PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS by Janet Nielsen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright by Janet Nielsen () Abstract PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS Doctor of Philosophy () Janet Nielsen Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto Propelled by a desire to understand natural language, American linguists of the post- war period brought the tools of the era to bear on the study of syntax: computer science, mathematical graph theory, and even Cold War strategy. Three syntactic theories were enunciated, each trying to untangle the mysteries of our ability to form and use sentences. These theories interacted on a nearly daily basis, influencing and challenging each other through the s. By the end of the decade, one had established clear dominance: Noam Chomsky’s theory, developed at . Combining contemporary history of science tools with linguistics-specific concepts, this study explores the dynamics of the syntactic theory- choice debates from to . I argue that these debates can only be fully understood through a confluence of four themes: explanation, pedagogy, knowledge transmission, and lay linguistics. Together, these themes explain how linguists selected and evaluated theories, how students were trained to think about and use syntax, how ideas and people spread across the United States, and how academic theories played out in peripheral disci- plines. They also resolve the central paradox running through this study: how did Noam Chomsky’s theory – a theory whose proponents valued the private transmission of un- ii iii derground knowledge and actively prevented outsiders from accessing research – spread across the country and gain a majority of supporters? By paying particular attention to the ideas and problems which mattered to the linguists of the time, this study presents a critical and novel history of postwar American linguistics. In doing so, it rectifies the lack of a balanced, historically-informed account of the discipline. What little literature exists on the history of syntax in America bears the imprint of Whig interpretations: it omits the rival syntactic theories which competed with Chomsky’s theory, the technical linguistics debates of the period, and pedagogy and the training of young linguists. Most impor- tantly, it cannot account for the paradox of private knowledge. This study contributes to our historical understanding by both providing the first history of science based investiga- tion of postwar American syntax and showcasing a powerful way of investigating theory development, theory choice, and theory change. Acknowledgements It is my pleasure to thank my advisors – Brendan Gillon (McGill University), Mark Solovey (University of Toronto), and Janis Langins (University of Toronto) – for their advice and encouragement over the past three years. I have learned from and worked with Brendan on and off for seven years, and he has pushed me to pursue all three of my interests: mathe- matics, linguistics, and the history of science. The leap from the first to the third was greatly eased by a trio of superb teachers at the University of Toronto’s Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology who, together with my advisors, taught me what it means to think about and write about history: Anjan Chakravartty, Trevor Levere, and Marga Vicedo. Emmon Bach, Gilbert Harman, Robert Stockwell, and Sydney Lamb graciously shared with me their recollections of linguistics in the s, in person and in writing. I particularly enjoyed a Sunday brunch with Emmon Bach on Marylebone High Street. Randy Allen Harris and John Goldsmith provided much-appreciated assistance in locating documents. Archivists and librarians at the University of Texas at Austin (especially Susan Macicak), the University of Texas at Dallas, the University of Toronto, and Queen’s University were tremendously helpful, even keeping buildings open after hours when time was pressed. A weekend of conversations with Philip Loring in Austin, Texas, in April , and con- tinued correspondence, has been instrumental to shaping my thinking and reminding me that others, too, are onboard the history of linguistics. I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Re- search Council (Grant --), the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Sci- ence and Technology, the University of Toronto School of Graduate Studies, and Massey College. This thesis was spoken using MacSpeech Dictate. Without voice recognition software, it would not be finished. Finally, my parents, Kathy and Ole Nielsen, have been simply fantastic, providing sup- port, good humour, care packages and, when possible, oxtail soup. My brother, Steve Nielsen – the only person to have visited us on both of our foreign postings – is an endless supply of good food, good wine, and good conversation. My husband, Richard Martin- iv v Nielsen, provided incredible and immeasurable support throughout the research and writ- ing of this thesis, typesetting and even typing when I could not. The diagrams and figures – and the marvelous LaTeX – are all due to him. In our five years of marriage to date, we have lived on three continents – and I look forward to many more years and many more places to explore. Contents The Most Unlikely of Buildings . Historiography ............................... . Boundaries .................................. . Organization of Study ........................... A New Era for Linguistics . American Linguistics: An overview .................... American Linguistics in the Early th Century . American Linguistics and World War II ................... The Postwar Years ................................ Linguistic Theory in Post-World War II America . Syntax in the s ............................... . Transformational Grammar ........................ Theory ...................................... Aspects: Methodology ............................. Aspects: Philosophy .............................. Aspects: Grammar adequacy ......................... Aspects: Syntactic theory ............................ Development and Influence .......................... . Stratificational Grammar .......................... Theory ...................................... vi CONTENTS vii Development and Influence .......................... . Immediate Constituency Grammar . Theory ...................................... Development and Influence . Conditions of Explanation . Explanation in Linguistics . . Data ...................................... . Formalization ................................ . Power ..................................... . External Validity ............................... Computerizability ................................ Psychological Validity ............................. Syntax in the Classroom . Disciplinary Growth ............................ . Textbooks ................................... . Canonical Examples ............................. . Notation ................................... Private Knowledge, Public Tensions . Underground Literature in Context . . Underground Literature in Perspective .................. . Resolving the Paradox . . The Aftermath ................................ The Debate on Other Fronts . Language Teaching ............................. Linguistic Theory in the Classroom . Reaction From Academia ............................ CONTENTS viii . Fieldwork and Missionary Work . . Machine Translation ............................ Turtles All the Way Down . Explanatory Criteria ............................ . Pedagogy and Institutions . . Private Knowledge ............................. . Core and Periphery ............................. . Theories, Tools, and the History of Science . Bibliography List of Figures . Immediate constituency analysis of The King of England opened Parliament . . Phrase structure component of the grammar: rewrite rules and derivational trees .......................................... . Morphophonemic component of the grammar, adapted from Syntactic Struc- tures, p . ...................................... . The passive transformation ............................ . Relationship between deep structure, surface structure, and transformations in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .......................... . Stratificational grammar: nodes .......................... . Phonotactics (adapted from Lamb ) ..................... . Morphotactics (adapted from Lamb ) .................... . Lexotactics (adapted from Davis ) ...................... . Neutralization at the lexemic-sememic stratal boundary . . Composite realization at the morphemic-lexemic stratal boundary . . Types of realization (adapted from Makkai ) . . Lexotactic pattern (adapted from Davis ) . . Vertical line diagram ................................ . Grouping diagram ................................. . Boxed constituency diagram ............................ . Tree diagram (figures . to . adapted from Gleason ) . . Constituency analysis of old men and women . ix List of Figures x . Immediate constituency analysis of this teacher’s marks are very low . . Stratificational treatment of active-passive pairs (diversification at the lexemic- sememic strata boundary) ............................