Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Autonomy of syntax
open-in-new
<h2 id="history">History</h2> <p>The assumption of the autonomy of syntax can be traced back to the neglect of the study of semantics by American structuralists like <a href="/facts/Leonard_Bloomfield/TBtTxGP2">Leonard Bloomfield</a> and <a href="/facts/Zellig_Harris/fpvaf8FF">Zellig Harris</a> in the 1940s, which was based on a <a href="/facts/Neopositivism/Dc6XMTsc">neo-positivist</a> <a href="/facts/Anti-psychologism/YaQBwICn">anti-psychologist</a> stance, according to which since it is presumably impossible to study how the brain works, linguists should ignore all cognitive and psychological aspects of language and focus on the only objective data, that is how language appears in its exterior form. This paralleled the distinction between the two approaches in psychology, <a href="/facts/Behaviorism/8DHljqrh">behaviorism</a>, which was the dominant approach up until the 1940s, and <a href="/facts/Cognitivism_(psychology)/5KQRDrsS">cognitivism</a>. </p><p>Over the decades, multiple instances have been found of cases in which syntactic structures are actually determined or influenced by semantic traits, and some formalists and generativists have reacted to that by shrinking those parts of semantics that they consider autonomous.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:8" href="#fn:8"><sup>8</sup></a> Over the decades, in the changes that <a href="/facts/Noam_Chomsky/3rtpzlER">Noam Chomsky</a> has made to his generative formulation, there has been a shift from a claim for the autonomy of syntax to one for the autonomy of <a href="/facts/Grammar/vprQsHIR">grammar</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:9" href="#fn:9"><sup>9</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="functionalist-linguistics-vs-formalist-linguistics">Functionalist linguistics vs. formalist linguistics</h2> <p>The assumption of the autonomy of syntax has been a highly controversial topic in the functionalist and formalist linguistic spheres. Linguistic functionalists make the argument that <a href="/facts/Semantics/1L4WwLAP">semantics</a> play a role in <a href="/facts/Syntax/6PxSV98p">syntax</a>, while linguistic formalists agree that semantics and syntax interact, but they are not affected on each other.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:10" href="#fn:10"><sup>10</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:11" href="#fn:11"><sup>11</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:12" href="#fn:12"><sup>12</sup></a> A common example that is used by linguistic formalists to indicate the validity of autonomy in syntax is, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", which demonstrates that, in order for a sentence to be syntactically correct, it does not need to be coherent or meaningful in any way.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:13" href="#fn:13"><sup>13</sup></a> </p><p>Various grammar models have been developed both supporting and rejecting the autonomy of syntax. The main grammatical model that is in support of the Autonomy of Syntax is <a href="/facts/Generative_grammar/Pm1AMX5U">Generative Grammar</a>, created by <a href="/facts/Noam_Chomsky/3rtpzlER">Noam Chomsky</a>. On the other hand, examples of models that argue against it are <a href="/facts/Construction_grammar/dpPLkX3w">Construction Grammar</a>, <a href="/facts/Head-driven_phrase_structure_grammar/MW1TXsca">Head-driven Phase Structure Grammar</a>, and <a href="/facts/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar/RuMYkqI2">Generalized Phase Structure Grammar.</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:14" href="#fn:14"><sup>14</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="see-also">See also</h2> <ul><li><a href="/facts/Linguistic_wars/VJJuNkQB">Linguistic wars</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Grammaticalization/Ya3HooHm">Grammaticalization</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Self-contained_system_(software)/uoNd89C5">Self-contained system (software)</a></li></ul> <h2 id="notes-and-references">Notes and references</h2> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218" target="_blank">https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218" target="_blank">https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>Butler & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space (Vol. 157). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Introduction, pp.6-17 <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Lwg_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6" target="_blank">https://books.google.com/books?id=Lwg_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (2003) Functional linguistics, ch. 13 in The handbook of linguistics, pp. 319-336. <a href="/wiki/Robert_Van_Valin_Jr." target="_blank">/wiki/Robert_Van_Valin_Jr.</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press <a href="/wiki/Beth_Levin_(linguist)" target="_blank">/wiki/Beth_Levin_(linguist)</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218" target="_blank">https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>Croft (1995) pp.509-510 <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218" target="_blank">https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:9"><p>Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218" target="_blank">https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218</a> <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:10"><p>Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218" target="_blank">https://www.jstor.org/stable/416218</a> <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:11"><p>Butler & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space (Vol. 157). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Introduction, pp.6-17 <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Lwg_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6" target="_blank">https://books.google.com/books?id=Lwg_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6</a> <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:12"><p>Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (2003) Functional linguistics, ch. 13 in The handbook of linguistics, pp. 319-336. <a href="/wiki/Robert_Van_Valin_Jr." target="_blank">/wiki/Robert_Van_Valin_Jr.</a> <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:13"><p>"Generative Grammar: Theory, Types & Examples | Vaia". Hello Vaia. Retrieved 2023-09-15. <a href="https://www.hellovaia.com/explanations/english/english-grammar/generative-grammar/" target="_blank">https://www.hellovaia.com/explanations/english/english-grammar/generative-grammar/</a> <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:14"><p>CROFT, WILLIAM (2004). "Syntactic theories and syntactic methodology: a reply to Seuren". Journal of Linguistics. 40 (3): 637–654. doi:10.1017/s0022226704002798. ISSN 0022-2267. <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022226704002798" target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022226704002798</a> <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>