The Correlation between Old and New Linguistic Paradigms: A Literature Review Based on Kuhn’s School of Thoughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to assess the evidence regarding the relationship between previous and new schools of linguistics. According to Kuhn (1970), old linguistic paradigms incorporate vocabulary and apparatus from previous or traditional paradigms. In particular, this review addresses the Question: Do new paradigms in linguistic arise from old or previous ones, as Kuhn suggested? The study is significant in understanding emerging schools of linguistics based on previous ones. A qualitative literature review was applied to compare new and old schools of linguistics. According to the findings, there is substantial evidence that functionalism, structuralism, and Transformational-Generative Grammar support Kuhn's argument. Most notably, the changes of the transformational-generative grammar from a consistent and straightforward Standard Theory to an improved Extended Standard Theory, and finally, to the Minimalist Program, point towards the same conclusion. Interestingly, the transformations demonstrate how new paradigms arise from old paradigms without borrowing many concepts, terms, and experiments from them. This study draws the attention of linguists in the 21st Century to pay closer attention to the trends in schools of linguistics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".