Samuels". Retrieved 16 November 2016.
  13. Especially Goodman's work on constructional systems and on the inadequacy of inductive approaches. See Chomsky 1975, p. 33. Goldsmith & Huck 1995, p. 24 writes: "Chomsky has said that he was convinced from his days as a student of Goodman's that there is no inductive learning."
  14. Chomsky 1975, p. 33 writes: "Quine's critiques of logical empiricism also gave some reason to believe that [a non-taxonomic approach to linguistic theory] might be a plausible one."
  15. Otero 1994 states that among non-American philosophers, it was only Rudolf Carnap whom Chomsky read as a student (p. 3)
  16. Tomalin 2003 writes that "It is well known that Carnap's post-Aufbau work (especially Logische Syntax der Sprache) influenced Chomsky directly to some extent."
  17. Joseph, Love & Taylor 2001, p. 125 states: "The most significant discontinuity [between Harris's Methods and Chomsky's Syntactic Structures] is Chomsky's inversion of Harris's analytic procedures."
  18. Tomalin 2006, p. 116 writes: "[Echoing] Goodman's pro-simplicity arguments ... the task of creating ... a simplicity measure is precisely the one Chomsky sets for himself in Chapter 4 of LSLT."
  19. Chomsky 1951, p. 5 states: "We want the reduction of the number of elements and statements, any generalizations ... to increase the total simplicity of the grammar"
  20. Before Chomsky, Israeli mathematician and linguist Yehoshua Bar-Hillel had already shown in Bar-Hillel 1953 that formal languages and methods used in symbolic logic can be adapted to analyze human languages.
  21. Chomsky writes in Chomsky 1979, pp. 131–132: "As for the reception accorded to LSLT [the Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory], there is little to say. I've already told you that I did not have the impression the reaction on the part of linguists was surprising. I offered LSLT to the MIT-Press – who refused it. Quite rightly, I think, because at that time the situation was very unfavourable for a general book on that subject, especially one by an unknown author. I also submitted a technical article on simplicity and explanation to the journal Word, at the suggestion of Roman Jakobson, but it was rejected virtually by return mail. So I had little hope of seeing any of this work published, at least in a linguistic journal."
  22. In particular, Chomsky wrote an academic paper in 1956 titled Three Models for the Description of Language published in the technological journal IRE Transactions on Information Theory (Chomsky 1956). It foreshadows many of the concepts presented in Syntactic Strucutres.
  23. The series's editor Van Schooneveld is quoted thus in Hinrichs 2001, pp. 5–6: "I had originally conceived of the Janua as a series of small monographs of the size of a large article, too interesting to get drowned in a periodical amongst other contributions and to be lost to oblivion by the current of time."
  24. Chomsky is quoted in Riemsdijk & Huybregts 1982, p. 63 saying: "It [Syntactic Structures] was course notes for an undergraduate course at MIT. Van Schooneveld [a Dutch linguist who was associated with Mouton] showed up here once and took a look at some of my course notes from the undergraduate course I was teaching and said I ought to publish it." In (Dillinger & Palácio 1997, pp. 162163), Chomsky recounted: "At the time Mouton was publishing just about anything, so they decided they'd publish it along with a thousand other worthless things that were coming out. That's the story of Syntactic Structures: course notes for undergraduate science students published by accident in Europe." The publication of Syntactic structures is also discussed in Noordegraaf 2001 and van Schooneveld 2001.
  25. According to Hinrichs 2001, p. 7, Peter de Ridder, the managing director of Mouton, wrote to van Schooneveld that "new titles in the series [should be] no bigger than about 120 pages."
  26. A scan of Chomsky's own typewritten letter dated 5 August 1956 to Mouton editor Cornelis van Schooneveld can be found in Hamans 2014. This letter accompanied the final version of the manuscript.
  27. Hinrichs 2001, p. 7 mentions De Ridder writing to Van Schooneveld that "I am convinced that the book will sell well with this title."
