Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T19:05:10.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A reply to the critiques of ‘Grammar is grammar and usage is usage’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Frederick J. Newmeyer*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
Department of Linguistics University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-4340 [fjn@u.washington.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Reply
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 2005, pp. 229 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 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

References

Anshen, Frank. 1975. Varied objections to various variable rules. Analyzing variation in language: Papers from the second Colloquium on New Ways of Analyzing Variation, ed. by Fasold, Ralph W. and Shuy, Roger W., 1–10. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J., and Bentivoglio, Paola. 1993. Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish. Language Variation and Change 5. 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berdan, Robert. 1973. The use of linguistically determined groups in socio-linguistic research. (Professional paper 26.) Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.Google Scholar
Berkenfield, Catie. 2002. The role of frequency in the realization of English that. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, 281–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1973. Quantitative versus dynamic paradigms: The case of Montreal que. New ways of analyzing variation in English, ed. by Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W., 22–43. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W., and Aissen, Judith. 2002. Optimality and functionality: Objections and refutations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 81–95.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W., Dingare, Shipra; and Manning, Christopher D.. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG-01 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy H., 13–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Hopper, Paul J.. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J., and Sankoff, David. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50. 333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–55.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. Why can’t we talk to each other? Lingua 110. 235–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Stig, and Hofland, Knut. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar based on the LOB Corpus, vol. 1: Tag frequencies and word frequencies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, and McDaniel, Chad. 1979. On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society 8. 151–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Lewis, and Crockett, Harry. 1967. Speech variation in a Piedmont community. Explorations in sociolinguistics, ed. by Lieberson, Stanley, 125–51. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983. Grammatical theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1994. A note on Chomsky on form and function. Journal of Linguistics 30. 245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics 37. 101–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Review article on On nature and language, by Chomsky, Noam, The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology, by Anderson, Stephen R. and Lightfoot, David W., Language in a Darwinian perspective, by Bichakjian, Bernard H.. Language 79. 583–99.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category ‘adjective’. Explaining language universais, ed. by Hawkins, John, 167–85. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Hopper, Paul J.. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. GLOW 1978-1998. Glot International 3. 18–19.Google Scholar