33.3261, Review: History of Linguistics: Harris (2021)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-3261. Wed Oct 26 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.3261, Review: History of Linguistics: Harris (2021)

Moderators:

Editor for this issue: Maria Lucero Guillen Puon <luceroguillen at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:01:53
From: Andy Rogers [andyrogers at aol.com]
Subject: The Linguistics Wars

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36821697


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/32/32-3533.html

AUTHOR: Randy Allen Harris
TITLE: The Linguistics Wars
SUBTITLE: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2021

REVIEWER: Andy Rogers,  

SUMMARY

Oxford University Press has published a second edition of Randy Allen Harris’s
“The Linguistics Wars.” The second edition, like the first, covers, the
conflict between two research frameworks in generative grammar, from the early
nineteen-sixties to the late seventies, which he labels  Chomskyan and
Lakovian to encapsulate their evolution over time, from the Aspects model
versus abstract syntax at the beginning, later to Interpretive Semantics
versus Generative Semantics, and ultimately to Biolinguistics and Cognitive
Linguistics. The second edition omits the pre-generative history of the first
edition to make room for later developments, primarily among the protagonists,
after the conflict dissipated. 

Harris’s book joins other accounts of the conflict, including the first
edition of Newmeyer’s (1980) “Linguistic Theory in America,” Robin Lakoff’s
(1984) “The Way We Were,” the (1993) first edition of Harris’s book, the
(1986) second edition of Newmeyer’s book, and Huck and Goldsmith’s (1995)
“Ideology and Linguistic Theory.” 

The first two chapters are basically scene-setting, introducing the context of
the conflict and its major players. Chapters Three through Seven detail the
basis and progress (if that is the right word) of the conflict, with Chapters
Eight and Nine summarizing its effects on twentieth and twenty-first century
linguistics. The final chapter is given over to Chomsky and his peripatetic
theorizing from his (1951) master's thesis to (Berwick and Chomsky 2011, 2016)
Biolinguistics, each development purportedly a major innovation, yet somehow a
logical development of everything that came before. 

Harris says, in the preface to the first edition, which he includes in the
second, that the book is aimed at a popular audience interested in “what
linguists do, why they do it, and why everyone should care about what they
do.” I don't really think that's what this book portrays (and I shudder to
think that it might). This is really a book about an academic war of
succession and its aftermath, told from an informed outside position. Harris
also hopes that linguists may find the book useful, informative and
even-handed. I suspect that linguists are more likely to swim through over 400
pages plus notes than the educated layman, but I could be wrong.

EVALUATION

Noam Chomsky's (1965) “Aspects of the Theory of Syntax” opened a Pandora's box
(actually a large jar; a ‘pithos’ in Greek, mistranslated by the 16th-century
humanist Erasmus) of semantics and he spent the next fifteen years trying to
close it back. The pro-Pandoran were delighted for semantics to see the light
of day and proceeded to use it in various ways, arguing that the old
pre-Pandoran ways were arbitrary and inadequate. Chomsky responded that he
really had not been in favor of opening the jar, but was talked into it. For a
while, the Lakovians seemed to carry the day, but Chomsky and his supporters
managed, after 15 years, to put most of the lid back on their part of the jar,
if not the Pandoran part. In the meantime, other jars showed up, spilling
their contents as well. That’s the story Harris captures. I happen to have
been acquainted with nearly all of the protagonists and their work during the
conflict, so I had a near front-row seat as the story unwound. The Pandorans
were spearheaded by George Lakoff, along with Paul Postal, Haj Ross, Jim
McCawley, and Robin Tolmach Lakoff, among others. Ray Jackendoff was Chomsky's
able assistant.

A great deal of ink was spilled, scores of straw men were eviscerated, and
aspersions were cast right and left over the role of semantics in linguistic
analysis. Volleys were answered by cannonades, the high ground was captured
and lost, insults were hurled, positions quietly reversed, jobs won and lost,
as were publications and small departments. All this activity educes the
saying, variously attributed to Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger, Wallace
Sayre, (and probably Big Bird), ''Academic politics are so vicious because the
stakes are so small.'' 

