American linguistics in transition: From post-Bloomfieldian structuralism to generative grammar

The controversies in the historiography of generative linguistics are strikingly acrimonious.Frederick J. Newmeyer's publications attract great interest and trigger extreme reactions.Since his responsibility in shaping the field is beyond doubt, his new book deserves special attention.The significance of the impact which it might have on the historiography of generative linguistics is anticipated by the author's seemingly praiseworthy self-criticism in the very first sentences of the Foreword (p.xi).Although he mentions that his best known book Linguistic Theory in America: The first quarter century of transformational generative grammar (LTA) (see Newmeyer 1980Newmeyer , 1986a)which has counted as the standard work of the historiography of generative linguists over the past four decadeshad a basically positive reception, he also admits that its critics were right in accusing it of having "treated the structural linguists who preceded transformational generative grammar (TGG) with little respect and even less understanding" (ibid.; emphasis added).In addition, he also conceded that LTA had a "triumphalist tone" in that it "exaggerated both the intellectual success of the theory (as measured by the number of its adherents worldwide) and its organizational success (as measured by institutional dominance)" (ibid.; emphasis added).Therefore, in the book under review he attempts to "set the record straight" (ibid.; emphasis added) by analyzing the transition from post-Bloomfieldian structuralism to the emergence of TGG in a novel way.Nevertheless, the admittance of the flaws he committed in LTA is euphemistic at best.The positive reception of the book in generative circles is hardly surprising within the context of its flattering portrayal of the generative enterprise.And the negative reactions to Newmeyer's historiography were in no way limited to mild criticism of its "triumphalist" tone and lack of respect and understanding of post-Bloomfeldian linguists.Rather, the critics charged Newmeyer