  28. Oenbring 2009 remarks that Lees's review was "hyperbolic", his language "loaded" and Harris 1993 refers to Lees as "Chomsky's Huxley", referring to the proselytizing "bulldog" role played by Thomas Henry Huxley in defense of Charles Darwin's theories on evolution. Voegelin 1958 considers Lees to be "Chomsky's explicator". Chomsky himself considers Lees's review "provocative." (Chomsky 1975, p. 3)
  29. Thorne 1965 remarked that "a revolution of the kind Kuhn describes has recently taken place in linguistics – dating from the publication of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures in 1957". According to Sklar 1968: "What has happened in linguistics since Chomsky appeared on the scene almost perfectly fits Kuhn's description of how a scientific revolution works." Searle 1972 writes that "[Chomsky's] revolution followed fairly closely the general pattern described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". See also Newmeyer 1986 and Newmeyer 1996; For a critical and elaborate account, consult the contributions in Kibbee 2010. To read about an alternative take which casts doubt on whether a revolution really took place, consult Koerner 2002. Three decades after his original review, Searle 2002 wrote that "Judged by the objectives stated in the original manifestoes, the revolution has not succeeded. Something else may have succeeded, or may eventually succeed, but the goals of the original revolution have been altered and in a sense abandoned."
  30. According to Heitner 2005: "[Carnap's sentence] actually does the double duty of demonstrating the "autonomy" of syntactic and phonological structure, an indication that not only can sentences be recognized as syntactically well-formed, but individual words can also be recognized as phonologically well-formed independent of semantics."
  31. In Chomsky 1959, Chomsky writes that he was "following a familiar technical use of the term "generate," cf. Post 1944"
  32. Chomsky 1957, p. 68 states:"a wide variety of apparently distinct phenomena [in English language] all fall into place in a very simple and natural way when we adopt the viewpoint of transformational analysis and that, consequently, the grammar of English becomes much more simple and orderly."
  33. Because it would "reveal" insights about sentence structures. See Chomsky 1957, p. 103
  34. According to Steinberg, Hiroshi & Aline 2013, p. 371: "[Chomsky's generative system of rules] was more powerful that anything ... psycholinguists had heretofore had at their disposal. [It] was of special interest to these theorists. Many psychologists were quick to attribute generative systems to the minds of speakers and quick to abandon ... Behaviorism."
  35. Stokhof 2012, p. 548 writes: "That natural languages are indeed not systematic enough to allow formal treatment ... is ... a complaint that has been leveled against natural languages by philosophers for centuries. The work of Chomsky in generative linguistics apparently inspired much more confidence in philosophers and logicians to assert that perhaps natural languages weren't as unsystematic and misleading as their philosophical predecessors had made them out to be ... at the end of 1960s formal semantics began to flourish."
  36. Davidson 1967 writes: "Recent work by Chomsky and others is doing much to bring the complexities of natural languages within the scope of serious semantic theory".
  37. From the preface of Knuth 2003: "... researchers in linguistics were beginning to formulate rules of grammar that were considerably more mathematical than before. And people began to realize that such methods are highly relevant to the artificial languages that were becoming popular for computer programming, even though natural languages like English remained intractable. I found the mathematical approach to grammar immediately appealing—so much so, in fact, that I must admit to taking a copy of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures along with me on my honeymoon in 1961. During odd moments, while crossing the Atlantic in an ocean liner and while camping in Europe, I read that book rather thoroughly and tried to answer some basic theoretical questions. Here was a marvelous thing: a mathematical theory of language in which I could use a computer programmer's intuition! The mathematical, linguistic, and algorithmic parts of my life had previously been totally separate. During the ensuing years those three aspects became steadily more intertwined; and by the end of the 1960s I found myself a Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, primarily because of work that I had done with respect to languages for computer programming."
  38. Boden 2006, p. 648 writes:"[Papers like the "Three Models"] had a huge, lasting influence on pure computer science" and that they are cited in "virtually every introduction to compiler design". Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 9 states that "Chomsky's notion of a context-free grammar ... has aided immensely the specification of programming languages."
  39. The other three are Sir William Jones's address to the Asiatic Society in 1786, Karl Verner's Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung in 1875 and Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de Linguistique Générale in 1916.
  40. Hockett 1968, p. 83 states: "we must not promote our more or less standardized by-and-large characterization of the language to the status of a monolithic ideal, nor infer that because we can achieve a fixed characterization some such monolithic ideal exists, in the lap of God or in the brain of each individual speaker."
  41. Versions of such non-transformational phrase structure grammars include Generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG), Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) and Lexical functional grammar (LFG).


  1. [note 1][2][3][4][5]
  2. Robins 1967
  3. 1 2 Searle 1972
  4. Newmeyer 1996
  5. 1 2 Cook 2007
  6. 1 2 Chomsky 1957, p. 44
  7. 1 2 3 Chomsky 1957, p. 13
  8. 1 2 3 4 Chomsky 1957, p. 49
  9. 1 2 Chomsky 1957, p. 15
  10. 1 2 Chomsky 1957, p. 17
  11. 1 2 Hockett 1965, p. 185
  12. 1 2 Grossman, Lev (17 August 2016). "All-TIME 100 Nonfiction Books : Syntactic Structures". Time. Retrieved 14 October 2016.
  13. Barsky 1997, p. 48
  14. Barsky 1997, pp. 4950
  15. Chomsky 1975, p. 33 and Thomas 2012, p. 250
  16. Quine 1951
  17. Carnap 1934
  18. Graffi 2001, p. 331
  19. McGilvray 2005, p. 117
  20. Chomsky 1953
  21. Barsky 1997, p. 83
  22. Barsky 1997, p. 86
  23. 1 2 Sampson 2001, p. 152
  24. Sklar 1968, p. 216
  25. Barsky 1997, pp. 81–82
  26. 1 2 Hamans 2014
  27. Hinrichs 2001, p. 5
  28. Jakobson & Halle 1956
  29. Chomsky, Halle & Lukoff 1956
  30. Hinrichs 2001, p. 2
  31. Lees 1957
  32. Chomsky 1975
  33. Chomsky 1957, Preface
  34. Chomsky 1957, pp. 56
  35. Chomsky 1957, p. 16
  36. Tomalin 2002
  37. Rebuschi 2001, p. 2014
  38. Carnap 1934, p. 2
  39. Chomsky 1957, p. 18
  40. Chomsky 1957, pp. 1921
  41. Chomsky 1957, pp. 2633
  42. 1 2 Chomsky 1957, p. 45
  43. 1 2 Chomsky 1957, p. 46
  44. Chomsky 1957, pp. 3840
  45. Collins 2008, pp. 6667
  46. Post 1943, Post 1944 and Pullum & Scholz 2001
  47. Pullum & Scholz 2001
  48. Chomsky 1957 and Chomsky 1965
  49. Chomsky 1957, pp. 4956
  50. Chomsky 1957, p. 93
  51. Chomsky 1957, p. 101
  52. 1 2 Chomsky 1957, pp. 9697
  53. Harris 1993, Chapter 3
  54. Harris 1989
  55. Oenbring 2009
  56. Voegelin 1958
  57. Joos 1961
  58. Postal 1964
  59. Levin 1965, p. 92
  60. Bach 1965, pp. 11112
  61. Thorne 1965, p. 74
  62. Lyons 1966
  63. Robins 1967, p. 226
  64. Newmeyer 1996, pp. 2426
  65. 1 2 Chomsky 1959
  66. Skinner 1957
  67. Quine 1969
  68. "Chomsky Was Right, NYU Researchers Find: We Do Have a "Grammar" in Our Head". New York University. Retrieved 16 November 2016.
  69. Hockett 1966, p. 156
  70. Hockett 1968, pp. 67–71
  71. Sampson 1980, p. 134
  72. Sampson 2001, p. 5, Sampson 2001, p. 10 and Sampson 2001, p. 13
  73. 1 2 3 4 Pullum 2011
  74. Pullum & Gazdar 1982
  75. Seymour-Smith 1998

Works cited

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/3/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.