Abstract
Both Harris and Chomsky formulate questions about language structure in terms of algebraically formalizable tools of description, e.g. transformations. Harris and Chomsky differ on specifying the goals of research and in defining transformations. In Harris’ system, a transformation relates one surface string with another under certain conditions of paraphrase and cooccurrence. In Chomsky’s system, a generative transformation applies to abstract structures that often bear no close resemblance to actual surface strings. In Harris’ system ‘Does T x change meaning?’ is a focal point of research, and the question ‘Which aspect of the syntactic structure correlates with which aspect of the semantic interpretation?’ makes no sense. In Chomsky’s system, however, the latter question is the focal point of research, while the former makes no sense. It is shown that one can impose an interpretation on the meaningless questions and force an answer, that is, one can use Harrisian ideas to formulate problems in Chomsky’s system and Chomsky’s ideas to formulate questions in Harris’ system. The answers to the forced questions are misleading. An example of a generative grammar with a surface structure interpretive rule is presented to assign readings to sentences containing the elements either/or and not. The conclusion discusses the sense in which Syntactic Structures offered a new conception of explanation in linguistics.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Material support for this research derives from several sources: This work was supported by National Endowment for the Humanities grant RO-7837–73–205. This work was initiated while working under an American Council of Learned Societies grant. Some of the research was performed through (partial) support of the National Science Foundation Institution Grant to New York University. Planet Earth, Inc. provided some clerical assistance.
For comments on this paper thanks must go to many persons, but especially to Joan Bachenko, Roy Byrd, Noam Chomsky, Evelyne Delorme, Mike Fetta, Karen Flynn, David Halitsky, Michael Helke, Justin Lieber, Kathleen Riordan, and Virginia Sterba.
Certain terms are abbreviated as follows: transformational generative grammar, TGG; transformational taxonomic grammar, TIG; phrase marker, PM; phrase structure rule, PS rule; deep structure, DS; surface structure, SS. Therefore, deep structure phrase marker will be DSPM, etc.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Chomsky, Noam: 1957, Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.
Chomsky, Noam: 1964, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Mouton, The Hague.
Chomsky, Noam: 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam: 1968, ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation’, in Chomsky (1972), 62–119.
Chomsky, Noam: 1969, ‘Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of Transformational Grammar’, in Chomsky (1972), 120–203.
Chomsky, Noam: 1972, Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, Mouton, The Hague.
Cohen, David (ed.): Explaining Linguistic Phenomena, Hemisphere Publishing Company, Washington, D.C., to appear.
Dingwall, William (ed.): 1971, A Survey of Linguistic Science, University of Maryland Press, Baltimore.
Dougherty, Ray: 1970, ‘A Grammar of Coordinate Conjunction, Part I’, Lg. 46, 850–93.
Dougherty, Ray: 1971, ‘A Grammar of Coordinate Conjunction, Part II’, Lg, 47, 298–339.
Dougherty, Ray: 1973, ‘A Survey of Linguistic Methods and Arguments’, Fol. 10, 423–90.
Dougherty, Ray: ‘What Explanation Is and Isn’t’, in Cohen (ed.), to appear.
Dougherty, Ray: Chomsky’s Revolution in Linguistics, forthcoming.
Einstein, Albert: 1927, ‘Isaac Newton’. Annual report of the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fillmore, Charles and D.Terence Langendoen (eds.): 1972, Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, N.Y.
Gleitman, Lila: 1965, ‘Coordinating Conjunction in English’, Lg. 41, 260–93.
Harris, Zelig: 1957, ‘Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure’, Lg. 33, 283–340;
Harris, Zelig: 1957, ‘Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure’, in Katz and Fodor (eds.), 1964: 155–211.
Harris, Zelig: 1965, ‘Transformational Theory’, Lg. 41, 363–401.
Holton, Gerald: 1973, The Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jackendoff, Ray: 1968, ‘Some Rules of Semantic Interpretation for English’, Phd dissertation, MIT.
Jackendoff, Ray: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jespersen, Otto: 1961, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, in seven volumes, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd, London.
Katz, J. and Fodor, J.: 1963, ‘The Structure of a Semantic Theory’, Lg, 39, 170–210.
Katz, J. and Fodor, J. (eds.): 1964, The Structure of Language, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Katz, J. and Postal, Paul: 1964, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuhn, Thomas: 1957, The Copernican Revolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuhn, Thomas: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, George: 1968, ‘Repartee, or a reply to ‘Negation, conjunction and quantifiers’’, mimeographed. Appeared in Fol. (1970), 389–422.
Lakoff, George and Peters, Stanley: 1966, ‘Phrasal Conjunction and Symmetric Predicates’, Computation Laboratory, Harvard University, Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report no. NSF-17, pp. VI-1 to VI-49.
Lakoff, George and Ross, John: 1970. ‘Two Kinds of and’, Linguistic Inquiry 1, 271–2.
Lasnik, Howard: 1972, ‘Analyses of Negation’, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Maitland, Francis (trans.): 1965, Science and Method, by Henri Poincaré, Dover, New York.
Partee, Barbara: 1970, ‘Negation, Conjunction and Quantifiers: Syntax vs Semantics’, Fol. 6, 153–65.
Partee, Barbara: 1971, ‘Linguistic Metatheory’, in Dingwall (ed.), pp. 651–80.
Partee, Barbara: 1972, ‘On the Requirement that Transformations Preserve Meaning’, in Fillmore and Langendoen (eds.), pp. 1–21.
Poincaré, Henri: 1910, Science and Method. See Maitland (trans.).
Sapir, Edward: 1921, Language, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dougherty, R.C. (1975). Harris and Chomsky at the Syntax-Semantics Boundary. In: Hockney, D., Harper, W., Freed, B. (eds) Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics. The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1756-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1756-5_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-0512-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1756-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive