Читать книгу The Historiography of Generative Linguistics - András Kertész - Страница 24

Although it follows from NewmeyerNewmeyer, Frederick J.’s (1986b), KoernerKoerner, E.F. Konrad’s (1989), (2002), (2004), MurrayMurray, Stephen O.’s (1980), (1994), (1999a), SeurenSeuren, Pieter A.M.’s (1998) and HarrisHarris, Randy Allen’s (1993a) claims that the appearance of Syntactic StructuresSyntactic Structures did not trigger a KuhnianKuhnian scientificscientific revolutionrevolutionscientific in linguistics, it does not follow that later stages of generative linguistics could not have been revolutionaryrevolutionary. As early as the 1970s consideration was given to the assumption that it was AspectsAspects (ChomskyChomsky, Noam 1965) that bore revolutionary characteristics in the Kuhnian sense rather than Syntactic Structures. Thus the next thesis is the following:

(T12)

It was AspectsAspects of the Theory of Syntax that triggered a scientificscientific revolutionrevolutionscientific in linguistics and led to the birth of a new paradigm.paradigm

McCawleyMcCawley, James D. (1976: 4–5) argues for this thesis by making reference to three factors:

 By the mid-sixties, the number of adherents of generative transformationaltransformation grammargrammar – originally a small minority of linguists – had greatly increased.

 Generative transformationaltransformation grammargrammar developed from an avantgarde movement into a leading and institutionalized field.

 The nature of generative publications had significantly changed. While at the end of the 1950s and at the beginning of the 1960s, they were primarily motivated by polemics against neo-Bloomfieldianneo-Bloomfieldians, after the appearance of AspectsAspects they became more research-oriented by systematically focusing on constructive investigations.

According to McCawleyMcCawley, James D., the first two factors amount to a scientificscientific revolutionrevolutionscientific, and the third indicates the beginning of normal sciencesciencenormal in KuhnKuhn, Thomas S.’s sense. However, he does not discuss further indications of KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnians.

KoernerKoerner, E.F. Konrad (1989: 133–134, 2004, pp. 44–45), in agreement with McCawleyMcCawley, James D., argues for (T12) as well, and highlights that, in his opinion, it is the following components of the content of AspectsAspects which primarily support its revolutionaryrevolutionary nature:

 Semantics was included in AspectsAspects (even if as an interpretive component): »Aspects brought semantics out of the closet« (McCawleyMcCawley, James D. 1976: 6).

 The systematic nature of AspectsAspects exceeded that of Syntactic StructuresSyntactic Structures and thus the findings that could be pursued through the application of the theorytheory became relatively transparent.

 The theorytheory brought the investigation of syntactic universals to the foreground.

In summary:

(SP12)

The basic terms of the historiographyhistoriography of generative linguistics with respect to AspectsAspects are ›scientificscientific revolution‹revolutionscientificevolutionscientific and ›paradigm‹paradigm, its central hypothesis is (T12) and its framework is KuhnKuhn, Thomas S. (1970) [1962].