What do you think?
Rate this book
Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought
Book by Chomsky, Noam
152 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
16 people are currently reading
618 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
979 books17.4k followersAvram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 22 reviews
October 28, 2020
" إن العلم الطبيعي لتشومسكي حول الطبيعة البشرية يشير إلى أن البشر مكونون أحيائياً ليكونوا مخلوقات مبدعة تختار أيضاً الاجتماع وفاقاً لشروط الاستقلالية. يمكن لهذا العلم، بل ينبغي، إن أردنا أن نكون عقلاء، أن يساعد على تسويغ رؤية تقوم على أن العيش المشترك بين البشر يُمَكِّنهم من حياة أفضل ويلبي حاجاتهم عند قيامهم بذلك. يمكن أن يكون عِلمُ الطبيعة عند تشومسكي المفتاحَ لتجديد وتوطيد القِيَم الأخلاقية التنويرية."
— جيمس مغِلْفري.
يهدف تشومسكي إلى فهم " الطبيعة الدقيقة للتراكم المعرفي قبل اللسانيات الحديثة، وتقييم الأهمية المعاصرة لهذه المساهمة، وإيجاد السبل لاستثمارها في الارتقاء بدراسة اللغة. مع النظر في الإشكالات الفلسفية- العلمية التي أطَّرت الرؤى حول طبيعة أو أصل اللغة واكتسابها في علاقتها بالذهن/ بالدماغ وبالجسم/بالمادة وبالطبيعة البشرية على وجه التحديد، من منظور الاهتمامات المعرفية للسانيات التوليدية وبرنامج بحثها الذي أسس في استقلال عن النحو الفلسفي للقرنين السابع والثامن عشر. ويقدم إضاءات هامة عن أعمال شخصيات تاريخية، كما أنه يكشف ويناقش نصوصاً تاريخية غالباً ما تتجاهل لكنها ذات صلة واضحة بالموضوع. كما أن الكتاب يوضح المنهجية الأساسية لدراسة الذهن لدى تشومسكي ولدى عقلانيين- رومانسيين آخرين، ومكانة المنظور العقلاني- الرومانسي للذهن ولدراسته في أعمال تشومسكي.( علم الذهن ، تطور منذ 1966، تاريخ صدور اللسانيات العقلانية، ليتحولا إلى مايعرف حالياً باللسانيات الإحيائية.)
فمن خلال عبارة " اللسانيات الديكارتية" يسعى تشومسكي إلى تحديد الخصائص المميزة لمجموعة من الأفكار والاهتمامات التي تظهر في تقليد " النحو الفلسفي" أو " الكلي"، الذي تطور انطلاقاً من(1960) Grammaire générale et raisonnée لبور رويال؛ وفي اللسانيات العامة التي تطورت خلال الفترة الرومانسية وما بعدها مباشرة؛ وفي الفلسفة العقلانية للذهن التي تشكل في جزء منها الخلفية المشتركة بينهما. ومن خلال مناقشة النظريات الرومانسية للغة والذهن في هذا الإطار؛ يؤكد تشومسكي أن اهتمامه هنا ليس نقل أفكار ومذاهب معينة، بل نقل مضمونها ودلالتها المعاصرة أساساً.
ومن خلال طرحه نلتمس الصراع الفكري الدائر في العلوم المعرفية بين التجريبية و العقلانية- الرومانسية.
" يتمثل الافتراض العام للسانيات الديكارتية في أن مبادئ اللغة والمنطق الطبيعي معروفة بشكل لاواعٍ، وأنها إلى حد كبير شرطٌ مسبق لاكتساب اللغة بدلاً من كونها مسألةٌ ترتبط ب " تواضع" أو " تدريب". "
كتاب رائع للمهتمين بدراسة اللغة و الذهن، وعلائقها ببعض.
October 8, 2014
This book is excellent for getting at what Chomsky is after in his search for a Generative Grammar, a system of syntatical rules and transforms that can recursively generate all possible utterance forms of natural languages from biologically hardwired primitives. Strong motivation for the project emerges from the "methodological dualism" Chomsky exposes in empirical accounts of language acquisition and use.
Cognitive scientifically minded accounts, says Chomsky, fail to appreciate the empirical fact that the poverty of stimulus in linguistic acquisition precludes the efficacy of "conditioning" however generously conceived as a possible explanation of how we acquire language. Secondly, even the most sophisticated connectionist models of language acquisition fail to capture the unbounded creative freedom of language users to produce radically novel sentences. Chomsky's naturalistic alternative is an account of a native mental Generative Grammar that allows us to acquire and use language as we do in virtue of our biological make up.
The parallels between Descartes' own views on language and modern linguistic and cognitive scientific thought are interestingly drawn, if not exhaustively detailed. Chomsky's summary is a good snapshot of the book's central theme:
"it seems that after a long interruption, linguistics and cognitive psychology are now turning their attention to approaches to the study of language structure and mental processes which in part originated and in part were revitalized in the “century of genius” and which were fruitfully developed until well into the nineteenth century. The creative aspect of language use is once again a central concern of linguistics, and the theories of universal grammar that were outlined in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have been revived and elaborated in the theory of transformational generative grammar. With this renewal of the study of universal formal conditions on the system of linguistic rules, it becomes possible to take up once again the search for deeper explanations for the phenomena found in particular languages and observed in actual performance. Contemporary work has finally begun to face some simple facts about language that have been long neglected, for example, the fact that the speaker of a language knows a great deal that he has not learned and that his normal linguistic behavior cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of “stimulus control,”“conditioning,”“generalization and analogy,”“patterns” and “habit structures,” or “dispositions to respond,” in any reasonably clear sense of these much abused terms. As a result, a fresh look has been taken, not only at language structure, but at the preconditions for language acquisition and at the perceptual function of abstract systems of internalized rules. I have tried to indicate, in this summary of Cartesian linguistics and the theory of mind from which it arose, that much of what is coming to light in this work was foreshadowed or even explicitly formulated in earlier and now largely forgotten studies" (p. 108)
Cognitive scientifically minded accounts, says Chomsky, fail to appreciate the empirical fact that the poverty of stimulus in linguistic acquisition precludes the efficacy of "conditioning" however generously conceived as a possible explanation of how we acquire language. Secondly, even the most sophisticated connectionist models of language acquisition fail to capture the unbounded creative freedom of language users to produce radically novel sentences. Chomsky's naturalistic alternative is an account of a native mental Generative Grammar that allows us to acquire and use language as we do in virtue of our biological make up.
The parallels between Descartes' own views on language and modern linguistic and cognitive scientific thought are interestingly drawn, if not exhaustively detailed. Chomsky's summary is a good snapshot of the book's central theme:
"it seems that after a long interruption, linguistics and cognitive psychology are now turning their attention to approaches to the study of language structure and mental processes which in part originated and in part were revitalized in the “century of genius” and which were fruitfully developed until well into the nineteenth century. The creative aspect of language use is once again a central concern of linguistics, and the theories of universal grammar that were outlined in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have been revived and elaborated in the theory of transformational generative grammar. With this renewal of the study of universal formal conditions on the system of linguistic rules, it becomes possible to take up once again the search for deeper explanations for the phenomena found in particular languages and observed in actual performance. Contemporary work has finally begun to face some simple facts about language that have been long neglected, for example, the fact that the speaker of a language knows a great deal that he has not learned and that his normal linguistic behavior cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of “stimulus control,”“conditioning,”“generalization and analogy,”“patterns” and “habit structures,” or “dispositions to respond,” in any reasonably clear sense of these much abused terms. As a result, a fresh look has been taken, not only at language structure, but at the preconditions for language acquisition and at the perceptual function of abstract systems of internalized rules. I have tried to indicate, in this summary of Cartesian linguistics and the theory of mind from which it arose, that much of what is coming to light in this work was foreshadowed or even explicitly formulated in earlier and now largely forgotten studies" (p. 108)
January 23, 2020
Reading and understanding profundities of this book presupposes two important aspects: (1) familiarity with rationalism in philosophy, as developed in Descartes, Leipniz, Cordemoy, amongst others; and (2) familiarity with the Port-Royal philosophy of grammar where the notion surface & deep structure have roots, and how grammaire générale [universal grammar] and grammaire raisonnée [explanatory grammar – explanatory adequacy in philosophy] have put to be a pre-descendants of modern ideas in linguistics. This does not mean that a novice to these aspects will not grasp what Chomsky attains to in this book. In fact, the fundamentals of Cartesian linguistic theory, with its philosophical and epistemological tenets, are explored as a first ground for 1956’s syntactic structures and 1965’s aspects of the theory of syntax with later reformulations in 1981 and 1995 (by Chomsky) on the notion language.
Whitehead comments at the beginning points out to the fact that cognitive psychology and linguistics, all the same, are turning to the roots of 17th, 18th, and 19th century ideas. Indeed, empiricists, based on how Locke’s ideas are being refocillated within today’s scientific development in psychology, cognitivism, and linguistics, and apologies made on behalf of Hume’s mistakes, have received another defeat by Chomsky’s rationalism in this book. Language creativity, as free from stimulus-control is not socially learned, but has its mental logical system that predefines structures of sound and meaning and makes us able to creatively speak on behalf of our defects in instinct as nicely put in De La Mettrie ‘qui est que plus on gagnera du côté de l’esprit, plus on perdra du côté de l’instinct’.
Whitehead comments at the beginning points out to the fact that cognitive psychology and linguistics, all the same, are turning to the roots of 17th, 18th, and 19th century ideas. Indeed, empiricists, based on how Locke’s ideas are being refocillated within today’s scientific development in psychology, cognitivism, and linguistics, and apologies made on behalf of Hume’s mistakes, have received another defeat by Chomsky’s rationalism in this book. Language creativity, as free from stimulus-control is not socially learned, but has its mental logical system that predefines structures of sound and meaning and makes us able to creatively speak on behalf of our defects in instinct as nicely put in De La Mettrie ‘qui est que plus on gagnera du côté de l’esprit, plus on perdra du côté de l’instinct’.
Read
October 1, 2024UPDATED REVIEW: Tuesday, October 1, 2024
In Cartesian Linguistics, Noam Chomsky sets out to describe his work in linguistics and cognitive science as operating within the rationalist tradition of the Cartesians of the 17th and 18th century and to show the reader some of the lost treasure of that work that Chomsky believes most of his contemporaries neglected. This is not a bad work, but it is more of a curiosity than anything else. A much better popular explication of the work Chomsky is doing can be found in his New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind . The latter recommended.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: January 17, 2014 (five stars)
Noam Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics is about how the modern study of language is continuous with a tradition that stretches all the way back to the time and thought of Rene Descartes in the 17th century. According to Chomsky, modern linguistics, like Descartes, assumes that language is a unique property of human beings and, like Descartes, that the human mind possesses knowledge prior to experience, knowledge about principles of language, shape, number, among others, and that the human mind takes scattered data received through the senses and interprets it using innate principles and structures. Little is known about how learning occurs, for example learning a new language past puberty (a very different matter than 'learning' a language as a child), but it seems to be the case that innate principles must be in place in the mind that would even make it possible for the new language to be learned.
In Cartesian Linguistics, Noam Chomsky sets out to describe his work in linguistics and cognitive science as operating within the rationalist tradition of the Cartesians of the 17th and 18th century and to show the reader some of the lost treasure of that work that Chomsky believes most of his contemporaries neglected. This is not a bad work, but it is more of a curiosity than anything else. A much better popular explication of the work Chomsky is doing can be found in his New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind . The latter recommended.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: January 17, 2014 (five stars)
Noam Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics is about how the modern study of language is continuous with a tradition that stretches all the way back to the time and thought of Rene Descartes in the 17th century. According to Chomsky, modern linguistics, like Descartes, assumes that language is a unique property of human beings and, like Descartes, that the human mind possesses knowledge prior to experience, knowledge about principles of language, shape, number, among others, and that the human mind takes scattered data received through the senses and interprets it using innate principles and structures. Little is known about how learning occurs, for example learning a new language past puberty (a very different matter than 'learning' a language as a child), but it seems to be the case that innate principles must be in place in the mind that would even make it possible for the new language to be learned.
October 28, 2009
در یک نگاه
در جهان غرب دکارت را به عنوا بنیانگذار فلسفه جدید میشناسند، در واقع اصطلاح فلسفه جدید به فلسفه از دکارت به بعد اطلاق میشود.از عصر دکارت دوران جدیدی شکل میگیرد.که تأثیر آن را در حوزههای مختلف علوم شاهد هستیم.
گرچه برخی از زبانشناسان بر این باورند که در تمامی مطالعات مهم زبانی قبل از قرن نوزدهم را که امروز دیگر در حیطه زبانشناسی قرار نمیگیرند، میتوان در چند جمله خلاصه کرده، اما نوام چامسکی انی نظریه را نمیپذیرد او در کتاب زبانشناسی دکارتی میخواهد با بازگشت به گذشته و دقت در مطالعات قرون هفدهم و هیجدهم و اوایل قرن نوزدهم ذهنها را متوجه کشفیات جدید کند.از اینرو اصطلاح زبانشناسی دکارتی را که امری غریب به نظر میرسد، بر سر زبانها میاندازد.او میگوید:«من سعی ندارم زبانشناسی دکارتی را آن طور که خود این علم میخواهد توصیف کنم، بلکه میکوشم توجه خود را به نظرها و آرایی معطوف کنم که به نحوی کاملا مستقل در آثار جدید ظهور کردند»از اینرو کسانی که با دستور زایش چامسکی آشنایی دارند، درک و فهم این مباحث دشوار نیست.اما سؤال اساسی که در خصوص زبانشناسی دکارتی مطرح میشود این است که آیا مباحث مربوط به زبان که در آثار دکارت آمده، بر ساخته ذهن اوست یا ریشه در آثار قدیمتر دارد، و اگر چنین نیست پس چرا از زبانشناسی دکارتی یاد میکنیم و حتی دکارت در آثار مهم خود چون گفتار«در روش راه بردن عقل»و «تأملات»توجهای به زبان ندارد، آیا میتوان با تفسیر به رای از زبانشناسی دکارتی سخن بگوییم.
چامسکی با علم به این واقعیات و شایسته دانستن چنین سؤالاتی در کتابی کم حجم به طرح این مسأله میپردازد.این کتاب به چهار بخش اصلی تقسیم شده است که عبارتند از:
جنبه خلاقانه کاربرد زبان
ژرف ساخت و رو ساخت
توصیف و تبیین در زبانشناسی
فراگیری و کاربرد زبان
در پایان خلاصهای از گفتههای چامسکی آمده است.مؤلف در این کتاب بر آن است تا نشان دهد که نظریههای جدید زبانشناسی در مطالعات قبلی مورد اشاره قرار گرفتهاند.
در جهان غرب دکارت را به عنوا بنیانگذار فلسفه جدید میشناسند، در واقع اصطلاح فلسفه جدید به فلسفه از دکارت به بعد اطلاق میشود.از عصر دکارت دوران جدیدی شکل میگیرد.که تأثیر آن را در حوزههای مختلف علوم شاهد هستیم.
گرچه برخی از زبانشناسان بر این باورند که در تمامی مطالعات مهم زبانی قبل از قرن نوزدهم را که امروز دیگر در حیطه زبانشناسی قرار نمیگیرند، میتوان در چند جمله خلاصه کرده، اما نوام چامسکی انی نظریه را نمیپذیرد او در کتاب زبانشناسی دکارتی میخواهد با بازگشت به گذشته و دقت در مطالعات قرون هفدهم و هیجدهم و اوایل قرن نوزدهم ذهنها را متوجه کشفیات جدید کند.از اینرو اصطلاح زبانشناسی دکارتی را که امری غریب به نظر میرسد، بر سر زبانها میاندازد.او میگوید:«من سعی ندارم زبانشناسی دکارتی را آن طور که خود این علم میخواهد توصیف کنم، بلکه میکوشم توجه خود را به نظرها و آرایی معطوف کنم که به نحوی کاملا مستقل در آثار جدید ظهور کردند»از اینرو کسانی که با دستور زایش چامسکی آشنایی دارند، درک و فهم این مباحث دشوار نیست.اما سؤال اساسی که در خصوص زبانشناسی دکارتی مطرح میشود این است که آیا مباحث مربوط به زبان که در آثار دکارت آمده، بر ساخته ذهن اوست یا ریشه در آثار قدیمتر دارد، و اگر چنین نیست پس چرا از زبانشناسی دکارتی یاد میکنیم و حتی دکارت در آثار مهم خود چون گفتار«در روش راه بردن عقل»و «تأملات»توجهای به زبان ندارد، آیا میتوان با تفسیر به رای از زبانشناسی دکارتی سخن بگوییم.
چامسکی با علم به این واقعیات و شایسته دانستن چنین سؤالاتی در کتابی کم حجم به طرح این مسأله میپردازد.این کتاب به چهار بخش اصلی تقسیم شده است که عبارتند از:
جنبه خلاقانه کاربرد زبان
ژرف ساخت و رو ساخت
توصیف و تبیین در زبانشناسی
فراگیری و کاربرد زبان
در پایان خلاصهای از گفتههای چامسکی آمده است.مؤلف در این کتاب بر آن است تا نشان دهد که نظریههای جدید زبانشناسی در مطالعات قبلی مورد اشاره قرار گرفتهاند.
January 29, 2022
Chomsky has a distinctive style of revealing his approaches towards logical fallacies and its emotional reflection. This book represented Chomsky's interpretation of Descartes’s philosophy and approach of language. As Descartes explained the Cartesian linguists is that language is a simple process to reflect identity of the person and not necessarily to communicate.
Chomsky has a very deeper ideology on language. He explains the complexity a language can be, by sharing different aspects as sound , voc., syntax... Chomsky used the rational manner in dealing with language in which discussed the Port-royal grammar to analyse the philosophy of language. He also explained the foundation of the UG (universal grammar).
A very interesting book to understand the philosophy of language from Descartes to Chomsky.
Chomsky has a very deeper ideology on language. He explains the complexity a language can be, by sharing different aspects as sound , voc., syntax... Chomsky used the rational manner in dealing with language in which discussed the Port-royal grammar to analyse the philosophy of language. He also explained the foundation of the UG (universal grammar).
A very interesting book to understand the philosophy of language from Descartes to Chomsky.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 30, 2017
Med Saussure tok filosofien og litteraturvitenskapen en språklig vending. Fokuset rettet seg mot språket. Med Chomsky tok den en kognitiv vending. Fokuset rettet seg mot tankeprosessen. Chomsky så på språk og tenkning som to sider av samme sak. For Chomsky er lingvistikk og psykologi det samme. Språket ER tankeprosessen.
Termene lingvistikk (læren om språk) og grammatikk (læren om skriftspråk) er for Chomsky byttet om. Det skaper stor debatt blant tilhengere og motstandere av den generative retningen innenfor faget. Saussure og hans etterfølgere forsker på naturlige språk (Engelsk, Norsk, Fransk osv.) og på bakgrunn av denne forskningen ønsker de å abstrahere fellestrekk som vil danne en allmenn språkvitenskap. For Chomsky er dette fåfengt fordi språk i seg selv er levende og i forandring; det vil aldri kunne abstraheres fra de naturlige språkene noe så universelt at nye forekomster av naturlige språk ikke vil motstå seg abstraksjonen. Språket for Saussure er arbitrært, bestående av konsepter i binære par: differanse er nøkkelen til hvordan språket fungerer; ord gir mening i kraft av at de er definert i opposisjon til andre ord. På denne måten klarer Saussure å forklare de viktigste egenskapene ved naturlig språk. Men det stopper også med de naturlige språkene - de formelle språkene. Når poststrukturalistene påpeker at ordets sentrum er flytende, og at de naturlige og formelle språkene er i kontinuerlig forandring - altså at forholdet mellom signifikant og signifikat endrer seg, kommer Saussures definisjon av språket til kort. Chomsky mener derfor at vi heller bør forske på det universelle språket: ikke de naturlige språkene slik de eksisterer i verden, men selve språkevnen, slik den eksisterer i menneskets biologi. Det er altså Saussure som passer best til etiketten "grammatiker", mens Chomsky er den fremste lingvisten.
Chomskys hovedtese er at menneskets språk er en kreativ prosess, heller enn et produkt. Vi har en språkevne - universalgrammatikken (UG) - som er medfødt og lik for alle mennesker. Denne tesen fører Chomsky tilbake til Descartes teori om forskjellen på mennesker og dyr, gjennom Humboldt, Port-Royalmunkene, og flere andre. Chomsky mener at pre-saussuriansk lingvistikk er undervurdert fordi filosofene ikke var normative; de startet ikke med de naturlige språkene slik Saussure gjør. De startet med det universelle for alle menneskelige språk, nemlig selve evnen til å forme, dele, og oppfatte tanker. "Det bør for øvrig bemerkes at den manglende formuleringen av presise regler for setningsbygning ikke bare skyldtes uoppmerksomhet i den kartesianske lingvistikken. I en viss grad var det en konsekvens av den uttrykte forutsetningen om at ordenes rekkefølge i en setning svarer direkte til tankestrømmen, i det minste i et "velformet" språk..."Å forme, dele, og oppfatte tanker - den språklige kommunikasjon - er kreative prosesser: produktene jeg kaller naturlig språk genereres (derav "generativ grammatikk") gjennom denne kreative prosessen, og denne kreative prosessen er prisgitt den universelle menneskelige språkevnen: universalgrammatikken.
Chomskys teori bevarer en humanistisk optimisme gjennom en periode med positivistisk behavioristisk reduksjonisme, og et objektivt holdepunkt igjennom en periode med poststrukturalistisk epistemologisk relativisme. Det er kanskje disse tingene som har gjort teorien hans så populær. Det empiriske materialet for Chomskys teori er for eksempel tegn på at setninger, uansett språk, har den samme hierarkiske struktur, med subjektet som overordnet setningsledd. (Universalspråket kan sånn sett ligne litt på predikatlogikken.) Andre alternativer til Chomsky kommer fra funksjonalistene som understreker menneskets sosiale og kroppslige situerthet og trekker frem analogiprinsippet for språklig innovasjon, og de kognitive grammatikerne, som mener at syntaksen er erfaringsbasert og utgår fra sansene og de forstandskategoriene som er felles for alle mennesker. Chomsky mener derimot at disse teoriene ikke er tilstrekkelige til å forklare den enorme (uendelige) språklige produktiviteten mennesket er i stand til, basert på relativt lav stimuli fra den ytre verden.
Termene lingvistikk (læren om språk) og grammatikk (læren om skriftspråk) er for Chomsky byttet om. Det skaper stor debatt blant tilhengere og motstandere av den generative retningen innenfor faget. Saussure og hans etterfølgere forsker på naturlige språk (Engelsk, Norsk, Fransk osv.) og på bakgrunn av denne forskningen ønsker de å abstrahere fellestrekk som vil danne en allmenn språkvitenskap. For Chomsky er dette fåfengt fordi språk i seg selv er levende og i forandring; det vil aldri kunne abstraheres fra de naturlige språkene noe så universelt at nye forekomster av naturlige språk ikke vil motstå seg abstraksjonen. Språket for Saussure er arbitrært, bestående av konsepter i binære par: differanse er nøkkelen til hvordan språket fungerer; ord gir mening i kraft av at de er definert i opposisjon til andre ord. På denne måten klarer Saussure å forklare de viktigste egenskapene ved naturlig språk. Men det stopper også med de naturlige språkene - de formelle språkene. Når poststrukturalistene påpeker at ordets sentrum er flytende, og at de naturlige og formelle språkene er i kontinuerlig forandring - altså at forholdet mellom signifikant og signifikat endrer seg, kommer Saussures definisjon av språket til kort. Chomsky mener derfor at vi heller bør forske på det universelle språket: ikke de naturlige språkene slik de eksisterer i verden, men selve språkevnen, slik den eksisterer i menneskets biologi. Det er altså Saussure som passer best til etiketten "grammatiker", mens Chomsky er den fremste lingvisten.
Chomskys hovedtese er at menneskets språk er en kreativ prosess, heller enn et produkt. Vi har en språkevne - universalgrammatikken (UG) - som er medfødt og lik for alle mennesker. Denne tesen fører Chomsky tilbake til Descartes teori om forskjellen på mennesker og dyr, gjennom Humboldt, Port-Royalmunkene, og flere andre. Chomsky mener at pre-saussuriansk lingvistikk er undervurdert fordi filosofene ikke var normative; de startet ikke med de naturlige språkene slik Saussure gjør. De startet med det universelle for alle menneskelige språk, nemlig selve evnen til å forme, dele, og oppfatte tanker. "Det bør for øvrig bemerkes at den manglende formuleringen av presise regler for setningsbygning ikke bare skyldtes uoppmerksomhet i den kartesianske lingvistikken. I en viss grad var det en konsekvens av den uttrykte forutsetningen om at ordenes rekkefølge i en setning svarer direkte til tankestrømmen, i det minste i et "velformet" språk..."Å forme, dele, og oppfatte tanker - den språklige kommunikasjon - er kreative prosesser: produktene jeg kaller naturlig språk genereres (derav "generativ grammatikk") gjennom denne kreative prosessen, og denne kreative prosessen er prisgitt den universelle menneskelige språkevnen: universalgrammatikken.
Chomskys teori bevarer en humanistisk optimisme gjennom en periode med positivistisk behavioristisk reduksjonisme, og et objektivt holdepunkt igjennom en periode med poststrukturalistisk epistemologisk relativisme. Det er kanskje disse tingene som har gjort teorien hans så populær. Det empiriske materialet for Chomskys teori er for eksempel tegn på at setninger, uansett språk, har den samme hierarkiske struktur, med subjektet som overordnet setningsledd. (Universalspråket kan sånn sett ligne litt på predikatlogikken.) Andre alternativer til Chomsky kommer fra funksjonalistene som understreker menneskets sosiale og kroppslige situerthet og trekker frem analogiprinsippet for språklig innovasjon, og de kognitive grammatikerne, som mener at syntaksen er erfaringsbasert og utgår fra sansene og de forstandskategoriene som er felles for alle mennesker. Chomsky mener derimot at disse teoriene ikke er tilstrekkelige til å forklare den enorme (uendelige) språklige produktiviteten mennesket er i stand til, basert på relativt lav stimuli fra den ytre verden.
February 23, 2024
Recommended to those who want to see the pre existing philosophical development which leads to the Chomskyan enterprise. Reading the selected excerpts from Von Humboldt, who held not only word formation or sentence formation is combinatorial but also the lexicon or Herbert of Cherbury who propounded a very naturalistic view of mind; shows how far back ward has been mainstream 20th century analytic philosophy.
Chomsky covers the important romantic insight, coming out of Descartes, from James Harris, Schlegel and Herder that Freedom consists in an untethering from stimulus and instinct. So while beats live in states of affairs men live amongst mental objects. (Referentialist/extensionalist semantics vs internal generativist semantics).
There is an important insight to be had that human freedom is deeply implicated in human knowledge.
There is also important discussion about how PRG motivated the difference between material of language and it's effect on the soul. In modern terms the difference between deep and surface structure.
Another important insight dug up from relative obscurity is the difference of organic and mechanical form ( Schlegel, Coleridge). Mechanical form being imposed on a object externally while Organic form arises from the things own natural morphological development. Two important development follow from this: In Developmental Biology the ideas of Urform of Goethe and Gt. Geoffrey, that form determines function which was cast aside during the Darwinian revolution, has been deeply vindicated in the half century. The second is Marx's theory of alienated labor which now can be summarised simply as the imposition of mechanical form on the worker instead of allowing the development of his own organic form in the process of production.
Of course none of this was worked out in detail for instance PRGians had no concrete hypothesis on the nature of Deep structure. Goethe also could not explain how could the urleaf contain all possible variations of the leaf or how was this materially realised. Although one should not draw links between Chomsky the linguist and Chomsky the political activist but he did not hesitate to quote the following line from Von Humboldt:
"der Mensch überall Eins mit dem Menschen ist"
Chomsky covers the important romantic insight, coming out of Descartes, from James Harris, Schlegel and Herder that Freedom consists in an untethering from stimulus and instinct. So while beats live in states of affairs men live amongst mental objects. (Referentialist/extensionalist semantics vs internal generativist semantics).
There is an important insight to be had that human freedom is deeply implicated in human knowledge.
There is also important discussion about how PRG motivated the difference between material of language and it's effect on the soul. In modern terms the difference between deep and surface structure.
Another important insight dug up from relative obscurity is the difference of organic and mechanical form ( Schlegel, Coleridge). Mechanical form being imposed on a object externally while Organic form arises from the things own natural morphological development. Two important development follow from this: In Developmental Biology the ideas of Urform of Goethe and Gt. Geoffrey, that form determines function which was cast aside during the Darwinian revolution, has been deeply vindicated in the half century. The second is Marx's theory of alienated labor which now can be summarised simply as the imposition of mechanical form on the worker instead of allowing the development of his own organic form in the process of production.
Of course none of this was worked out in detail for instance PRGians had no concrete hypothesis on the nature of Deep structure. Goethe also could not explain how could the urleaf contain all possible variations of the leaf or how was this materially realised. Although one should not draw links between Chomsky the linguist and Chomsky the political activist but he did not hesitate to quote the following line from Von Humboldt:
"der Mensch überall Eins mit dem Menschen ist"
April 30, 2022
Obra introductoria para los estudios contemporáneos de la gramática generativa transformacional, en la que expone magistralmente su desarrollo histórico desde Port Royal hasta la propia perspectiva de Chomsky. Dedica pocas páginas a la comunicación, dejando una sensación de parecer un texto mutilado. De resto, un libro magnífico
September 10, 2023
Read to prepare an exam in linguistics.
I started reading an earlier edition, and found it very challenging.
The introduction to this edition by James Mc Gilvray clarified a lot the Rationalists vs Empiricists differences.
In the "Chomsky" part of the book, the fact that examples have been translated to English and the notes have been updated make it much easier to read.
I started reading an earlier edition, and found it very challenging.
The introduction to this edition by James Mc Gilvray clarified a lot the Rationalists vs Empiricists differences.
In the "Chomsky" part of the book, the fact that examples have been translated to English and the notes have been updated make it much easier to read.
October 23, 2017
Llegit en la traducció de Gabriel i Joan Ferrater (cosa que sempre està bé). Interessant, però espero poder ampliar-ho (no entenc gaire bé quines aportacions fa més enllà de l'estat de la qüestió.
February 17, 2018
Chomsky always was a bit pompous in his self estimation (q.v. his recent estimation of himself as the Galileo of language), but at least his early work is for the most part legible. There is a strange division of labor in mainstream linguistics where Chomsky is afforded the de facto title of philosopher in chief. The rest of the standard theory/government-and-binding/principles-and-parameters/minimalist crew would appear to prefer their role as sheep, only elaborating upon or justifying the philosophical insights of their ersatz shepherd. But this early work, Cartesian Linguistics, does develop a program and attitude which has been rewarding to many, even if the underlying assumptions of the Cartesian program turn out to be neither valid in the long run, nor justified by their sources.
This book is pompous in another way, too. About a third of the book is made up of lengthy quotations from French and German. In the edition I own, these are untranslated, so I am left to recall my French as best I can and skip the German. A slightly less pompous edition is now available with the passages translated.
Nevertheless, Cartesian Linguistics presents a unified and in some ways compelling argument for the innateness of languages, an ideology of language which characterizes almost all work in modern syntax and semantics. This ideology of language has been seriously questioned in recent work of an anthropological, typological, cognitive, or historical bent, but the Cartesian emphasis still would appear to hold a place of honor in introductory linguistics classes.
The error in Chomsky's ways seems to be in his assumption that language is primarily the organ of thought, if not only an organ of thought. As absurd as it may seem, Chomsky has over the years stuck to his guns that sociocultural and communicative aspects of language are some kind of side-effect of language as thought. There is of course a great deal more to communication than generating, transmitting and decoding thought, but that would align linguistics with other fields of study, thereby calling into question the autonomy, or what Hanks called the irreducibility of language. Chomsky did not worry about the purity of linguistics, however, when he launched his sorties into the sagacious field of philosophy.
Chomsky misreads many of the quotes he would have us read. I have read Humboldt in translation, not in the German, yet I can tell that Chomsky's reading of Humboldt is violently wrong. Humboldt was not a generativist. His view of language was dialectical, seeing the expressions of the speaker as being both ergon and energeia. Ergon is the language as work, as in a work, something that has been created and now constrains linguistic creation as the sedimented, ossified, and more or less frozen product of historical tradition. Energeia is the language as work, as in working, and includes the creative effort to move against and beyond the dead mass of ideas to pull the language into new directions by means of novel forms and expressions. Chomsky is a bit dim or possibly dishonest in seeing his own ideas reflected in Humboldt. For Chomsky, ergon is innateness and energeia is generative creativity. The actual ideas in Humboldt are dialectically historicist and romantically relativist; not rationalist, but closer to Sapir and Whorf than to anything in Chomsky.
Chomsky also fails to take into consideration the historical grounding of the Port-Royal grammarians. The Port-Royal Grammar was not a theoretical attempt to justify a belief in the innateness of language. In fact, it was more akin to modern prescriptive grammar but with a vengeance. The idea was to abolish variation (condemning variation as irrational to be sure) for the sake of a nationalist ideological unity. For the Port Royall folks, there could be only one true reasoning, and so only one variety of Language (which happens to be French) would be tolerated. Chomsky's appropriation of this prescriptive French tradition (which is alive and well, have you been to Paris?) is an act of academic piracy.
I will wrap up by stating that there are numerous vibrant ideas in Cartesian Linguistics, nevertheless. Some later work in pragmatics and Montague semantics is anticipated here in spots, and the door was left open (at least in the mid-sixties) for some work of a more anthropological bent. At the end of the work, there is also an attempt to save (or apologize for) the at times violent comparisons between his work and that of his 'rationalist' predecessors:
"...a certain distortion is introduced by the organization of this survey, as a projection backwards of certain ideas of contemporary interest rather than as a systematic presentation of the framework within which these ideas rose and found their place."
Chomsky could use a bit of this humility and hermeneutical insight today, I feel.
This book is pompous in another way, too. About a third of the book is made up of lengthy quotations from French and German. In the edition I own, these are untranslated, so I am left to recall my French as best I can and skip the German. A slightly less pompous edition is now available with the passages translated.
Nevertheless, Cartesian Linguistics presents a unified and in some ways compelling argument for the innateness of languages, an ideology of language which characterizes almost all work in modern syntax and semantics. This ideology of language has been seriously questioned in recent work of an anthropological, typological, cognitive, or historical bent, but the Cartesian emphasis still would appear to hold a place of honor in introductory linguistics classes.
The error in Chomsky's ways seems to be in his assumption that language is primarily the organ of thought, if not only an organ of thought. As absurd as it may seem, Chomsky has over the years stuck to his guns that sociocultural and communicative aspects of language are some kind of side-effect of language as thought. There is of course a great deal more to communication than generating, transmitting and decoding thought, but that would align linguistics with other fields of study, thereby calling into question the autonomy, or what Hanks called the irreducibility of language. Chomsky did not worry about the purity of linguistics, however, when he launched his sorties into the sagacious field of philosophy.
Chomsky misreads many of the quotes he would have us read. I have read Humboldt in translation, not in the German, yet I can tell that Chomsky's reading of Humboldt is violently wrong. Humboldt was not a generativist. His view of language was dialectical, seeing the expressions of the speaker as being both ergon and energeia. Ergon is the language as work, as in a work, something that has been created and now constrains linguistic creation as the sedimented, ossified, and more or less frozen product of historical tradition. Energeia is the language as work, as in working, and includes the creative effort to move against and beyond the dead mass of ideas to pull the language into new directions by means of novel forms and expressions. Chomsky is a bit dim or possibly dishonest in seeing his own ideas reflected in Humboldt. For Chomsky, ergon is innateness and energeia is generative creativity. The actual ideas in Humboldt are dialectically historicist and romantically relativist; not rationalist, but closer to Sapir and Whorf than to anything in Chomsky.
Chomsky also fails to take into consideration the historical grounding of the Port-Royal grammarians. The Port-Royal Grammar was not a theoretical attempt to justify a belief in the innateness of language. In fact, it was more akin to modern prescriptive grammar but with a vengeance. The idea was to abolish variation (condemning variation as irrational to be sure) for the sake of a nationalist ideological unity. For the Port Royall folks, there could be only one true reasoning, and so only one variety of Language (which happens to be French) would be tolerated. Chomsky's appropriation of this prescriptive French tradition (which is alive and well, have you been to Paris?) is an act of academic piracy.
I will wrap up by stating that there are numerous vibrant ideas in Cartesian Linguistics, nevertheless. Some later work in pragmatics and Montague semantics is anticipated here in spots, and the door was left open (at least in the mid-sixties) for some work of a more anthropological bent. At the end of the work, there is also an attempt to save (or apologize for) the at times violent comparisons between his work and that of his 'rationalist' predecessors:
"...a certain distortion is introduced by the organization of this survey, as a projection backwards of certain ideas of contemporary interest rather than as a systematic presentation of the framework within which these ideas rose and found their place."
Chomsky could use a bit of this humility and hermeneutical insight today, I feel.
July 14, 2014
I remember reading everything Noam Chomsky ever wrote (quite a daunting task) and by doing so became pretty adept in linguistics, cognitive science, psychology and so on. Well, I never knew I would have to properly learn the Francais to do it. Didn't I have a grandfather and grandmother in Paris, both tenured Professors of French Studies? Yes. Did I know the language by 8, yes but not to a technical philosophical extent.
Thus this book actually forced me to learn to read technical French (and German if I recall) for the entire book was in French. The English translations, though important because now people can see how good of an intellectual historian Noam really is and the importance of this book, it still loses the je nais se qua of the French language which is a beautiful language.
Chomsky basically takes a strong look at the Cartesians who are the philosophers who followed in the philosophical paradigm shift of Rene Descartes. At this time, as Chomsky points out, there was not much separation between Philosophy and Science. The beginnings of the specialization begin here. Chomsky's scholarship is quite outstanding whatever field he is writing in, and here he really hammers home the notion that it is Cartesian Rationalism that were coming to similar conclusions (at least at the general philosophic level) that language is something that separates man from automata. This is much of what this small for a Chomsky book is about, but I won't spoil the rest. I disagree with the description that this book was somehow controversial. Obscure perhaps, and not widely read perhaps, but it certain is clear and convincing. In the the pursuit of knowledge, it is a good thing to know there are people who laid the foundation well before you arrived on the scene. Descartes is someone whose shoulders we must stand on so that we can continue the great work.
Thus this book actually forced me to learn to read technical French (and German if I recall) for the entire book was in French. The English translations, though important because now people can see how good of an intellectual historian Noam really is and the importance of this book, it still loses the je nais se qua of the French language which is a beautiful language.
Chomsky basically takes a strong look at the Cartesians who are the philosophers who followed in the philosophical paradigm shift of Rene Descartes. At this time, as Chomsky points out, there was not much separation between Philosophy and Science. The beginnings of the specialization begin here. Chomsky's scholarship is quite outstanding whatever field he is writing in, and here he really hammers home the notion that it is Cartesian Rationalism that were coming to similar conclusions (at least at the general philosophic level) that language is something that separates man from automata. This is much of what this small for a Chomsky book is about, but I won't spoil the rest. I disagree with the description that this book was somehow controversial. Obscure perhaps, and not widely read perhaps, but it certain is clear and convincing. In the the pursuit of knowledge, it is a good thing to know there are people who laid the foundation well before you arrived on the scene. Descartes is someone whose shoulders we must stand on so that we can continue the great work.
December 13, 2008
In Kicking and Screaming Chet and Otis have a book club, and they meet to discuss Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses. Chet, the perpetual student, starts the meeting of the book club by saying, "Thank god we speak fluent Spanish!" Otis, who hasn't read the book, starts to look anxious. This book will prompt similar reactions (which reaction will depend on your linguistic competence); at least a third of the book consists in untranslated passages from medieval and enlightenment thinkers in French, Latin, and German.
This is a very breezy and engaging overview of the historical precedents for the 20th century cognitivist revolution in linguistics. Chomsky cites passages where Descartes, Humboldt, Arnauld and others make poverty of stimulus arguments, posit the existence of deep (logical) structure, and foreshadow many other commitments of contemporary (or near-contemporary) linguistics. Chomsky doesn't explicitly draw the connections between the historical texts he's discussing and "current work" (the essay was written in 1966), because, as he says, "the reader acquainted with current work in so-called 'generative grammar' should have little difficulty in drawing these connections for himself" (p.2). But he's right that the connections are clear enough, and the topic is interesting enough, that this short book makes a good, lively introduction to Chomsky's commitments in the mid 1960s. And it makes me interested in learning more about the Port-Royal logicians.
This is a very breezy and engaging overview of the historical precedents for the 20th century cognitivist revolution in linguistics. Chomsky cites passages where Descartes, Humboldt, Arnauld and others make poverty of stimulus arguments, posit the existence of deep (logical) structure, and foreshadow many other commitments of contemporary (or near-contemporary) linguistics. Chomsky doesn't explicitly draw the connections between the historical texts he's discussing and "current work" (the essay was written in 1966), because, as he says, "the reader acquainted with current work in so-called 'generative grammar' should have little difficulty in drawing these connections for himself" (p.2). But he's right that the connections are clear enough, and the topic is interesting enough, that this short book makes a good, lively introduction to Chomsky's commitments in the mid 1960s. And it makes me interested in learning more about the Port-Royal logicians.
June 4, 2012
It turns out that Noam Chomsky did not invent the following ideas:
(a) Human language is generative and one can construct indefinitely many novel utterances from a finite set of morphemes.
(b) Language is acquired unconsciously, and speakers of language know things about language that they were not explicitly taught and are not really aware of.
(c) Languages are unified by an underlying "universal grammar".
(d) Language operates at two levels: Deep structure (logical form) and surface structure (phonetic form).
In fact these notions are hundreds of years old, and Chomsky traces the articulation of these ideas in the philosophy of language.
Who knew the Port-Royal Grammar and Logic of the 1660's describes a prototype theory of universal grammar? It's pretty neat trivia and intellectual history.
Gripes: Annoyingly my 1966 edition provides long passages of French and German with no translation. Moreover, Chomsky frequently references and criticizes the attitudes of modern linguistics (circa 1950's) without clearly describing the ideas he's backhanding.
(a) Human language is generative and one can construct indefinitely many novel utterances from a finite set of morphemes.
(b) Language is acquired unconsciously, and speakers of language know things about language that they were not explicitly taught and are not really aware of.
(c) Languages are unified by an underlying "universal grammar".
(d) Language operates at two levels: Deep structure (logical form) and surface structure (phonetic form).
In fact these notions are hundreds of years old, and Chomsky traces the articulation of these ideas in the philosophy of language.
Who knew the Port-Royal Grammar and Logic of the 1660's describes a prototype theory of universal grammar? It's pretty neat trivia and intellectual history.
Gripes: Annoyingly my 1966 edition provides long passages of French and German with no translation. Moreover, Chomsky frequently references and criticizes the attitudes of modern linguistics (circa 1950's) without clearly describing the ideas he's backhanding.
December 25, 2014
This book is basically about tracing the Chomskyan theory of language to the French Port-Royal Grammarians in the 17th-century. What Chomsky says about the underlying and surface structure of language did not come straight from Chomsky's hand but was already discussed by the Port-Royal Grammarians, except they spoke of it in a less conscious way. I think the following analogy sums up the Cartesian linguistics from Plato to Chomsky:
"the ‘deep’ forms God created the world, the world is visible, and God is invisible (or rather, abstract representations of these) and transform them by “transformational” rules (hence, “transformational grammar”) to yield the ‘surface’ form Invisible God created the visible world."
"the ‘deep’ forms God created the world, the world is visible, and God is invisible (or rather, abstract representations of these) and transform them by “transformational” rules (hence, “transformational grammar”) to yield the ‘surface’ form Invisible God created the visible world."
February 22, 2011
The new edition of this book (2009), besides revitalizing the original points made by Chomsky in 1966, makes use of his latest work in biolinguistics. This, I believe, is the true reason for its republishing. It's unquestionable that some of the aspects he bases his arguments on have been changed or proven wrong by himself and others, but the main issue -- "[the] understanding of the nature of language and the mental processes and structures that underlie its use and acquisition" -- remains unchanged, and both the original and newer parts can be said to have a certain timelessness-like quality to them, which in turn makes this book a very solid piece of work.
December 14, 2013
Although I have found some of Chomsky's theories and assumptions to be deeply flawed, there is no doubt that this is an impressive and unique work of thought that catapulted the field of linguistics light years forward (though some might say it held linguistics back a few light years at the same time).
May 7, 2015
Generative grammar in general, and rationalistic philosophy of mind in particular, has a long-reaching tradition. Chomsky unveils it reviewing modernist authors utterly unknown, like the Oxford Platonists.
Excellent introduction by McGilvray. Too many notes, though.
Excellent introduction by McGilvray. Too many notes, though.
Read
November 20, 2010its cool
February 14, 2015
Very clear, concise, and interesting essays on Cartesian philosophy as it applies to modern day linguistics. Recommended for anybody with a slight background in either subject.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 22 reviews