What do you think?
Rate this book
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax
Beginning in the middle '50s & emanating largely from MIT, an approach was developed to linguistic theory & to the study of the structure of particular languages that diverges in many respects from modern linguistics. Altho this approach is connected to the traditional study of language, it differs enough in its general objectives & in specific conclusions about the sturcutre of language to warrant a name, "transformational generative grammar".
Preface
Methodological preliminaries
Categories & relations in syntactic theory
Deep structures & grammatical transformations
Some residual problems
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Preface
Methodological preliminaries
Categories & relations in syntactic theory
Deep structures & grammatical transformations
Some residual problems
Notes
Bibliography
Index
251 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
52 people are currently reading
1374 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
973 books17.3k 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 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 24, 2018
The whole book is great, but the five-star rating is for the first chapter since it's the reason I wanted to read the book. Chapter One is basically a must-read for current and prospective theoreticians. It introduces the differences between grammaticality and acceptability, the notions of competence and performance, the three levels of adequacy (observational adequacy, descriptive adequacy, and explanatory adequacy), and other concepts. I enjoyed reading this chapter specifically.
October 1, 2009
Very necessary
October 23, 2022
me he metido el libro en tres días y no debería haber hecho eso, tengo la cabeza como un bombo
January 9, 2024
Chomsky's Aspects is usually divided by readers into two parts--the philosophical part and the nuts-and-bolts part. I will treat the two parts here separately.
The Methodological Preliminaries section is considered a classic in the field of linguistics. Here is an early (1965) formulation of the poverty of the stimulus argument. How can a perfect system emerge from the messy chaos of actual speech that the young'n is exposed to? Chomsky uses this as the basis of his argument that syntax is innate. The child already knows grammar and so can abstract the system from the noise rather easily. And so any truly scientific treatment of syntax would need to account not just for how a language is acquired but also how universal (underlying, deep, subconscious, innate) grammar is manifested in each and every language. Although elegantly stated, Chomsky's position is wrong on at least two fronts. First, language is throughout a messy business, and any attempt to find an aesthetically pleasing, balanced, and elegant system in the language of adults OR of children will run aground on the data. The idea of a well formed competence was invented by some very non-reflexive university professors who were blind to their own prescriptive biases. Period. Talk to the woman or man on the street and you will see something very different from underlyingly elegant and beautiful talk. The uneducated have their own systems of grammar and rhetoric which look nothing like a system of competence (but these systems do display a competence sui generis). Second, there is no essence to syntax that reveals itself in all human languages. I seriously doubt that any substantive universal has been discovered. There are enough languages out there that any property of universal grammar will be overturned by a counterexample. This has nothing to do with race, but it has everything to do with history. Humboldt (whom Chomsky fails to understand) long ago made it clear that the creativity of language will in time sediment into a bedrock of constraining tradition. I personally believe that this variance at the hands of history will make languages eventually appear as unique as snowflakes or clouds.
After that nebulous thought, I turn to the better part of the book, the part that discusses how English syntax works. Although this array of machinery was almost entirely jettisoned with the advent of X-Bar, Theta Theory, or government and binding, the questions and problems he faced in 1965 did not go away. We still cannot, at least for English, dispense with notions such as phrase structure, semantic selection, syntactic subcategorization, etc. Today, the nuts and bolts of his theory turn out to be less rusty that his methodological preliminaries.
If someone asked me to recommend a readable work by Chomsky that addressed empirical issues with a formalist method, I would recommend either Aspects of THE Theory of Syntax or possibly Remarks on Nominalization. But first I would try to talk her out of reading Chomsky at all. Aspects is not a good starting point for an exploration of linguistics. It is more like a place where thinking goes to die.
The Methodological Preliminaries section is considered a classic in the field of linguistics. Here is an early (1965) formulation of the poverty of the stimulus argument. How can a perfect system emerge from the messy chaos of actual speech that the young'n is exposed to? Chomsky uses this as the basis of his argument that syntax is innate. The child already knows grammar and so can abstract the system from the noise rather easily. And so any truly scientific treatment of syntax would need to account not just for how a language is acquired but also how universal (underlying, deep, subconscious, innate) grammar is manifested in each and every language. Although elegantly stated, Chomsky's position is wrong on at least two fronts. First, language is throughout a messy business, and any attempt to find an aesthetically pleasing, balanced, and elegant system in the language of adults OR of children will run aground on the data. The idea of a well formed competence was invented by some very non-reflexive university professors who were blind to their own prescriptive biases. Period. Talk to the woman or man on the street and you will see something very different from underlyingly elegant and beautiful talk. The uneducated have their own systems of grammar and rhetoric which look nothing like a system of competence (but these systems do display a competence sui generis). Second, there is no essence to syntax that reveals itself in all human languages. I seriously doubt that any substantive universal has been discovered. There are enough languages out there that any property of universal grammar will be overturned by a counterexample. This has nothing to do with race, but it has everything to do with history. Humboldt (whom Chomsky fails to understand) long ago made it clear that the creativity of language will in time sediment into a bedrock of constraining tradition. I personally believe that this variance at the hands of history will make languages eventually appear as unique as snowflakes or clouds.
After that nebulous thought, I turn to the better part of the book, the part that discusses how English syntax works. Although this array of machinery was almost entirely jettisoned with the advent of X-Bar, Theta Theory, or government and binding, the questions and problems he faced in 1965 did not go away. We still cannot, at least for English, dispense with notions such as phrase structure, semantic selection, syntactic subcategorization, etc. Today, the nuts and bolts of his theory turn out to be less rusty that his methodological preliminaries.
If someone asked me to recommend a readable work by Chomsky that addressed empirical issues with a formalist method, I would recommend either Aspects of THE Theory of Syntax or possibly Remarks on Nominalization. But first I would try to talk her out of reading Chomsky at all. Aspects is not a good starting point for an exploration of linguistics. It is more like a place where thinking goes to die.
November 10, 2025
When ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’ appeared, it marked not only a turning point in linguistics but a profound reorientation of the entire study of human cognition. This book established Chomsky’s “Standard Theory,” which would dominate linguistic thought for decades, while simultaneously bridging linguistics, philosophy, and psychology.
It expanded the seeds planted in ‘Syntactic Structures’ and developed a far more intricate model of how human beings generate and interpret sentences. Where ‘Syntactic Structures’ introduced transformational grammar, ‘Aspects’ sought to explain its philosophical foundation — the theory of competence and performance — and to create a systematic model of how an idealized speaker-hearer internalizes the rules of their language.
At its core, ‘Aspects’ proposes a generative grammar that distinguishes between ‘‘deep structure’’ and ‘‘surface structure’’, two levels of syntactic representation that explain the relationship between meaning and form. Deep structure represents the abstract, underlying syntactic relationships of a sentence — the level at which meaning is composed — while surface structure represents the final arrangement of words as they appear in speech or writing. Transformations are the rules that connect these two levels, accounting for such phenomena as active/passive alternations or question formation. By positing this model, Chomsky provided an elegant explanation for why sentences like “John is easy to please” and “John is eager to please” differ semantically despite their similar surface syntax.
One of the book’s most revolutionary distinctions is that between ‘‘competence’’ and ‘‘performance’’. Competence refers to the internalized knowledge of linguistic rules possessed by an ideal speaker-hearer, while performance is the actual use of language in real-life situations, which can be affected by memory limitations, distractions, and social constraints.
This distinction liberated linguistics from the empirical limitations of behavioural data. Instead of focusing solely on observable utterances (as behaviourists like B.F. Skinner had done), Chomsky redirected attention toward the mental grammar that makes such utterances possible. In this way, ‘Aspects’ laid the foundation for the ‘‘cognitive revolution’’, encouraging the study of mind as an information-processing system rather than a stimulus-response mechanism.
Chomsky’s model of grammar in ‘Aspects’ consists of several interrelated components: the ‘‘syntactic component’’, which generates deep and surface structures; the ‘‘phonological component’’, which interprets surface structure to yield sound; and the ‘‘semantic component’’, which interprets deep structure to yield meaning. This tripartite model illustrates Chomsky’s conviction that syntax is the generative core of language. Meaning and sound are derived by interpretive rules applied to syntactic representations.
The result is a precise, algorithmic theory that could, in principle, generate an infinite number of grammatical sentences — reflecting the creativity of human language. For Chomsky, the most astonishing fact about linguistic competence is precisely this creativity: a finite set of rules allows speakers to produce and understand an infinite range of novel sentences.
Another crucial contribution of ‘Aspects’ lies in its ‘‘formalization of linguistic theory’’. Chomsky’s use of rule-based, hierarchical systems marked linguistics’ transformation from a descriptive to an explanatory science. Linguistic data were no longer just catalogues of patterns; they became evidence for testing hypotheses about the structure of the human mind. He introduced the idea of ‘‘evaluation metrics’’, a set of criteria for comparing and selecting among grammars that could potentially describe a given language.