Harris is not a linguist; his degree is in technical writing, but he
demonstrates a deep knowledge of the issues in the conflict; he also brings a
needed sense of perspective to the story. His stunning bibliography runs a
monograph-length 65 pages, with over 1600 entries, and he appears to have
absorbed it all; he probably even knows what Kelly Hunt’s T-units (Hunt 1965)
are. 

Harris has the exacting job of capturing for the general reader the ins and
outs of an abstruse academic dispute in an esoteric subject in a way that
reveals the personalities of those involved. That he succeeds to the
considerable extent that he does is testimonial to both his perseverant
scholarship and his sense of perspective. Easing his reader into this academic
tangle requires a great deal of scene-setting, which consumes the first two
chapters. Harris does an excellent job of moving the story along by describing
events and papers in an as-they-happened style, and filling in the background
as necessary. The continuity of the narrative suffers from the interruptions,
but, given the complexity of the issues involved, they are necessary. Harris
zooms in on the significant details of a particular argument or example and
zooms back out to place it in context, demonstrating both mastery of the
material and a firm grip on his narrative. Harris simplifies where necessary
but rarely missteps. He occasionally offers evaluative remarks, but for the
most part, he allows the reader to reach their own conclusions. 

>From the beginning of the George Lakoff-Noam Chomsky conflict to the George
and Haj show to Chomsky's churlishness at the Texas Goals conference to the
Lakoff-Jackendoff profane exchange at the 1969 LSA meeting, to Chomsky's
counterattacks, to his ignoring Generative Semantics, to Haj Ross and George
Lakoff's non-discreteness, to Generative Semantics' embrace of not only
semantics, but, led by George Lakoff, pragmatics, metaphor, and embodied
meaning, the story moves at a remarkable clip for such a large arcane beast.
Harris is to be congratulated for the book's completeness and accuracy. 

Not everyone in this fight was an angel, as becomes clear in Harris's telling.
Chomsky will not like the book, for good reason, as it shows a side of him
which he probably prefers not to be seen. Nor will George Lakoff, because it
is critical of some of his work, if not his ethics. If either of them did like
the book, it would be a failure. 

Harris has a firm grip on the personalities of the protagonists, based on what
they have said and done, and he has captured them to a T, or at least an S. A
prime example is his rendition of the events of the 1969 Goals of Linguistic
Theory Conference held at the University of Texas at Austin. As it happens, I
attended the conference as a graduate student. It was held in the Student
Union, which has several large adjoining ballrooms connected by opening large
folding doors. Word of mouth billed the conference as the Texas Shootout:
Chomsky versus Generative Semantics. Paul Postal, one of the Generative
Semantics leaders, and Chomsky both gave papers; Postal's (1972), ''The Best
Theory'', came first. From the title, and knowing Postal's style, I assumed
that the paper would be a satire of Chomsky's current theory, although I
quickly realized that Postal meant that the best theory was intended to refer
to the version of Generative Semantics that Postal advocated, as opposed to
Chomsky's more complex post-Aspects model. After Postal's talk, there were
questions from the floor, with the questioner going to one of two microphones
set up in front of the audience. 

For Chomsky's talk (1972a), ''Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of
Transformational Grammar,'' the room had to be enlarged to accommodate the
crowd. I was introduced to linguistics by Chomsky's (1957) “Syntactic
Structures,” Lees's (1963) “The Grammar of English Nominalizations,” which
Chomsky had supervised as a dissertation, and Chomsky's (1965) “Aspects of the
theory of Syntax,” so I was thrilled at the opportunity to hear him speak.
Chomsky's talk was basically a response to a number of proposals by generative
semanticists directed at Chomskyan positions. 

At the conclusion of Chomsky's talk, the floor was opened for questions, and
Haj Ross—a leading Generative Semanticist whose internationally-recognized
(1967) dissertation Chomsky had recently supervised, who was then a junior MIT
linguistics department colleague of Chomsky's, and who, according to Ross
(Huck and Goldsmith, 1995:125) sat next to Chomsky on the plane down to Austin
for the conference—started to ask a question. About four words into his
question, Chomsky interrupted Ross and continued speaking over him. When it
became clear that Chomsky was not going to allow Ross to finish his question,
much less answer it, Ross walked away from the microphone and left the room.
In the much later Ross interview in Huck and Goldsmith, Ross says (also p.
125), ''I remember I talked to him [Chomsky] about it afterwards. I can't
remember exactly what he said, but it was something like, 'I just couldn't
take it. Here these people were saying wrong things.' I don't remember him
saying he was sorry, exactly, he was just trying to explain why he had to do
what he did.'' I gather from Harris's book that Chomsky has a very egocentric
definition of ''wrong.'' 

