Syntactic Structures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Syntactic Structures
Syntactic Structures (Noam Chomsky book) cover.jpg
First edition
Author Noam Chomsky
Language English
Subject Natural language syntax
Publisher Mouton & Co.
Publication date
February 1957
Pages 117
Preceded by The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory
Followed by Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

Syntactic Structures, originally published in 1957, is the first book by American linguist Noam Chomsky. A highly influential work in linguistics in the second half of the 20th-century,[6] it laid the foundations of transformational generative grammar, a rigorous and formal approach to the analysis of sentence structures of human languages that combines phrase structure rules with an innovative conceptual device called "transformations" to account for all grammatically acceptable sentences of a given language.

A short monograph on the order of a mere hundred pages, written for specialist readers of linguistics, based on lecture notes conceived for undergraduate-level students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[7], Syntactic Structures attempted to establish syntax (i.e., the study of sentence structures) as a self-contained area of linguistic inquiry independent of semantics (i.e., the study of meaning), offering the now-famous sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as an example of a sentence that has no meaning but nevertheless seems intuitively correct on a grammatical level to a native English speaker .

Initially well-received as a welcome extension of the Bloomfieldian descriptive, structuralist approach to language analysis that was prevalent in the 1930s and 1940s[8], this brief treatise by a relatively unknown 28-year-old young lecturer released by a small publisher in the Netherlands soon drew criticism from older linguists for taking linguistics to a radically new direction. Younger linguists, however, became particularly attracted to its theory[9], marking the beginning of a new era of linguistic theorizing with a more cognitive, mentalist and formal approach.


Chomsky had an interest in language from a very young age. His father William Chomsky was one of the foremost Hebrew scholars in the world. At the age of twelve, Chomsky read an early form of his father's David Kimhi's Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol) (1952), an annotated study of a thirteenth-century Hebrew grammar.[10] At sixteen, Chomsky started his undergraduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania. There during his freshman year, he studied Arabic (out of interest in Arab-Jewish cooperation in a binational Palestine)[11] and was the only student to do so.[12] In 1947, the year this university established its linguistics department, Chomsky met Zellig Harris, a prominent Bloomfieldian linguist. Chomsky became very close to Harris and proofread the manuscript of Harris's Methods in Structural Linguistics (1951). This was Chomsky's introduction to formal, theoretical linguistics and soon he decided to major in the subject.[13]

For his undergraduate thesis, Chomsky undertook to apply Harris's methods of structural analysis to Hebrew, the language he had studied under his father in childhood. At Harris's suggestion Chomsky began studying logic, philosophy, and the foundations of mathematics. He was particularly influenced by American philosopher Nelson Goodman's work on constructional systems and on the inadequacy of inductive approaches. He found striking similarities between Harris's perspective on language and Goodman's perspective on philosophical systems. Chomsky was equally influenced by American philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine's critiques of logical empiricism. In his undergraduate thesis, Chomsky attempted to construct a detailed grammar of Hebrew using Harris's methods. He tried to construct a system of rules for generating the phonetic forms of sentences, and to this end devised a system of recursive rules to describe the form and structure of sentences, organizing the devices in Harris's Methods differently for this purpose. In particular, Chomsky found that there were many different ways of presenting the grammar. He tried to develop an idea of 'simplicity' for grammars that could be used to sort out the "linguistically significant generalizations" from among the alternative possible sets of grammatical rules. Chomsky completed his undergraduate thesis The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew in 1949. In 1951, a revised and expanded version formed his master's thesis bearing the same title.[14]

Having won a Junior Fellowship in the Society of Fellows in Harvard University in 1951,[15] Chomsky continued his studies along these lines. More significantly, he became interested in developing a linguistic theory using a non-taxonomic approach and based on mathematical formalism, and this line of inquiry represented a decisive break with the Bloomfieldian taxonomic structuralist tradition of linguistic analysis. In 1953, Chomsky published his first academic paper titled Systems of Syntactic Analysis in the Journal of Symbolic Logic, where he first attempted to adopt and adapt the highly technical symbolic language of formal mathematical logic to describe the syntax of a language.[16] During this fellowship, he compiled a gigantic oeuvre, nearly 1000 typewritten pages long, titling it The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (LSLT).

