Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:43:24.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting the word out: The early generativists’ multipronged efforts to diffuse their ideas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Frederick J. Newmeyer*
Affiliation:
University of Washington, University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University
*
fjn@u.washington.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This discussion note revolves around the early days of generative grammar, that is to say the late 1950s and the 1960s. Anumber of commentators have claimed that MIT linguists in this period formed an elitist in-group, talking only to each other by means of inaccessible ‘underground’ publications and thereby erecting a barrier between themselves and the outside world of linguistics. I attempt to refute such claims. We see that the early generativists used every means at their disposal at the time to diffuse their ideas: publishing single-authored books, journal articles, anthology chapters, and technical reports; aiding the writing of textbooks; giving conference talks; teaching at LSA(Linguistic Society of America) Institutes; and hosting numerous visitors to MIT. And in particular, there was no significant ‘underground’ literature to obstruct the acceptance of the new theory.

Keywords

history of linguisticsgenerative grammarMITNoam Chomskyunderground literature

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , March 2014, pp. 241 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I dedicate this publication to the memory of Robert B. Lees, my Ph.D. advisor and friend. Thanks to Thomas Bever, Greg Carlson, Julia Falk, Robert Freidin, Jay Keyser, Barbara Partee, and David Perlmutter for reading the entire prefinal manuscript and making some valuable suggestions. I also wish to thank the great number of colleagues who took the time to share their thoughts and memories with me about the old days: StephenAnderson, Emmon Bach, Ray Cattell, Paul Chapin, Donna Christian, Noam Chomsky, Charles Fillmore, Lily Fillmore, Bruce Fraser, Donald Freeman, Lila Gleitman, Allene Grognet, Morris Halle, Florence Warshawsky Harris, James Harris, Randy Harris, Paul Kiparsky, Susumu Kuno, Robin Lakoff, Terence Langendoen, Jean-Claude Milner, Wayne O’Neil, David Pesetsky, Paul Postal, Peter Reich, Neil Smith, Donca Steriade, Rudolph Troike, Peter Trudgill, Anna Wierzbicka, and Arnold Zwicky. It goes without saying that none of these individuals is responsible for any assertions made in this discussion note.

References

Anshen, Frank, and Schreiber, Peter A.. 1968. A focus transformation of Modern Standard Arabic. Language 44. 792–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1962. The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Language 38. 263–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1964. An introduction to transformational grammars. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1965a. Review of Report of the Fifteenth Annual (First International) Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Sciences, ed. by C. I. J. M. Stuart. Word 21. 273–85.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1965b. Structural linguistics and the philosophy of science. Diogenes 51. 111–28.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1967. Have and be in English syntax. Language 43. 462–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon, and Harms, Robert (eds.) 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bogusławski, Andrzej. 1970. On semantic primitives and meaningfulness. Sign, language, culture, ed. by Greimas, Algirdas Julien, 143–52. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cairns, Charles E. 1969. Markedness, neutralization, and universal redundancy rules. Language 45. 863–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1934. The nonuniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 4. 363–97.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2. 137–67. [Reprinted in Readings in mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, 122–55. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1965.].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1961a. On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics 12: Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, ed. by Jakobson, Roman, 6–24. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. [Reprinted in Fodor & Katz, 119-36.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1961b. Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17. 219–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1962a. Explanatory models in linguistics. Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science, ed. by Nagel, Ernest, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred, 528–50. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1962b. A transformational approach to syntax. Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, ed. by Hill, Archibald A., 124–58. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Formal properties of grammars. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 323418. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964a. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964b. Introduction. In Roberts, ix-xv.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1967. Some general properties of phonological rules. Language 43. 10228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975 [1955]. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Introduction. In Chomsky 1975 [1955], 1–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. The generative enterprise: A discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Lecture 4. Paper presented at 50 Years of Linguistics at MIT: A Scientific Reunion, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Halle, Morris; and Lukoff, Fred. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, ed. by Halle, Morris, Lunt, Horace G., and MacLean, Hugh, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George. 1958. Finite state languages. Information and Control 1. 91–112. [Reprinted in Readings in mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, 156–71. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1965.].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 269–322. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Schützenberger, Marcel Paul. 1963. The algebraic theory of context-free languages. Computer programming and formal systems (Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics 35), ed. by Braffort, Paul and Hirschberg, David, 118–61. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Closs, Elizabeth. 1965. Diachronic syntax and generative grammar. Language 41. 40215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1969. Simplicity, descriptive adequacy, and binary features. Language 45. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressey, William W. 1968. Relative adverbs in Spanish: A transformational analysis. Language 44. 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwall, William O. 1965. Transformational generative grammar: A bibliography. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. Μ. W. 1969. Relative clauses and possessive phrases in two Australian languages. Language 45. 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Paul c., and Schwartz, Arthur. 1967. The syntax of the compared adjective in English. Language 43. 903–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph W. 1969. Tense and the form be in Black English. Language 45. 763–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. Word 19. 208–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry a., and Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.) 1964. The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Foley, James. 1965. Prothesis in the Latin verb sum. Language 41. 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, James. 1967. Spanish plural formation. Language 43. 486–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1999. Cyclicity and minimalism. Working minimalism, ed. by Epstein, Samuel D. and Hornstein, Norbert, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1965. On system-structure phonology. Language 41. 601–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1991. Language and brain: Redefining the goals and methodology of linguistics. The Chomskyan turn: Generative linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, and psychology, ed. by Kasher, Asa, 78–103. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. Allan. 1988. Theories in conflict: North American linguistics in the fifties and sixties. Theories in conflict: North American linguistics in the fifties and sixties: University of Toronto, ms.Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41. 260–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. Look and see. Language 43. 937–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1965. Review of Bach 1964. International Journal of American Linguistics 31. 265–70.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1961. On the role of simplicity in linguistic descriptions. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics 12: Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, ed. by Jakobson, Roman, 89–94. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 2011. Lecture 10. Paper presented at 50 Years of Linguistics at MIT: A Scientific Reunion, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert T. 1966. The measurement of phonological economy. Language 42. 60211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Florence Warshawsky. 1976 [1965]. Reflexivization. In McCawley 1976b, 6383.Google Scholar
Harris, Florence Warshawsky, and Harris, James. 1974. The development of the linguistics program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Online: http://ling50.mit.edu/harris-development.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1969. Sound change in Spanish and the theory of markedness. Language 45. 538–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Randy A. 1993. The linguistics wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Kinsuke. 1968. The passive construction in English. Language 44. 230–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Archibald A. 1964. History of the Linguistic Institute. ACLS Newsletter 15. 1–12.Google Scholar