The incident with Ross was the point at which it became indelibly clear to me
that Chomsky was far more interested in winning arguments than in exploring
the issues at hand. Harris's book makes clear that Chomsky's behavior toward
Ross at the 1969 Texas conference was not an isolated incident. The book,
while tracing the ins and outs of the linguistics wars, also describes a
number of instances of Chomsky's appalling behavior; see, for example, pages
35-37, 129-130, 138-139, 150-154, 195-196, 227-229, and 390-409. 

Not that Chomsky was opposed by a choir of angels. Paul Postal, in Huck and
Goldsmith (p. 133) says that around 1966, when George Lakoff was at Harvard
and Haj Ross was at MIT, the two of them would go to Chomsky's class and
hassle him, propose competing analyses to the problems Chomsky was discussing,
and offer counterexamples to his analyses. My understanding is that things
could get rowdy. Given their relative positions, this required at least
phenomenal chutzpah (which George has never been accused of being short of).
George Lakoff likes to be the center of attention, to talk, and to argue, and
he was in a hurry to make a name for himself. Postal also intimates in Huck
and Goldsmith (pp. 131-132) that Chomsky and Lakoff rubbed each other the
wrong way because their personalities are so similar, and not in a good way;
think Godzilla versus Megalon. Both have reputations for being thin-skinned
and demanding loyalty, and they are never wrong. Lakoff (1963, 1965, 1970,
1971a, 1973, 1974, Lakoff and Ross 1967) attacked Chomsky's proposals, and
Chomsky, under attack, quintupled down and returned fire (1970a, 1970b, 1972a,
1973), generally employing a mild tone, destroying straw men right and left,
and often employing what Harris calls ad personam negative comments about the
work of his opponents. Chomsky's debating style has had a corrosive influence
on syntactic argumentation in linguistics.

George Lakoff's proposals in that period tended toward the sketchy and
grandiose, which Harris points out. George is unusually optimistic,
particularly when it comes to his own proposals, not that Chomsky is a
retiring damsel. I think that even George would admit in his quiet moments
that he can be quite combative when he wants to be, and with Chomsky, he often
did, a fact which Harris captures, perhaps insufficiently. That said, Lakoff
is also an engaging teacher who encourages his students to develop their own
research ideas early in their preparation, openly sharing with them whatever
he is working on. Chomsky has a reputation for being helpful to students,
accessible, if overbooked, but sometimes brutally argumentative in the
classroom, as Harris points out. Harris also accurately reflects Chomsky's
disposition to aim his fire in Lakoff's direction. 

Ross (1967, 1969a, 1969b, 1970a, 1970b, 1972, 1973) was on firmer ground than
Lakoff, since he had been a student of Chomsky's, and is endearing and totally
unabrasive. Harris's characterizations of Ross and McCawley (1968a, 1968b,
1973, 1976, 1998), both brilliant in different ways, are striking: Ross, the
earnest entertaining overdoer, and McCawley, the meticulous, sweet-tempered,
provocateur. Jackendoff (1972, 1977), who developed and largely implemented
the changes which Chomsky outlined in the early stages of the conflict, is a
little sketchily presented, but basically true to the mark. Harris's
characterization of Postal (1970, 1971, 1972, 1974) as polemicist and careful
analyst captures two sides of his personality, which vary in emphasis over his
career. Harris's characterization of Robin Lakoff (1968, 1969, 1975, 1989), as
a pioneer of abstract syntax, a quiet incisive Generative Semantics partisan,
and founder of feminist linguistics seems about right too. Katz, I have no
firsthand knowledge of beyond reading his early work on what turns out to be a
very limited, but important at the time, notion of semantics. 

There are a few dissonances; one of the oddest is in Chapter 9, ''The
Aftermath: Twenty-First Century Linguistics,'' which, after a brief
introduction proceeds to discuss Jim McCawley's contribution; McCawley died in
1999, which, the last time I checked, was not in the twenty-first century.
Also, to those of us who were there, it is the ''Katz-Postal Hypothesis,'' not
the ''Katz-Postal Principle,'' regardless of what Harris and Google say. 