In 1955, with the help of Harris and MIT linguist Roman Jakobson, Chomsky moved to MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) as the in-house linguist on Victor Yngve's mechanical translation project. The same year he submitted just the ninth chapter of LSLT, titled Transformational Analysis, to the University of Pennsylvania as his doctoral dissertation and received his Ph.D. But it would be 18 more years before LSLT would see full publication.


Syntactic Structures was Chomsky's first published book, a short monograph that distilled the concepts presented in LSLT. It was published by a Dutch publishing house, Mouton. In 1956, Chomsky authored an academic paper titled Three Models for the Description of Language,[17] which foreshadows many of the concepts presented in Syntactic Strucutres. During the same year, he showed an editor at Mouton his lecture notes for MIT undergraduates[18] and a revised version of these notes were published as Syntactic Structures in the first week of February, 1957.[7] Favorable, sometimes adulatory,[19] reviews from fellow American linguists, e.g., Robert Lees, made Syntactic Structures visible on the linguistic research landscape, and shortly thereafter the book created, according to several commentators, a revolution in the discipline.[3][4]


Goals of syntactic investigation[edit]

In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky tries to construct a "formalized theory of linguistic structure" and places emphasis on "rigorous formulations" and "precisely constructed models".[20] In the introductory first chapter of Syntactic Structures, Chomsky gives a definition of human language syntax and talks about the goals of syntactic investigation to be conducted by linguists : Firstly, linguists must construct a grammar, a device which produces the sentences of the language under investigation. Secondly, the concepts underlying grammars need to be studied abstractly in order to develop a general method with a view to selecting the best possible device or grammar for any language given a corpus of it. Thirdly, a linguistic theory must give a satisfactory description of all the levels (i.e. phonology, morphology, sentence structure) of a language.[21]


A tree diagram of the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"

In the second chapter titled "The Independence of Grammar", Chomsky states that "the fundamental aim in the linguistic analysis of a language L is to separate the grammatical sequences which are the sentences of L from the ungrammatical sequences which are not sentences of L and to study the structure of the grammatical sequences."[22] By "grammatical" sentence Chomsky means a sentence that is intuitively "acceptable to a native speaker",[22] a sentence that he pronounces with a "normal sentence intonation", a sentence that he can "recall much more quickly" and "learn much more easily".[23] Analyzing further about the basis of grammaticality, Chomsky shows three ways that do not determine whether a sentence is grammatical or not: its inclusion in a corpus, its being meaningful, and its being statistically probable. To illustrate his point, Chomsky presents a nonsensical sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"[24] and says that even though the sentence is grammatical, it is not included in any known corpus at the time and is neither meaningful nor statistically probable.

Chomsky concludes that "grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning, and that probabilistic models give no particular insight into some of the basic problems of syntactic structure." [25]

Grammar models and transformations[edit]

In the third chapter titled "An Elementary Linguistic Theory", assuming that a set of "grammatical" sentences of a language has been given, Chomsky tries to figure out what sort of device or model gives an adequate account of this set of utterances. To this end, he first discusses finite state grammar, a communication theoretic model based on a conception of language as a Markov process. Then in the fourth chapter titled "Phrase Structure", he discusses phrase structure grammar, a model based on immediate constituent analysis. In the fifth chapter titled "Limitations of Phrase Structure Description", he claims to show that both these models are inadequate for the purpose of linguistic description and as a solution, proposes his own formal theory of syntax called transformational generative grammar (TGG), "a more powerful model combining phrase structure and grammatical transformations that might remedy these inadequacies."[26]

A transformational grammar has a "natural tripartite arrangement": phrase structure rules, transformational rules and morphophonemic rules.[27] The phrase structure rules are used for the expansion of grammatical categories and for substitutions. These yield a string of morphemes. A transformational rule "operates on a given string...with a given constituent structure and converts it into a new string with a new derived constituent structure."[28] It "may rearrange strings or may add or delete morphemes."[29] Transformational rules are of two kinds: obligatory or optional. Obligatory transformations applied on the "terminal strings" of the grammar produce the "kernel of the language",[27] which are simple, active, declarative and affirmative sentences. To produce passive, negative, interrogative or complex sentences, one or more optional transformation rules must be applied in a particular order to the kernel sentences. At the final stage of the grammar, morphophonemic rules convert a string of words into a string of phonemes. Chomsky then applies this idea of transformational rules in the English auxiliary verb system.

