Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell 4 more universalistic analysis of the constituent structures of observed lan- guage and their relation to meaning, such as performed by Bloomfield in the 1930s 3. However, it was not until the post-Bloomfieldians of the 1950s era that quantification of the empirical results of such study began to take place in a concerted and serious way. This resulted in what has been widely recognized as descriptivist linguistics, although to a large extent at the expense of meaning. These descriptivist efforts, led by Harris in his distributional method 4, were relatively short lived, with the deve- lopment and subsequent dominance of Chomskyan thought in the 1960s 5 (what some have characterized as a revolution) 6. Although buil- ding upon the analysis of predecessors, Chomskyan linguistics soon came to be equated with theoretical linguistics, grounding linguistic theory in formal rules and emphasizing deductive as opposed to inductive discovery procedures. Since the early numerical studies did not progress far beyond analysis of the level of the phoneme, and to some extent the morpheme, 3 L. Bloomfield, Language (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1935). On the relation between Boas, Sapir and Bloomfield, often overlooked in discussion of these significant scholars, see M.R. Haas, «Boas, Sapir, and Bloomfield», in W.L. Chafe (ed.), American Indian Languages and American Linguistics (Lisse: de Ridder, 1976), pp. 59-69; repr. as «Boas, Sapir, and Bloomfield: Their Contribution to American Indian Linguistics», in A.S. Dil (ed.), Language, Culture, and History: Essays by Mary R. Haas (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978), pp. 194-206. 4 See Z.S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951; repr. as Structural Linguistics [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960]); and his Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics (Formal Linguistics Series, 1; Dordrecht: Reidel, 1970). Other important work in this area includes C.C. Fries, The Structure of English: An Introduction to the Construction of English Sentences (London: Longman, 1952); H.A. Gleason, An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1955; rev. edn, 1961). 5 Some of his most important works are N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures ( Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 4; The Hague: Mouton, 1957); idem, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964); idem, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory ( Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 38; The Hague: Mouton, 1964); idem, Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar ( Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 56; The Hague: Mouton, 1966); idem, Language and Mind (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968; 2nd edn, 1972); among others. 6 See N. Smith and D. Wilson, Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky’s Revolution (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979). Those not conquered by the Chomskyan revolution include tagmemics (K.L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior [ Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 24; The Hague: Mouton, 2nd end, 1967]), stratificational and relational grammars (e.g. L. Hjelmslev, Principes de grammaire générale [Copenhagen: Hoest, 1928; ET Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (trans. F. Whitfield; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1953)] and S. Lamb, Outline of Stratificational Grammar [Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1966]), and the London School (e.g. Firth and M.A.K. Halliday, Halliday: System and Function in Language [ed. G. Kress; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976]). For a synopsis of Firth’s work, much of it in Firth’s own words, and Halliday’s work, again much of it in his own words, see R. De Beaugrande, Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Works (LLL; London: Longman, 1991), pp. 187-222, 223-64, respectively.