This concept, though abstract, was vital for later developments in language acquisition theory. Chomsky argued that children are equipped with an innate “language acquisition device” — an inborn set of principles that guide them in constructing grammars based on limited input. This radical nativist hypothesis countered the empiricism that had dominated linguistics and psychology alike.
Within ‘Aspects’, the ‘‘nativist argument’’ is not merely philosophical but deeply methodological. Chomsky proposed that the rapidity, uniformity, and creativity of language acquisition cannot be explained by environmental exposure alone. Children hear only a finite and often degenerate set of sentences, yet they effortlessly infer abstract rules that apply to unseen cases — a phenomenon he famously called the ‘‘poverty of the stimulus’’.
From this, he inferred that humans must possess a biologically given ‘‘Universal Grammar (UG)’’ — a set of innate principles common to all languages. ‘Aspects’ thus moves from being a linguistic treatise to a theory of human nature. Language, for Chomsky, is not learned behaviour but the manifestation of an internal biological endowment.
In the broader intellectual landscape, ‘Aspects’ established linguistics as a cognitive science. It situated grammar as an object of mental representation, not merely cultural convention. The theory’s emphasis on formal structure invited collaboration with computer science, artificial intelligence, and logic, influencing the rise of computational linguistics and early AI models of natural language processing. Chomsky’s formal grammar inspired subsequent frameworks such as Montague Grammar, Government and Binding, and Minimalism. Even those who opposed Chomsky’s positions — like cognitive functionalists or construction grammarians — did so by responding to the theoretical architecture he built in ‘Aspects’.
Philosophically, the implications of ‘Aspects’ were enormous. By defining linguistic knowledge as an internal system rather than a social artifact, Chomsky challenged long-standing traditions from Saussurean structuralism to logical positivism. He reintroduced the idea of ‘‘rationalist epistemology’’ — reminiscent of Descartes and Leibniz — into the scientific study of language. Language was no longer seen as an arbitrary social code but as a window into the structure of thought itself.
This return to mentalism was revolutionary in the 1960s, when behaviourism and empiricism were dominant across the sciences. It aligned linguistics with emerging developments in cognitive psychology and neuroscience, which increasingly sought to understand internal representations rather than external behaviour.
Nevertheless, ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’ has also faced extensive criticism. Some scholars argue that Chomsky’s strict separation between competence and performance is too idealized and ignores the social and communicative realities of language. Functionalists such as Michael Halliday and Dell Hymes have maintained that meaning, discourse, and use are integral to linguistic theory, not peripheral. Others, like George Lakoff and Ronald Langacker, later argued that syntax cannot be understood apart from semantics and cognition — leading to the rise of cognitive linguistics in the 1980s. Still, even these counter-movements owe their existence to ‘Aspects’; they are, in a sense, its intellectual descendants, defined in opposition to its mentalist formalism.
Another critique lies in the ‘‘opacity of Chomsky’s formalism’’. For many readers, ‘Aspects’ is a difficult book — dense with symbolic notation and abstract reasoning. Yet this difficulty is the price of rigor. Chomsky was attempting to establish linguistics as a branch of formal science, akin to logic or mathematics. The precision of his models allows for falsifiability — the hallmark of scientific inquiry.
For this reason, ‘Aspects’ is both a philosophical and methodological landmark: it provides a model for how to theorize about the unobservable mechanisms of the mind through formal reasoning grounded in empirical data.
The lasting influence of ‘Aspects’ can hardly be overstated. It reshaped not only theoretical linguistics but also psycholinguistics, philosophy of language, and computer science. The idea that syntax is an autonomous, generative system inspired the formal semantics movement (initiated by Richard Montague), and it influenced the study of machine translation and artificial intelligence by offering a model of rule-based sentence generation.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Chomsky’s framework evolved into the Extended Standard Theory and later the Principles and Parameters approach — each building on the foundations laid in ‘Aspects’. The book’s central insights — the distinction between deep and surface structures, the competence/performance dichotomy, and the existence of Universal Grammar — remain pillars of linguistic inquiry even today, though reinterpreted in light of new evidence from neuroscience and computational modeling.