In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky borrowed the term "generative" from a previous work of mathematician Emil Post,[30] who was concerned about "mechanically deriving inferences from an initial axiomatic sentence".[31] Chomsky applied Post's work on logical inference to describe sets of strings of a natural language. When he says a finite set of rules "generate" (i.e. "recursively enumerate"[32]) the set of potentially infinite number of sentences of a particular human language, he means that they provide an explicit, structural description of those sentences.[33]

Justification of grammars[edit]

In the sixth chapter titled "On the Goals of Linguistic Theory", Chomsky writes that his "fundamental concern" is "the problem of justification of grammars". Talking about the goals of linguistic theory, he draws parallels to theories in physical sciences. He compares a finite corpus of utterances of a particular language to "observations", grammatical rules to "laws" which are stated in terms of "hypothetical constructs" such as phonemes, phrases, etc.[26] According to Chomsky, the criteria for the "justification of grammars" are "external conditions of adequacy", "condition of generality" and "simplicity". To choose which is the best grammar for a given corpus of a given language, Chomsky shows his preference for the "evaluation procedure" (which chooses the best possible grammar for a language against the aforementioned criteria) over the "discovery procedure" (a procedure employed in structural linguistics which is supposed to automatically produce the correct grammar of a language from a corpus) or the "decision procedure" (a procedure which is supposed to automatically choose the best grammar for a language from a set of competing grammars).[34]

Application of Transformational Grammar in English[edit]

In the seventh chapter titled "Some Transformations in English", Chomsky rigorously and at length applies his just-proposed transformation-based approach on the formation of English negative passive sentences, yes-no and wh- interrogative sentences, etc. and claims that "a wide variety of apparently distinct phenomena [in English language] all fall into place in a very simple and natural way when we adopt the viewpoint of transformational analysis and that, consequently, the grammar of English becomes much more simple and orderly." [35]

Role of Semantics in Syntax[edit]

In the ninth chapter titled "Syntax and Semantics", Chomsky emphasizes on the fact that his analysis laid out in chapters 3 to 7 had been "completely formal and non-semantic". He then offers many counterexamples to refute some common linguistic assertions about grammar's reliance on meaning and concludes that the correspondence between meaning and grammatical form is so "imperfect", "inexact" and "vague" that it is "relatively useless" to use meaning "as a basis for grammatical description".[36] For example, Chomsky shows that to build a theory of phonemic distinction based on meaning would entail "complex", "exhaustive" and "laborious investigation" of an "immense", "vast corpus". On the contrary, phonemic distinctness can be easily explained in a "straightforward" way and in "completely non-semantic terms" with the help of "pair tests".[37] However, Chomsky claims that a rigorous, formal, non-semantically-motivated framework of syntactic theory (highly appreciable for effectively "revealing" grammatical structures) can ultimately be useful to support a parallel independent semantic theory.[38]

Rhetorical style[edit]

Randy Allen Harris, a specialist of the rhetoric of science, notes that Syntactic Structures "appeals calmly and insistently to a new conception" of linguistic science. "Lucid, convincing, syntactically daring, the calm voice of spoke directly to the imagination and ambition of the entire field." It bridged the "rhetorical gulf" to make the message of LSLT (a highly abstract, mathematically dense, and "forbiddingly technical" work) more palatable to the wider field of linguists.[39] In a more detailed analysis of the book, Harris finds Chomsky's argumentation in Syntactic Structures "multilayered and compelling". Chomsky not only makes a logical appeal (i.e. logos) to a highly formalized model of language, but also appeals explicitly and tacitly to the ethos of science.[40]

Raymond Oenbring, a doctorate in the rhetoric of science, thinks that Chomsky "overstates the novelty" of transformational rules "seems to take all the credit for them" even though a version of them had already been introduced by Zellig Harris in a previous work. He notes that although Chomsky himself was "cautious" to "display deference" to prevailing linguistic research, his enthusiastic followers such as Lees were much more "confrontational" and sought to drive a rhetorical wedge between Chomsky's work and that of post-Bloomfieldians, arguing that the latter doesn't qualify as linguistic "science".[41]