Given how thoroughly Harris documents his sources, there are a couple of
puzzling omissions. On page x of the Preface to the second edition, Harris
mentions that both Chomsky and George Lakoff “have published a few accounts of
the Deep Structure battles and their fallout” but, inexplicably, there are no
citations. By email, Harris offered Chomsky interviews, Barsky 1997a:56-57,
Grewendorf 1994, and Hughes 2006:88 to add to examples he cites elsewhere in
the book, such as Chomsky 1979. Harris also offers George Lakoff interviews:
Huck and Goldsmith 1995:107-119, de Mendoza Ibañez 1997 and Brockman 1999, as
well as Lakoff's discussion in George Lakoff 1987:582-585.

On page 133, Harris refers to ''Postal's label for this period—'The Linguistic
Wars''', but offers no citation. When asked about it by email, Harris
responded that he got the expression from Newmeyer's book (1980, 1986), and
indeed, Newmeyer's Chapter 5, on the conflict is called ''The Linguistic
Wars,'' and the term is attributed to Postal; Newmeyer does not offer a
citation either, but by email he says it came from one of Postal's unpublished
but fairly-widely circulated Linguistic Anarchy Notes from the late 1960s,
''Another Casualty of the Linguistic Wars.'' ''Linguistic'' became
''Linguistics'' as the title of Harris's book because someone at Oxford
University Press insisted on adding the “s” to make it clear that Harris's
book was about linguistics, not language per se. 

Here and there, there are instances in the body of the text where a reference
is given to a publication year without the corresponding letter when there are
multiple publications by that author that year; sometimes you can figure out
which one was intended, sometimes not. There are also a few places in the text
which cite items which do not seem to appear in the bibliography at all. Given
the mass of the bibliography, Harris can legitimately plead bibliographic
exhaustion. 

There is also an odd printing glitch, in which a letter which contains a
straight vertical line, like an ''m'', “b”, “d”, ''r'', or ''f'' extends well
below its line. See the fifth line from the bottom of page 57, another on the
second line of the next to last paragraph of page 133, and others on at least
pages 253, 289, 337, 361, 385, and 413. I, and I'm sure Harris, expected
better of Oxford Press. 

These are but quibbles about a highly accessible and thorough account of an
academic conflict which seemed important at the time, but in retrospect seems
rather less so.

Harris has also supplied by email a correction to the first and second
printings of the book, which is to go into the third and subsequent printings.
On page 416, paragraph 4, the text should be corrected as follows:

''In the early 1950s, a shatteringly precocious young Chomsky did begin a
research program anchored to the insight that ‘grammar will in general contain
a recursive specification of a denumerable set of sentences’ (Chomsky 1979 
[1951]:67n2), an insight that has driven the field of linguistics pretty much
ever since. It’s been a bumpy ride. Several variations on that theme grew
mutually antagonistic, most dramatically with the Generative Semantics Heresy,
and all of them were foundationally antagonistic to various other approaches.
But Chomsky, the presence, has towered over the field for the better part of a
century since he first wielded his recursion insight, and—''

Harris is right, when he says on page 260, ''The Generative/Interpretive
Semantics feud was not an honorable episode in the history of linguistics.''
and shows us why. We see that Chomsky is brilliant, accessible, helpful to
students, and ruthless in argumentation, that he has apparently been
obsessively argumentative since at least late adolescence, and that his view
of whatever he is arguing about is not necessarily to be trusted. There seems
to be a strange logic involved here; truth is to be arrived at by
argumentation, so if you win the argument, your view is truth. We see that
George Lakoff is also brilliant, argumentative and equally certain that he is
right, which naturally led to conflict with Chomsky. Imagine, if you will,
that Phil Donahue instead of George Lakoff pointed out to Chomsky the problems
with the Aspects model; different story entirely. We discover the character of
the protagonists through their actions. 

Was the conflict worth it? Well, Generative Semantics pointed out significant
problems in the Aspects model and proposed solutions, many of which were
eventually widely accepted after initially being condemned as vague and
wrongheaded, usually without acknowledgment of either the source or the
reversal. But Generative Semantics and successors had problems of its own,
tending to spread its data net much wider that its substantive analyses. The
Chomskyan successors to Aspects, starting with lexicalism (1970a), have not
obviously moved the ball forward, Chomskyan declarations notwithstanding, but
seem, at times, to lurch from one odd compulsion to another without making
obvious substantive progress. 

