Abstract

Abstract According to the ‘official’ transformationalist view, generative grammar represents a radical break with the established tradition of stuctural linguistics. This claim, reiterated many times by Chomsky and his followers, persists despite occasional mild disclaimers by Chomsky himself, who now concedes that his interpretation of ‘structural linguistics’ may have been somewhat too narrow (cf. e.g. Chomsky 1968:19 and 1979:76–7). While there is some thruth to the claim, especially on this narrow interpretation, it appears to be vastly exaggerated on the whole. This has not gone unnoticed, and there are numerous references in the literature -by authors of diverse interests and persuasions -pointing out that generative grammar should properly be regarded as an offshoot of, rather than a departure from, structural linguistics. Some of these references will be given below; for the moment they may be exemplified by Anttila (1974:278), who notes that transformationalism, far from being a revolution, was a natural further development of structuralism, and by Bolinger (1976:238), who aptly characterizes generative grammar as a ‘reluctant but nevertheless legitimate heir’ of structural linguistics.