Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T21:09:23.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generative coda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

ELLY VAN GELDEREN
ELLY VAN GELDEREN*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Arizona State University, 851 S. Cady Mall Room 542, Tempe, AZ 85287-0302, USAellyvangelderen@asu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Generative grammar has its beginnings in the late 1950s with the work of Noam Chomsky and emphasizes innate linguistic knowledge, or Universal Grammar. Children use their innate knowledge and, on the basis of the language they hear spoken, also known as the E(xternalized)-Language, come up with a grammar, also known as the I(nternalized)-Language (see Chomsky 1986: 19–24). Generative grammar focuses on the ability of native speakers to speak and understand grammatical sentences.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 423 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, Werner. 2016. Types of autonomous subordination: Notably the case of German STOV. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and beyond, 104–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36 (1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, Uli & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds), Interfaces + recursion = language, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2014. Where did they come from? A native origin for they, their, them. Leuven, ICEHL talk.Google Scholar
Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus , ed. Healey, Antonette diPaolo with Wilkin, John Price and Xiang, Xin. University of Toronto. www.doe.utoronto.ca Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2009. Grammaticalization from a biolinguistic Perspective. In Botha, Rudie & Knight, Chris (eds.), The prehistory of language, vol. I, 225–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2013. The diachrony of pronouns and demonstratives. In Lohndal, Terje (ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, 195–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2015. Formal syntax and language change. In Bowern, Claire & Evans, Beth (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 326–42. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodge, Carleton. 1970. The linguistic cycle. Linguistic Sciences 13, 1–7.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. What would a theory of language evolution have to look like? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 737–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Pinker, Steven. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser & Chomsky). Cognition 97, 211–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinn, Kari. 2016. Null subjects in the history of Norwegian. PhD thesis, Oslo University.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Bloom, Paul. 1990. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 707–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2010. Selecting complementizers. Lingua 120, 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. Null subjects in Old English. Language Variation and Change 25 (2), 155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Margaret. 2010. Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In Winters, Margaret, Tissari, Heli & Allan, Kathryn (eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics, 3–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar