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. 
Highlights
Schools of linguistics present a widely researched field in literature
The original Transformational-Generative Grammar morphed into Standard Theory, Extended Standard Theory, and several other improved versions that defined the school of linguistics in the late 20th Century
The original generative grammar model underwent a series of modifications and adjustments to improve it and make it relevant based on the changes in linguistics
Summary
Schools of linguistics present a widely researched field in literature. Notably, various linguists subscribe to multiple theories and schools of thought that differ in how they define the inter-relationships between ideas, concepts, and terms. Since new paradigms emerge from old ones, Kuhn (1970) observed that they typically contain much of the vocabulary and apparatus, both conceptual and manipulating, that the conventional paradigm had previously utilized. They rarely use these borrowed components in the conventional sense. With reference to Kuhn's argument, it is worth noting how functionalism emerged during the 19th Century and became a famous school of linguistic that explained how scholars defined, researched, and taught linguistic theories and concepts. Kuhn (1970) makes yet another bold claim that the new paradigms seldom employ these borrowed elements traditionally This statement seems to contradict the three selected schools of linguistic.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
