1968Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

PREFACE TO THE 1995 EDITION

John Lyons

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This book was first published in 1968; it has been reprinted several times and has been translated, so far, into 12 languages; and it is still as widely used today in colleges and universities throughout the world as it was twenty years ago. The fact that this is so is of course very gratifying. It is, however, something that I never anticipated when I wrote the book. It has been suggested to me that one of the reasons why Introduction to theoretical linguistics (ITL) has become something of a classic (the term is not mine) is that in writing it I took a broader view of the subject-matter than the authors of most other textbooks of the period and emphasized, as they did not, continuity rather than discontinuity in the development of what I referred to in the original Preface as contemporary linguistic theory: continuity between philology and linguistics; between traditional grammar and modern (i.e., mid-twentieth-century) linguistics; between structuralism (European and American) and generativism. It is arguable that, at certain points and in certain respects, I overemphasized continuity. I did not appreciate the degree to which my view of linguistics had been shaped by my own academic background, which included a training in classical philology and philosophy, on the one hand, and a certain amount of formal and computational linguistics, on the other, and by my own research interests.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This book was first published in 1968; it has been reprinted several times and has been translated, so far, into 12 languages; and it is still as widely used today in colleges and universities throughout the world as it was twenty years ago. The fact that this is so is of course very gratifying. It is, however, something that I never anticipated when I wrote the book. It has been suggested to me that one of the reasons why Introduction to theoretical linguistics (ITL) has become something of a classic (the term is not mine) is that in writing it I took a broader view of the subject-matter than the authors of most other textbooks of the period and emphasized, as they did not, continuity rather than discontinuity in the development of what I referred to in the original Preface as contemporary linguistic theory: continuity between philology and linguistics; between traditional grammar and modern (i.e., mid-twentieth-century) linguistics; between structuralism (European and American) and generativism. It is arguable that, at certain points and in certain respects, I overemphasized continuity. I did not appreciate the degree to which my view of linguistics had been shaped by my own academic background, which included a training in classical philology and philosophy, on the one hand, and a certain amount of formal and computational linguistics, on the other, and by my own research interests.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This book was first published in 1968; it has been reprinted several times and has been translated, so far, into 12 languages; and it is still as widely used today in colleges and universities throughout the world as it was twenty years ago. The fact that this is so is of course very gratifying. It is, however, something that I never anticipated when I wrote the book. It has been suggested to me that one of the reasons why Introduction to theoretical linguistics (ITL) has become something of a classic (the term is not mine) is that in writing it I took a broader view of the subject-matter than the authors of most other textbooks of the period and emphasized, as they did not, continuity rather than discontinuity in the development of what I referred to in the original Preface as contemporary linguistic theory: continuity between philology and linguistics; between traditional grammar and modern (i.e., mid-twentieth-century) linguistics; between structuralism (European and American) and generativism. It is arguable that, at certain points and in certain respects, I overemphasized continuity. I did not appreciate the degree to which my view of linguistics had been shaped by my own academic background, which included a training in classical philology and philosophy, on the one hand, and a certain amount of formal and computational linguistics, on the other, and by my own research interests.

Key concepts: History, Classics, Library science, Art history, Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
PREFACE TO THE 1995 EDITION — Research Paper | ScholarLens