So where do we stand 56 years later? If nothing else, Harris's story should
serve as an object lesson; this is NOT the way to do linguistics (or any other
academic subject). Is linguistics itself better off from having been through
these battles? It is not obvious that it is. Generative Grammar promised to
provide us with useful tools for the analysis of syntax, but the promises have
vastly exceeded the deliverables. On the other hand, it was the promises which
led, in part, to the explosive growth in the number of people doing
linguistics since the fifties, the (in Chuck Fillmore's (1972) incredibly apt
phrase) Ordinary Working Grammarian. 

The OWG, fortunately, was relatively unaffected by the wars; as a result,
there has been an enormous increase in the information we have about
individual languages. But in terms of Language, with a capital L, we seem, at
best, to be wandering. Partisans on all sides will point to their current work
and say, ''But look at the wonderful things we're doing now!'', but they would
have said that at any time in the past and will say it at any time in the
future, all to be taken with truckloads of salt. Today's theory will be
abandoned for tomorrow's ''revolution''; that's academic marketing. Maybe we
need to soft-pedal theorizing until we have enough substantive information
about a wide enough variety of languages to theorize ABOUT. Imagine what
chemistry would be like if all our theorizing was based on just the study of
helium. It is not at all clear that over fifty years of theoretical wrangling
has produced anything but hot air and rancor. 

REFERENCES

Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Cambridge MA: MIT
Press. 

Berwick, Robert C. and Noam Chomsky. (2011). The Biolinguistic Program: The
Current State of Its Evolution and Development. In The Biolinguistic
Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language
Faculty. 460-491. New York: Oxford University Press. Di Sciullo and Boeckx
(eds.). 

Berwick, Robert C. and Noam Chomsky. (2016). Why Only Us: Language and
Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brockman, John. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: A Talk With George Lakoff.
Edge 51 (March 9).

Chomsky, Noam. (1951). Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Unpublished master's
Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. (Published 1979. New York: Garland
Publishing.

Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 

Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press 

Chomsky, Noam. (1970a). Remarks on Nominalization. In: Roderick A. Jacobs and
Peter A. Rosenbaum, eds. Reading in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221.
Waltham MA: Ginn.

Chomsky, Noam. (1970b). Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic
Interpretation. In: Roman Jacobson and Shigeo Kawamoto, eds. Studies in
General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shiro Hattori on the Occasion of
His Sixtieth Birthday. 52-91. Tokyo: TEC Co.

Chomsky, Noam, (1972a). Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of
Transformational Grammar. in Stanley Peters, ed. Goals of Linguistic Theory.
63-130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chomsky, Noam. (1972b). Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague:
Mouton. (Contains 1970a, 1970b, and 1972a).

Chomsky, Noam. (1973). Conditions on Transformations, in: S.R. Anderson & P.
Kiparsky, A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. 

Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Fortis. 

Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Fillmore, Charles J. (1972). On Generativity. Goals of Linguistic Theory.
1-19. Stanley Peters, ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Grewendorf, Günther. (1994). On Linguistics and Politics: Noam Chomsky
interviewed by Günther Grewendorf, Protosociology, Vol 6, 1994 Available at
https://chomsky.info/1994____/ . 

Harris, Randy Allen. (1993). The Linguistic Wars. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Huck, Geoffrey J., and John A. Goldsmith. (1995) Ideology and Linguistic
Theory: Noam Chomsky and the Deep Structure Debates. New York: Routledge.

Hughes, Samuel. (2006). Penn in Ink: Pathfinders, Swashbucklers, Scribblers &
Sages. 88. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Corporation.

Hunt, Kellogg W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels.
NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL, USA: NCTE.

Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, Ray S. (1977). X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kibbee, Douglas A., ed. (2010). Chomskyan (r)evolutions. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 

Lakoff, George. (1963). Towards Generative Semantics. Internal Memorandum,
Mechanical Translation Group, Research Laboratory, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
(Published in McCawley 1976: 43-62).  

Lakoff, George. (1965). On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. Indiana
University Dissertation. (Published 1970. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston). 