Hill, Archibald A. 1991. The Linguistic Society of America and North American linguistics, 1950-1968. Historiographia Linguistica 18. 49–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1962. Review of Grammar of English nominalizations, by Lees, Robert B.. Word 18. 326–53.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1971. Linguistic speculations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1980. A sketch of how I came to be in linguistics. First person singular: Papers from the Conference on an Oral Archive for the History of American Linguistics, ed. by Davis, Boyd H. and O’Cain, Raymond K., 193–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1969. Some observations on tense and deixis in English. Language 45. 777–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntley, D. G. 1968. Two cases of analogical feature substitution in Slavic. Language 44. 501–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1964. Directions in (ethno-)linguistic theory. Transcultural studies in cognition (American Anthropologist 66. 3. part 2), ed. by A. Kimball Romney and Roy Goodwin D’Andrade, 6–56. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick a., and Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.) 1970. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, and Halle, Morris. 1956. Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin (ed.) 1957. Readings in linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1964. The English verb: Form and meanings. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976 [1969]. Discourse referents. In McCawley 1976b, 363–85. [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club in 1971.].Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1964. Mentalism in linguistics. Language 40. 124–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Fodor, Jerry A.. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39. 170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1967. Sonorant clusters in Greek. Language 43. 619–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Sheldon. 1965. Control of style with a generative grammar. Language 41. 619–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Eward S. 1964. Relatedness between grammatical systems. Language 40. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2007. States, changes of state, and the monotonicity hypothesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1968. English relativization and certain related problems. Language 44. 244–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45. 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Bloomington: Indiana University dissertation. [Published as Report NSF-16, 1965, and as Irregularity in syntax, New York: Holt, 1970.].Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972 [1970]. Linguistics and natural logic. The semantics of natural language, ed. by Davidson, David and Harmon, Gilbert, 545–665. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1976 [1969]. Pronouns and reference. In McCawley 1976b, 275–335. [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club in 1969.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1969. Some reasons why there can't be any some-any rule. Language 45. 608–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1989. The way we were: Or, the real actual truth about generative semantics: Amemoir. Journal of Pragmatics 13. 939–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, Sydney Μ. 1966. Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1965. French interrogatives: A transformational description. Language 41. 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1968. Observations on French possessives. Language 44. 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969a. Mirror image rules I: Syntax. Language 45. 575–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969b. Mirror image rules II: Lexicon and phonology. Language 45. 844–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1966. A restriction on Grassmann's law in Greek. Language 42. 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1960. A multiply ambiguous adjectival construction in English. Language 36. 207–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1976 [1960]. What are transformations? In McCawley 1976b, 27–41.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert b., and Klima, Edward S.. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39. 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Samuel R. 1965. Langue and parole in American linguistics. Foundations of Language 1. 83–94.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. 1967. A transformational re-examination of English questions. Language 43. 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Review of Jacobs & Rosenbaum 1970. Journal of Linguistics 8. 125–36.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1976a. Grammar and meaning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. (ed.) 1976b. Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the linguistic underground. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, John C. 1968. Some generative rules for German time adverbials. Language 44. 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Christine. 1965. Review of Bach 1964. Language 41. 632–40.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1976 [1969]. Cryptic note II and WAGS III. In McCawley 1976b, 337–45.Google Scholar
Murray, Stephen O. 1980. Gatekeepers and the ‘Chomskyan revolution’. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16. 73–88.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Stephen O. 1999. How The logical structure of linguistic theory didn't get published during the 1950s or 1960s. The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E. F. K. Koerner, ed. by Embleton, Sheila, Joseph, John E., and Niederehe, Hans-Josef, 261–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. Linguistic theory in America. 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ney, James W. 1975. The decade of private knowledge: Linguistics from the early 60s to the early 70s. Historiographia Linguistica 2. 143–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene. 1960 [1943]. A synopsis of English syntax. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Janet. 2010. Private knowledge, public tensions: Theory commitment in postwar American linguistics. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
O’Neil, Wayne A. 1964. Faroese vowel morphophonemics. Language 40. 366–71.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 2005. Reflections of a formal semanticist as of Feb. Reflections of a formal semanticist as of Feb: University of Massachusetts, ms.Google Scholar
Peng, Fred C. C. 1965. Review of Bach 1964. Lingua 13. 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David Μ. 2010. My path in linguistics. Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, ed. by Gerdts, Donna B., Moore, John C., and Polinsky, Maria, xvii–xxxvii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1964a. Constituent structure: A study of contemporary models ofsyntactic description. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1964b. Limitations of phrase structure grammars. In Fodor & Katz, 13751.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1964c. Mohawk prefix generation. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Lunt, Horace G., 346–57. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1976 [1967]. Linguistic anarchy notes. In McCawley 1976b, 201–26.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1979 [1962]. Some syntactic rules of Mohawk. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Reibel, David, and Schane, Sanford (eds.) 1969. Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rigsby, Bruce, and Silverstein, Michael. 1969. Nez Perce vowels and Proto-Sahaptian vowel harmony. Language 45. 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. Hood, and Woyna, Adam G.. 1972. Experiment in fast dissemination of research in selected fields in linguistics. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roberts, Paul. 1964. English syntax: Alternate edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published as Infinite syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985.].Google Scholar
Saporta, Sol. 1965. Ordered rules, dialect differences, and historical processes. Language 41. 218–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1966. The morphophonemics of the French verb. Language 42. 74658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1968. On the non-uniqueness of phonological representations. Language 44. 709–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Arthur. 1968. Derivative functions in syntax. Language 44. 747–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1961. Aclass of complex modifiers in English. Language 37. 342–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammer of English. Language 40. 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Neil. 2002. Personal history. Linguistics in Britain: Personal histories, ed. by Brown, Keith and Law, Vivien, 262–73. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Language 43. 393–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1960. The place of intonation in a generative grammar of English. Language 36. 360–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1998. From English philology to linguistics and back again. First person singular III: Autobiographies by North American scholars in the language sciences, ed. by Koerner, E. F. K., 227–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thorne, James P. 1965. Review of Postal 1964a. Journal of Linguistics 1. 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlenbeck, E. Μ. 1963. An appraisal of transformation theory. Lingua 12. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1967. Simplicity, ordered rules, and the first sound shift. Language 43. 636–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1968. Gothic and Germanic. Language 44. 720–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S-γ. 1968. Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Language 44. 695–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstock, John. 1968. Grimm's law in distinctive features. Language 44. 224–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Zeps, Valdis J. 1964. Optional rules in the formation of the Old Church Slavonic aorist. Language 40. 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar