Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Gatekeepers and the “Chomskian revolution”

1980; Wiley; Volume: 16; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/1520-6696(198001)16

1520-6696

Stephen O. Murray,

Multilingual Education and Policy

Journal of the History of the Behavioral SciencesVolume 16, Issue 1 p. 73-88 Article Gatekeepers and the "Chomskian revolution" Stephen O. Murray, Stephen O. Murray Social Network Consultants, 1800 Grove St., Suite 5, San Francisco, CA 94117Search for more papers by this author Stephen O. Murray, Stephen O. Murray Social Network Consultants, 1800 Grove St., Suite 5, San Francisco, CA 94117Search for more papers by this author First published: January 1980 https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(198001)16:1 3.0.CO;2-WCitations: 25AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract The widely believed folk history of the confrontation between an established neo-Bloomfieldian generation and the revolutionary advances of transformational grammarians bears little relation to the open access to publication that Noam Chomsky encountered in the 1950s. Although a rhetoric of revolutionary conflict appeared, it cannot be attributed to attempts by the established generation to suppress new ideas, as in Thomas Kuhn's morphology of scientific revolutions. The central neo-Bloomfieldian gatekeeper, Bernard Bloch, fostered the diffusion of Chomsky's ideas and promoted the careers of Chomsky and Robert Lees. Other prominent neo-Bloomfieldians, regarding Chomsky as continuing the work of his teacher Zellig Harris, were sympathetic to his ideas and ready to concede his advances in syntactic theory. Nonetheless, Chomsky and his followers adopted an aggressive stance, denying the value of preceding work in structuralist linguistics. Although the case is anomalous for Kuhn's theory, it fits a sociological theory of scientific revolutions. Citing Literature Volume16, Issue1January 1980Pages 73-88 RelatedInformation