Volume 39, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


According to Chomsky’s report of the mid 1970s, he and Harris developed their theories in an essentially independent way; whereas according to some statements by Harris, some contact actually took place between them. To shed light on this issue, it may be useful to systematically compare their respective views of the notion ‘transformation’ as well as their analyses of certain syntactic phenomena. Among the topics dealt with in the present article are: the system of syntactic categories and their symbols; the notion of ‘zero elements’; the phenomenon of discontinuous constituents; the English auxiliary system; -constructions; the typology of transformations; the notions of ‘kernel’ and ‘kernel sentence’.

Several of these analyses show many points of contact between the two scholars (e.g., the analysis of -constructions or that of English auxiliaries), which allow us to maintain that they surely influenced each other. The overall differences between the two models are also clear: the transformational relation holds between sentences in Harris’s framework, while it holds between underlying strings on the one hand and actual sentences on the other in Chomsky’s. As a consequence of this different view of the notion of transformation, two problems which were fundamental for Chomsky had no importance for Harris, namely the order of transformations and the distinction between optional and obligatory transformations.

It can therefore be concluded that, if the two scholars certainly influenced each other when they were working out their respective transformational theories, their theoretical views were acutely different almost from the beginning.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akmajian, A
    (1970) On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 149–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bally, Ch
    (1922) Copule zéro et faits connexes. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris, 23, 1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1965 [1932]) Linguistique générale et linguistique française, 4th ed. Bern: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bar-Hillel, Y
    (1954) Logical syntax and semantics. Language, 30, 230–237. doi: 10.2307/410265
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410265 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1970) Aspects of language. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barsky, R. F
    (2011) Zellig Harris: From American linguistics to socialist zionism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8998.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8998.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloomfield, L
    (1933) Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, N
    (1953) Systems of syntactic analysis. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 18, 242–256. doi: 10.2307/2267409
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2267409 [Google Scholar]
  9. (1955) Logical syntax and semantics: Their linguistic relevance. Language, 31, 36–45. doi: 10.2307/410891
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410891 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1956) Three models for the description of language. I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory, IT-2, 113–124. doi: 10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton (2nd edition with an introduction by D. W. Lightfoot, Berlin-New York: Mouton-De Gruyter, 2002). 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  12. (1964a) A transformational approach to syntax. In Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 211–245). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [originally published in A. A. Hill, ed., Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, pp. 124-158. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1964b) Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1970) Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1975a [1955–56]) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. (Cited as LSLT ).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1975b) Introduction 1973. In Chomsky 1975a, The logical structure of linguistic theory,pp. 1–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1977) On Wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover , Th. Wasow , & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York-San Francisco-London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1980) On binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2009) Cartesian linguistics. A chapter in the history of rationalist thought, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803116
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803116 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diderichsen, P
    (1976) Ganzheit und Struktur. Ausgewählte sprachwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen. München: Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Frei, H
    (1929) La grammaire des fautes. Paris & Genève: Geuthner. (Reprint Genève: Slatkine, 1971.)
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Graffi, G
    (2001) 200 years of syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sihols.98
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.98 [Google Scholar]
  25. Harris, Z. S
    (1945) Discontinuous morphemes. Language, 21, 121–127. doi: 10.2307/410503
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410503 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1946) From morpheme to utterance. Language, 22, 161–183. doi: 10.2307/410205
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410205 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1951) Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1952a) Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1–30. doi: 10.2307/409987
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409987 [Google Scholar]
  29. (1952b) Discourse analysis: A sample text. Language, 28, 474–494. doi: 10.2307/409683
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409683 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1954a) Distributional structure. Word, 10, 142–162. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1954b) Transfer grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics, 20, 259–270. doi: 10.1086/464289
    https://doi.org/10.1086/464289 [Google Scholar]
  32. (1956) Introduction to transformations (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, No.2.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Repr. in Harris 1970, pp. 383-389.)
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1957) Cooccurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language, 33, 283–340. doi: 10.2307/411155
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411155 [Google Scholar]
  34. (1959a) Computable syntactic analysis. (= Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, No.15.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (excerpted, with the added subtitle “The 1959 computer sentence-analyzer”, in Harris 1970, pp. 253-277).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1959b) The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1, 27–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (1964) Transformations in linguistic structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 108(5), 418–422. (Repr. in Harris 1970, pp. 472-481.)
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1965) Transformational theory. Language, 41, 363–401. doi: 10.2307/411782
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411782 [Google Scholar]
  38. (1970) Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑6059‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6059-1 [Google Scholar]
  39. (1976) Notes du cours de syntaxe(ed. by M. Gross ). Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1991) A theory of language and information. A mathematical approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hockett, Ch. F
    (1952) A formal statement of morphemic analysis. Studies in Linguistics, 10, 27–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (1954) Two models of grammatical description. Word, 10, 210–234. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524 [Google Scholar]
  43. (1958) A course in modern linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1958.tb00870.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1958.tb00870.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Jakobson, R
    (1939) Signe zéro. InMélanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally (pp. 143–152). Genève: Georg & Cie.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jenkins, L
    (1974) The English existential. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Milner, J.-C
    (1973) Écoles de Cambridge et de Pennsylvanie: deux théories de la transformation. Langages, 29, 98–117. doi: 10.3406/lgge.1973.2224
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1973.2224 [Google Scholar]
  47. Murray, S. O
    (1994) Theory groups and the study of language in North America: A social history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sihols.69
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.69 [Google Scholar]
  48. Nevin, B
    (2010) Noam and Zellig. In D. A. Kibbee (Ed.), Chomskyan (R)evolutions (pp. 103–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.154.05nev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.154.05nev [Google Scholar]
  49. Nevin, B. , & Johnson, S. B
    (Eds.) (2002) The legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and information into the 21st century (Current issues in linguistic theory). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.228
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.228 [Google Scholar]
  50. Newmeyer, F. J
    (1986) Linguistic theory in America, 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nida, E
    (1966 [1943]) A synopsis of English syntax, 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pike, K. L
    (1943) Taxemes and immediate constituents. Language, 19, 65–82. doi: 10.2307/409840
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409840 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ross, J. R
    (1967) Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph. D. diss.: MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Saussure, F. de
    (1922 [1916]) Cours de linguistique générale, 2nd ed. Paris: Payot. (English translation by R. Harris. London: Duckworth, 1983).
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Seuren, P
    (2009) Concerning the roots of transformational generative grammar. Historiographia Linguistica, 36, 97–115. doi: 10.1075/hl.36.1.05seu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.36.1.05seu [Google Scholar]
  56. Swadesh, M
    (1934) The phonemic principle. Language, 10, 117–129. doi: 10.2307/409603
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409603 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wells, R. S
    (1947) Immediate constituents. Language, 23, 81–117. doi: 10.2307/410382
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410382 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wundt, W
    (1912) Völkerpsychologie. I. Die Sprache, 3rd ed. Leipzig: Engelmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chomsky; grammar; Harris; syntax; transformation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error