Lakoff, George. (1970). Global Rules. Language 46:627-639.

Lakoff, George. (1971a). On Generative Semantics. in Danny Steinberg and Leon
Jakobovits. Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics,
and Psychology. 232-296. Cambridge: The University Press. 

Lakoff, George. (1971b) Linguistics and Natural Logic. Syntheses 22:151-271. 

Lakoff, George. (1973) Fuzzy Grammar and the Competence/Performance
Terminology Game. in Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society. 271-291.

Lakoff, George. (1974) Syntactic Amalgams. Papers From the Tenth Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 321-344. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society.

Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. 

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York:
Basic Books.

Lakoff, George, and Rafael Nuñez. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From. New
York: Basic Books. 

Lakoff, George, and John R. Ross. ((1967). Is Deep Structure Necessary?
Circulated Letter to Arnold Zwicky. (Published in McCawley (1976):159-164). 

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. (1968). Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation.
Research Monograph Number 49. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. (1969). Review of Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée.
Language 45:343-364.

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper &
Row. 

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. (1989). The Way We Were; or, The Real Actual Truth
About Generative Semantics: A Memoir. Journal of Pragmatics 13:939-988. 

Lees, Robert B. (1957). Review of Syntactic Structures. Language 33:375-408.

Lees, Robert B. (1963). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.

McCawley, James D. (1968a). Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar
Without Deep Structure. Papers From the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistics Society. 71-80. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Also in
McCawley (1973). 

McCawley, James D. (1968b). The Role of Semantics in a Grammar. in Bach and
Harms, eds. Universals in Linguistic Theory. 125-169. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. 

McCawley, James D. (1973). Grammar and Meaning: Papers on Syntactic and
Semantic Topics. New York: Academic Press.

McCawley, ed. (1976). Syntax and Semantics Volume 7: Notes From the Linguistic
Underground. New York: Academic Press.

McCawley, James D. (1998). The Syntactic Phenomena of English, 2nd edition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

de Mendoza Ibañez, Francisco José Ruiz (1997). Interview with George Lakoff.
Cuadernos de Filologiia Inglesa 6:2.33-52. 

Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1980). Linguistic Theory in America. New York:
Academic Press. 

Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1986). Linguistic Theory in America. Second Edition.
New York: Academic Press. 

Partee, Barbara Hall. (1971). On the Requirement That Transformation Preserve
Meaning. in Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen. Studies in
Linguistic Semantics. 1-21. New York: Holt. Rinehar and Winston.

Postal, Paul M. (1970). On the Surface Verb ''remind'' Linguistic Inquiry.
1:37-120. 

Postal, Paul M. (1971). Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Postal, Paul M. (1972). The Best Theory. in Stanley Peters, ed. Goals of
Linguistic Theory. 132-170. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Postal, Paul M. (1974). On Raising: One Rule of Grammar and Its Theoretical
Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Dissertation.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Linguistics Department. (Published 1986 as Infinite Syntax.
Norwood: ABLEX Publishing.

Ross, John R. (1969a) Auxiliaries As Main Verbs. Studies in Philosophical
Linguistics. 1:77-102.

Ross, John R. (1969bb). Guess Who? Papers From the Fifth Region Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society. 252-286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Ross, John R. (1970a). Gapping and the Order of Constituents. in Bierwisch,
Manfred, and Karl Erich Heidolph. Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of
Readings. 249-259The Hague: Mouton. 

Ross, John R. (1970b). On Declarative Sentences. in Jacobs, Roderick A. and
Peter Rosenbaum. Readings in English Transformational Grammar. 222-272.
Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. 

Ross, John R. (1972). The Category Squish: Endstation Hauptwort. In Papers
>From the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 316-328.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 

Ross, John R. (1973). Nouniness. in Fujimura, Osamu. Three Dimensions of
Linguistic Theory. 159-257. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute for Advanced Studies of
Language.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Andy Rogers received his PhD from UCLA under Barbara Partee, writing on the
lexical semantics of physical perception verbs in English. He taught at The
University of Texas at Austin, where he organized a conference on
presupposition and speech acts, the proceedings of which were published by the
Center for Applied Linguistics. He is now retired and living in Austin, Texas,
where he ponders metalinguistic negation.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2022 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-33-3261	
----------------------------------------------------------