Volume 43, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



A theoretical discussion of units in linguistic theory would be, in a sense, incomplete without a discussion of the systems, whether overt or implied, that the units are associated with. This paper traces conceptualizations of units and their accompanying systems in several disciplines. We identify some important problems with rule-based accounts (Parsons 1937) of social action and discuss the transition to non-rule-based theory afforded by ethnomethodology (e.g. Garfinkel 19631967Heritage 19842011). We draw direct parallels between these issues and analogous developments in mathematical logic (Gödel 1992) and philosophy of mind (Fodor 19681983Lucas 1961Putnam 19601967 etc.), and argue that these stem directly from fundamental properties of a class of all formal systems which permit self-reference. We argue that, since these issues are architectural in nature, linguistic theory which postulates that linguistic units are the outputs of a consistent, self-referential, rule-based formal systems (e.g. Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002) will inevitably run into similar problems. This is further supported by examples from actual language use which, as a class, will elude any theoretical explanation grounded in such a system.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Braithewaite, R. B.
    1992 Introduction. InKurt Gödel (ed.), On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. New York: Dover. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198240563.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198240563.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Fodor, J. A.
    1968Psychological Explanation. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1983The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2001The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra Thompson
    2013 Units and/or Action Trajectories? The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. InBeatrice Szczepek-Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 13–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  8. Garfinkel, Harold
    1963 A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. InO. J. Harvey (ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gawne, Lauren & Jill Vaughan
    2011 I can haz language play: The construction of language and identity in LOLspeak. Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Geertz, Clifford
    1983Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gödel, Kurt
    1931 Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik38. 173–98. 10.1007/BF01700692
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01700692 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1992On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. Trans.B. Meltzer, with Intro. byR. B. Braithwaite. New York: Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. InG. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grosholz, Emily R.
    2016 Leibnizian analysis, canonical objects, and generalization. InKarine Chemla, Renaud Chorlay & David Rabouin (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Generality in Mathematics and the Sciences, 329–356. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky & W. Tecumseh Fitch
    2002 The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science298. 1569–1579. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 A Galilean Moment in Social Theory? Language, Culture and their Emergent Properties. Qualitative Sociology34(1). 263–270. 10.1007/s11133‑010‑9180‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9180-y [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopcroft, John & Jeffrey Ullman
    1979Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hopper, Paul
    1987 Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society13. 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2011 Emergent Grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. InPeter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  22. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    2015 A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics26. 161–210. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0101 [Google Scholar]
  23. Linell, Per
    2009Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Contextual and Interactional Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013 The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. InBeatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 57–90. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.03lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.03lin [Google Scholar]
  25. Lucas, J. R.
    1961 Minds, Machines and Gödel. Philosophy36. 112–127. 10.1017/S0031819100057983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100057983 [Google Scholar]
  26. Parsons, Talcott
    1937The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Putnam, Hilary
    1960 Minds and machines. InSidney Hook (ed.), Dimensions of Mind, 20–33. New York: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1967 The Nature of Mental States. InW. H. Capitan & D. D. Merrill (eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion, 51–58. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1988Representation and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1999The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body, and World. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rosch, E.
    1973 Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology4. 328–350. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1975 Universals and cultural specifics in human categorization. InR. Brislin, S. Bochner & W. Lonner (eds.), Cross-cultural Perspectives on Learning. New York: Halstead Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1983 Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The Two Systems. InE. F. Scholnick (ed.), New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory?, 73–86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosch, E. & C. B. Mervis
    1975 Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology7. 573–605. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sacks, H.
    1992Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II. Ed.G. Jeffersonwith Introduction byE. A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996a Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. 1996b Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action. American Journal of Sociology102(1). 161–216. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schütz, Alfred
    1959 Type and Eidos in Husserl’s Late Philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research20(2). 147–165. 10.2307/2104353
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2104353 [Google Scholar]
  40. Serény, György
    2003 Gödel, Tarski, Church, and the Liar. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic9(1). 3–25. 10.2178/bsl/1046288723
    https://doi.org/10.2178/bsl/1046288723 [Google Scholar]
  41. Suppes, Patrick
    1957Introduction to Logic, New York: D. Van Nostrand.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Whitehead, Alfred North & Bertrand Russell
    1910Principia Mathematica, vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1912Principia Mathematica, vol.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1913Principia Mathematica, vol.3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wittgenstein, L.
    1953Philosophical Investigations. Trans.G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zimmer, Benjamin & Charles E. Carson
    2011 Among the New Words. American Speech86(4). 454–479. 10.1215/00031283‑1587259
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-1587259 [Google Scholar]
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