In an early review of the book, prominent American structural linguist Charles F. Voegelin identified that in Syntactic Structures posed a fundamental challenge to the established way of doing linguistic research, noting that it had the potential to accomplish "a Copernican revolution" within linguistics.[42] Another noted American linguist Martin Joos called the Chomskyan brand of linguistic theory a "heresy" within the Bloomfieldian tradition.[43] These early remarks proved to be prescient as American linguist Paul Postal noted in 1964 that most of the "syntactic conceptions prevalent in the United States" were "versions of the theory of phrase structure grammars in the sense of Chomsky".[44] By 1965, linguists were saying that Syntactic Structures had "mark[ed] an epoch",[45] had a "startling impact" [46] and created a Kuhnian "revolution".[47] British linguist John Lyons wrote in 1966 that "no work has had a greater influence upon the current linguistic theory than Chomsky's Syntactic Structures."[48] Prominent historian of linguistics R. H. Robins wrote in 1967 that the publication of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was "probably the most radical and important change in direction in descriptive linguistics and in linguistic theory that has taken place in recent years".[49] Another historian of linguistics Frederick Newmeyer considers Syntactic Structures "revolutionary" for two reasons. Firstly, it showed that a formal yet non-empiricist theory of language was possible and more importantly, it demonstrated this possibility in a practical sense by formally treating a fragment of English grammar. Secondly, it put syntax at the center of the theory of language. Syntax was recognized as the focal point of language production, in which a finite set of rules can produce an infinite number of sentences. As a result, morphology and phonology were relegated in importance.[50]

In addition, Syntactic Structures indirectly introduced Chomsky's mentalist perspective in linguistic analysis (much more explicitly formulated in Chomsky's next major book Aspects of the Theory of Syntax). This had a massive influence on the psychological study of language. Before Syntactic Structures, psychologists treated human language in terms of conditioned responses to outside stimuli and reinforcement. Chomsky argued that humans produce language using separate syntactic and semantic components inside the mind, and presented TGG as a coherent abstract description of this phenomenon. This induced a flurry of psycholinguistic research in the following decades.

Moreover, Syntactic Structures initiated an interdisciplinary dialog between philosophers of language and linguists. American philosopher John Searle wrote that "Chomsky's work is one of the most remarkable intellectual achievements of the present era, comparable in scope and coherence to the work of Keynes or Freud. It has done more than simply produce a revolution in linguistics; it has created a new discipline of generative grammar and is having a revolutionary effect on two other subjects, philosophy and psychology".[3] Chomsky and Willard Van Orman Quine, a stridently anti-mentalistic philosopher of language and one of Chomsky's early influences, debated many times on the merit of Chomsky's linguistic theories. Most philosophers supported Chomsky's idea that natural languages are innate and syntactically rule-governed. In addition, they thought that there also exist rules in the human mind which bind meanings to utterances. The investigation of what these rules might be started a new era in philosophical semantics.

With its formal and logical treatment of language, Syntactic Structures also brought linguistics and the new field of computer science closer together. Renowned computer scientist Donald Knuth has recounted he read Syntactic Structures during his honeymoon in 1961 and was greatly influenced by it.[51]


In his 1964 presidential address to the Linguistic Society of America, American linguist Charles Hockett considered Syntactic Structures one of "only four major breakthroughs in modern linguistics", alongside Sir William Jones's address to the Asiatic Society in 1786, Karl Verner's Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung in 1875 and Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de Linguistique Générale in 1916.[8] He rapidly turned into a fierce critic of Chomskyan linguistics. By 1966, Hockett rejected "[Chomsky's] frame of reference in almost every detail".[52] In his 1968 book The State of the Art, Hockett writes that Chomsky's main fallacy is that he treats language as a formal, well-defined, stable system and proceeds from this idealized abstraction. Hockett believes such an idealization is not possible, claiming that there is no empirical evidence that our language faculty is, in reality, a well-defined underlying system. The sources that give rise to language faculty in humans, e.g. physical genetic transmission and cultural transmission, are themselves ill-defined. In Hockett's view, "we must not promote our more or less standardized by-and-large characterization of the language to the status of a monolithic ideal, nor infer that because we can achieve a fixed characterization some such monolithic ideal exists, in the lap of God or in the brain of each individual speaker."[53] Hockett also opposed Chomsky's hypothesis that syntax is completely independent of semantics.

Another long-standing critic of Chomskyan linguistics, the British linguist Geoffrey Sampson, maintains that Chomsky's linguistics is "intuition-based", overly relying on native speakers' subjective introspective judgments about their own language and consequently gives less importance to language data empirically observed by impersonal third parties.[54] According to Sampson, Syntactic Structures largely owes its good fortune of becoming the dominant theoretical paradigm in the following years to the charisma of Chomsky's intellect. Sampson notes that there are many references in Syntactic Structures to Chomsky's own LSLT in matters regarding the formal underpinnings of Chomsky's approach, but LSLT was not widely available in print for decades. Nevertheless, Sampson's argument runs, Syntactic Structures, albeit "sketchy", derived its "aura of respectability" from LSLT lurking in the background. In turn, the acceptance of Chomsky's future works rested on the success of Syntactic Structures.[55] For example, British-American linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum notes that even though Syntactic Structures boldly claims that "“it is impossible, not just difficult" for finite-state devices to generate all grammatical sentences of English, and then alludes to LSLT for the “rigorous proof” of this, in reality, LSLT doesn't contain a valid, convincing proof dismissing finite-state devices.[56]

Additionally, Pullum remarks that the "originality" of Syntactic Structures is "highly overstated" as it "does not properly credit the earlier literature on which it draws". For example, Pullum demonstrates in detail how "the approach advocated by SS (Syntactic Structures) springs directly out of the work of the mathematical logician Emil Post on formalizing proof, but few linguists are aware of this, because Post’s papers are not cited." Pullum adds that it was Zellig Harris who initially proposed that formal axiomatic systems could be exploited to generate probable sentences in language in a top-down manner, ten years before in 1947, but this is downplayed in Syntactic Structures.[56]

In 1982, Pullum and another British linguist Gerald Gazdar argued that Chomsky's criticisms of context-free phrase structure grammar in Syntactic Structures are either mathematically flawed or based on incorrect assessments of the empirical data and that a purely phrase structure treatment of grammar can explain linguistic phenomena better than transformational grammar.[57]


In 2000, University of Minnesota's Center for Cognitive Sciences compiled a list of the 100 most influential works in cognitive science from the 20th century. In total, 305 scholarly works and one movie were nominated via the internet. Syntactic Structures was ranked number one on this list, marking it as the most influential work of cognitive science of the century.[58]

Syntactic Structures was included in The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written, a book on intellectual history by British literary critic and biographer Martin Seymour-Smith published in 1998.[59]

Syntactic Structures was also featured in a list of 100 best English language non-fiction books since 1923 picked by the American weekly magazine Time. [60]

Notes and References[edit]

  1. ^ In Lees 1957, an influential review of Syntactic Structures, linguist Robert Lees wrote that "Chomsky's book on syntactic structures is one of the first serious attempts on the part of a linguist to construct within the tradition of theory-construction a comprehensive theory of language which may be understood in the same sense that a chemical, biological theory is ordinarily understood by experts in those fields. It's not a mere reorganization of the data into a new kind of library catalog, nor another speculative philosophy about the nature of Man and Language, but a rather rigorous explanation of our intuitions about language in terms of an overt axiom system, the theorems derivable from it, explicit results which may be compared with new data and other intuitions, all based plainly on an overt theory of the internal structure of languages".
  2. ^ Robins 1967
  3. ^ a b c Searle 1972
  4. ^ a b Newmeyer 1996
  5. ^ Cook 2007
  6. ^ [1][2][3][4][5]
  7. ^ a b There are at least two accounts from Chomsky on this subject. In LSLT, Chomsky recounted: "In 1956, at the suggestion of Morris Halle, I showed some of my lecture notes for an undergraduate course at MIT to Cornelis van Schooneveld, the editor of the Janua Linguarum series of Mouton and he offered to publish them. A slightly revised version appeared in 1957, under the title Syntactic Structures." Two decades later (Dillinger & Palácio 1997:162-163), Chomsky recounted: "At the time Mouton was publishing just about anything, so they decided they’d publish it along with a thousand other worthless things that were coming out. That’s the story of Syntactic Structures: course notes for undergraduate science students published by accident in Europe." The publication of Syntactic structures is also discussed in Noordegraaf 2001 and van Schooneveld 2001.
  8. ^ a b Hockett 1965:185
  9. ^ See Chapter 3 of Harris 1993 for details
  10. ^ Barsky 1997: 10
  11. ^ personal email 2015-02-18
  12. ^ Barsky 1997: 47
  13. ^ Barsky 1997: 49-50
  14. ^ Chomsky 1949
  15. ^ Graffi 2001: 331
  16. ^ Chomsky 1953
  17. ^ Chomsky 1956
  18. ^ Chomsky's own typewritten letter to Mouton editor Cornelis van Schooneveld here:
  19. ^ Oenbring 2009 notes that Lees's review was "hyperbolic", his language "loaded" and Harris 1993 refers to Lees as "Chomsky's Huxley", referring to the proselytizing "bulldog" role played by Thomas Henry Huxley in defense of Charles Darwin's theories on evolution.
  20. ^ Chomsky 1957, Preface
  21. ^ Chomsky 1957: 5-6
  22. ^ a b Chomsky 1957: 13
  23. ^ Chomsky 1957: 16
  24. ^ Chomsky 1957:15
  25. ^ Chomsky 1957: 17
  26. ^ a b Chomsky 1957: 49
  27. ^ a b Chomsky 1957: 45
  28. ^ Chomsky 1957: 44
  29. ^ Chomsky 1957: 46
  30. ^ In Chomsky 1959, Chomsky writes that he was "following a familiar technical use of the term "generate," cf. Post (1944)"
  31. ^ Post 1943, Post 1944 and Pullum and Scholz 2001
  32. ^ Pullum and Scholz 2001
  33. ^ Chomsky 1957 and Chomsky 1965
  34. ^ Chomsky 1957: 49-56
  35. ^ Chomsky 1957: 68
  36. ^ Chomsky 1957: 101
  37. ^ Chomsky 1957: 96-97
  38. ^ Chomsky 1957: 103
  39. ^ Harris 1993: Chapter 3
  40. ^ Harris 1989
  41. ^ Oenbring 2009
  42. ^ Voegelin 1958
  43. ^ Joos 1961
  44. ^ Postal 1964
  45. ^ Levin 1965:92
  46. ^ Bach 1965:111-12
  47. ^ Thorne 1965:74
  48. ^ Lyons 1966
  49. ^ Robins 1967:226
  50. ^ Newmeyer 1996: 24-26
  51. ^ From the preface of Knuth 2003: "...researchers in linguistics were beginning to formulate rules of grammar that were considerably more mathematical than before. And people began to realize that such methods are highly relevant to the artificial languages that were becoming popular for computer programming, even though natural languages like English remained intractable. I found the mathematical approach to grammar immediately appealing—so much so, in fact, that I must admit to taking a copy of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures along with me on my honeymoon in 1961. During odd moments, while crossing the Atlantic in an ocean liner and while camping in Europe, I read that book rather thoroughly and tried to answer some basic theoretical questions. Here was a marvelous thing: a mathematical theory of language in which I could use a computer programmer's intuition! The mathematical, linguistic, and algorithmic parts of my life had previously been totally separate. During the ensuing years those three aspects became steadily more intertwined; and by the end of the 1960s I found myself a Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, primarily because of work that I had done with respect to languages for computer programming."
  52. ^ Hockett 1966: 156
  53. ^ Hockett 1968: 83
  54. ^ Sampson 2001: 5, 10 and 13
  55. ^ Sampson 2001: 152
  56. ^ a b Pullum 2011
  57. ^ Pullum and Gazdar 1982
  58. ^ See the list online here:
  59. ^ Seymour-Smith, Martin (1998). The 100 most influential books ever written : the history of thought from ancient times to today. Secaucus, N.J.: Carol Publ. Group. ISBN 978-0806520001. OCLC 38258131. 
  60. ^ Grossman, Lev (17 August 2016). "All-TIME 100 Nonfiction Books : Syntactic Structures". Time. Retrieved 14 October 2016. 


Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]