What makes ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’ endure after six decades is not merely its content but its intellectual courage. It refuses to reduce language to habit, culture, or utility. Instead, it treats language as a defining feature of the human mind — a biological system of infinite creativity, guided by internal principles that reflect the very architecture of thought. The book’s ambition is Promethean: to build a science of mind from the study of sentences. Moreover, in doing so, Chomsky accomplished what few scholars have — he transformed linguistics into a central discipline of modern thought.
For today’s linguistics students, ‘Aspects’ remains both a challenge and a revelation. Its prose is austere, its arguments tightly reasoned, but the reward for perseverance is immense. The reader comes away not only understanding grammar differently but thinking differently about the nature of human intelligence.
To engage with ‘Aspects’ is to enter the laboratory of the mind, where abstract symbols reveal the hidden geometry of meaning. Chomsky’s genius lies not only in constructing theories but also in compelling us to ask the deepest questions: What does it mean to know a language? How can finite beings produce infinite expression?
What, finally, does language tell us about what it means to be human?
In sum, ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’ is both a milestone and a manifesto. It stands at the crossroads of linguistics, philosophy, and psychology, announcing the dawn of a new science of mind. Whether one accepts or rejects Chomsky’s premises, no serious engagement with language can avoid the shadow of this work.
Its influence persists not because it answered every question but because it taught us how to ask them — with precision, imagination, and an unwavering faith in the power of rational inquiry.
In that sense, ‘Aspects’ remains, to this day, the intellectual grammar of modern linguistics.
It expanded the seeds planted in ‘Syntactic Structures’ and developed a far more intricate model of how human beings generate and interpret sentences. Where ‘Syntactic Structures’ introduced transformational grammar, ‘Aspects’ sought to explain its philosophical foundation — the theory of competence and performance — and to create a systematic model of how an idealized speaker-hearer internalizes the rules of their language.
At its core, ‘Aspects’ proposes a generative grammar that distinguishes between ‘‘deep structure’’ and ‘‘surface structure’’, two levels of syntactic representation that explain the relationship between meaning and form. Deep structure represents the abstract, underlying syntactic relationships of a sentence — the level at which meaning is composed — while surface structure represents the final arrangement of words as they appear in speech or writing. Transformations are the rules that connect these two levels, accounting for such phenomena as active/passive alternations or question formation. By positing this model, Chomsky provided an elegant explanation for why sentences like “John is easy to please” and “John is eager to please” differ semantically despite their similar surface syntax.
One of the book’s most revolutionary distinctions is that between ‘‘competence’’ and ‘‘performance’’. Competence refers to the internalized knowledge of linguistic rules possessed by an ideal speaker-hearer, while performance is the actual use of language in real-life situations, which can be affected by memory limitations, distractions, and social constraints.
This distinction liberated linguistics from the empirical limitations of behavioural data. Instead of focusing solely on observable utterances (as behaviourists like B.F. Skinner had done), Chomsky redirected attention toward the mental grammar that makes such utterances possible. In this way, ‘Aspects’ laid the foundation for the ‘‘cognitive revolution’’, encouraging the study of mind as an information-processing system rather than a stimulus-response mechanism.
Chomsky’s model of grammar in ‘Aspects’ consists of several interrelated components: the ‘‘syntactic component’’, which generates deep and surface structures; the ‘‘phonological component’’, which interprets surface structure to yield sound; and the ‘‘semantic component’’, which interprets deep structure to yield meaning. This tripartite model illustrates Chomsky’s conviction that syntax is the generative core of language. Meaning and sound are derived by interpretive rules applied to syntactic representations.
The result is a precise, algorithmic theory that could, in principle, generate an infinite number of grammatical sentences — reflecting the creativity of human language. For Chomsky, the most astonishing fact about linguistic competence is precisely this creativity: a finite set of rules allows speakers to produce and understand an infinite range of novel sentences.
Another crucial contribution of ‘Aspects’ lies in its ‘‘formalization of linguistic theory’’. Chomsky’s use of rule-based, hierarchical systems marked linguistics’ transformation from a descriptive to an explanatory science. Linguistic data were no longer just catalogues of patterns; they became evidence for testing hypotheses about the structure of the human mind. He introduced the idea of ‘‘evaluation metrics’’, a set of criteria for comparing and selecting among grammars that could potentially describe a given language.
This concept, though abstract, was vital for later developments in language acquisition theory. Chomsky argued that children are equipped with an innate “language acquisition device” — an inborn set of principles that guide them in constructing grammars based on limited input. This radical nativist hypothesis countered the empiricism that had dominated linguistics and psychology alike.
Within ‘Aspects’, the ‘‘nativist argument’’ is not merely philosophical but deeply methodological. Chomsky proposed that the rapidity, uniformity, and creativity of language acquisition cannot be explained by environmental exposure alone. Children hear only a finite and often degenerate set of sentences, yet they effortlessly infer abstract rules that apply to unseen cases — a phenomenon he famously called the ‘‘poverty of the stimulus’’.
From this, he inferred that humans must possess a biologically given ‘‘Universal Grammar (UG)’’ — a set of innate principles common to all languages. ‘Aspects’ thus moves from being a linguistic treatise to a theory of human nature. Language, for Chomsky, is not learned behaviour but the manifestation of an internal biological endowment.
In the broader intellectual landscape, ‘Aspects’ established linguistics as a cognitive science. It situated grammar as an object of mental representation, not merely cultural convention. The theory’s emphasis on formal structure invited collaboration with computer science, artificial intelligence, and logic, influencing the rise of computational linguistics and early AI models of natural language processing. Chomsky’s formal grammar inspired subsequent frameworks such as Montague Grammar, Government and Binding, and Minimalism. Even those who opposed Chomsky’s positions — like cognitive functionalists or construction grammarians — did so by responding to the theoretical architecture he built in ‘Aspects’.
Philosophically, the implications of ‘Aspects’ were enormous. By defining linguistic knowledge as an internal system rather than a social artifact, Chomsky challenged long-standing traditions from Saussurean structuralism to logical positivism. He reintroduced the idea of ‘‘rationalist epistemology’’ — reminiscent of Descartes and Leibniz — into the scientific study of language. Language was no longer seen as an arbitrary social code but as a window into the structure of thought itself.
This return to mentalism was revolutionary in the 1960s, when behaviourism and empiricism were dominant across the sciences. It aligned linguistics with emerging developments in cognitive psychology and neuroscience, which increasingly sought to understand internal representations rather than external behaviour.
Nevertheless, ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’ has also faced extensive criticism. Some scholars argue that Chomsky’s strict separation between competence and performance is too idealized and ignores the social and communicative realities of language. Functionalists such as Michael Halliday and Dell Hymes have maintained that meaning, discourse, and use are integral to linguistic theory, not peripheral. Others, like George Lakoff and Ronald Langacker, later argued that syntax cannot be understood apart from semantics and cognition — leading to the rise of cognitive linguistics in the 1980s. Still, even these counter-movements owe their existence to ‘Aspects’; they are, in a sense, its intellectual descendants, defined in opposition to its mentalist formalism.
Another critique lies in the ‘‘opacity of Chomsky’s formalism’’. For many readers, ‘Aspects’ is a difficult book — dense with symbolic notation and abstract reasoning. Yet this difficulty is the price of rigor. Chomsky was attempting to establish linguistics as a branch of formal science, akin to logic or mathematics. The precision of his models allows for falsifiability — the hallmark of scientific inquiry.
For this reason, ‘Aspects’ is both a philosophical and methodological landmark: it provides a model for how to theorize about the unobservable mechanisms of the mind through formal reasoning grounded in empirical data.
The lasting influence of ‘Aspects’ can hardly be overstated. It reshaped not only theoretical linguistics but also psycholinguistics, philosophy of language, and computer science. The idea that syntax is an autonomous, generative system inspired the formal semantics movement (initiated by Richard Montague), and it influenced the study of machine translation and artificial intelligence by offering a model of rule-based sentence generation.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Chomsky’s framework evolved into the Extended Standard Theory and later the Principles and Parameters approach — each building on the foundations laid in ‘Aspects’. The book’s central insights — the distinction between deep and surface structures, the competence/performance dichotomy, and the existence of Universal Grammar — remain pillars of linguistic inquiry even today, though reinterpreted in light of new evidence from neuroscience and computational modeling.
What makes ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’ endure after six decades is not merely its content but its intellectual courage. It refuses to reduce language to habit, culture, or utility. Instead, it treats language as a defining feature of the human mind — a biological system of infinite creativity, guided by internal principles that reflect the very architecture of thought. The book’s ambition is Promethean: to build a science of mind from the study of sentences. Moreover, in doing so, Chomsky accomplished what few scholars have — he transformed linguistics into a central discipline of modern thought.
For today’s linguistics students, ‘Aspects’ remains both a challenge and a revelation. Its prose is austere, its arguments tightly reasoned, but the reward for perseverance is immense. The reader comes away not only understanding grammar differently but thinking differently about the nature of human intelligence.
To engage with ‘Aspects’ is to enter the laboratory of the mind, where abstract symbols reveal the hidden geometry of meaning. Chomsky’s genius lies not only in constructing theories but also in compelling us to ask the deepest questions: What does it mean to know a language? How can finite beings produce infinite expression?
What, finally, does language tell us about what it means to be human?
In sum, ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’ is both a milestone and a manifesto. It stands at the crossroads of linguistics, philosophy, and psychology, announcing the dawn of a new science of mind. Whether one accepts or rejects Chomsky’s premises, no serious engagement with language can avoid the shadow of this work.
Its influence persists not because it answered every question but because it taught us how to ask them — with precision, imagination, and an unwavering faith in the power of rational inquiry.
In that sense, ‘Aspects’ remains, to this day, the intellectual grammar of modern linguistics.
January 20, 2008
Awe-inspiring, but still an essentially cauldrony-esoteric approach to a perfectly human behavior. Where's the beef?
Read
August 9, 2022Abandoned, DNF. This simply wasn't what I was hoping it would be. Chomsky's nomenclature is used in computer science to describe programming languages and syntax. I was hoping to get an insight into the origin of terms like "regular grammar" and "type 2 grammar".
That info may have been in here, but I couldn't make it past the first couple chapters. I tried. This kind of academic writing seems to be trying so hard to make sure no statement could possibly be incorrect...and whatever point is being made gets completely buried in the lawyerly language. No thanks. I'll stick with pop science writing for anything outside my immediate area of interest. :-)
That info may have been in here, but I couldn't make it past the first couple chapters. I tried. This kind of academic writing seems to be trying so hard to make sure no statement could possibly be incorrect...and whatever point is being made gets completely buried in the lawyerly language. No thanks. I'll stick with pop science writing for anything outside my immediate area of interest. :-)
November 25, 2025
Hier lernen wir, dass Sinn und Struktur zwei völlig verschiedene Paar Schuhe sind. Chomsky führt uns vor Augen, dass der berühmte Satz „Farblose grüne Ideen schlafen wütend“ zwar inhaltlicher Unfug, aber grammatikalisch ein Meisterstück ist – eine Erkenntnis, die jeden Poeten verzweifeln, aber jeden Logiker jubeln lässt. Wer „Sprache und Geist“ und „Aspekte der Syntax-Theorie“
liest, begreift Sprache nicht mehr als Kunst, sondern als ein mathematisches System, in dem es vollkommen gleichgültig ist, was man sagt, solange man es nach den strengen Regeln der generativen Grammatik sagt.
liest, begreift Sprache nicht mehr als Kunst, sondern als ein mathematisches System, in dem es vollkommen gleichgültig ist, was man sagt, solange man es nach den strengen Regeln der generativen Grammatik sagt.
Read
December 17, 2019dnf
Read
April 12, 2023pretty dry. knows what he's on about, nevertheless.
April 18, 2024
{book 12/50 2024 reading challenge}
Great for researchers.
Great for researchers.
December 6, 2022
"When Chomsky speaks, god listens"
October 12, 2016
I find Chomsky to be extremely dry but his work is the cornerstone of modern syntactic theory. Even if you dislike his writing, you must admire the elegance of his work in context.
July 7, 2008
Nice work by Chomsky, it's one of his early (but apparently over-rated) works. Dense, interesting and really creative. Of all things stated in this book, I just can't buy his arguments for the innateness of language in the first part of this book, although one can easily dismiss those ideas and proceed to the other chapters without any considerable problem (I, personally, had no problem in doing that).
December 15, 2015
Damn this is a chewy book. I had to read each chapter at least twice to even get the gist of the argument, and I'll probably have to go through the book a few more times over the next year or so.
Still, I already have a much better understanding of Chomsky's formulation, and I can see how valuable this is going to be for understanding how we've arrived at our contemporary discussion of syntax.
Still, I already have a much better understanding of Chomsky's formulation, and I can see how valuable this is going to be for understanding how we've arrived at our contemporary discussion of syntax.
March 24, 2008
I don't give this one star only because this book spurred a great deal of research in Linguistics.
March 15, 2015
This created a lot of responsive research, mostly because people kept citing this despite huge flaws. It would be easier to evaluate this work if he could write more clearly.
June 24, 2015
Easily one of the most formative, mind-expanding and influential books I ever read as a young uni student; I thoroughly recommend you do too. m
January 29, 2025
The first chapter of the book is an important philosophical work.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews