What do you think?
Rate this book
On Language: Chomsky's Classic Works Language and Responsibility and Reflections on Language in One Volume
Restoring to print two of Chomsky's most famous and popular books in one omnibus volume, On Language features some of the noted linguist and political critic's most informal and highly accessible work, making it an ideal introduction to his thought.In Part I, Language and Responsibility, Chomsky presents a fascinating self-portrait of his political, moral, and linguistic thinking. In Part II, Reflections on Language, Chomsky explores the more general implications of the study of language and offers incisive analyses of the controversies among psychologists, philosophers, and linguists over fundamental questions of language."Language and Responsibility is a well-organized, clearly written, and comprehensive introduction to Chomsky's thought." —New York Times Book Review"Language and Responsibility brings together in one readable volume Chomsky's positions on issues ranging from politics and philosophy of science to recent advances in linguistic theory... The clarity of presentation at times approaches that of Bertrand Russell in his political and more popular philosophical essays." —Contemporary Psychology"Reflections on Language is profoundly satisfying and impressive. It is the clearest and most developed account of the case of universal grammar and of the relations between his theory of language and the innate faculties of mind responsible for language aquisition and use." —Patrick Flanagan
269 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1998
1058 people are currently reading
6225 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
974 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 - 30 of 58 reviews
July 15, 2007
I decided it was time I actually read some Chomsky, and I sought this out as a non-technical book about language.
The book is really two books, the second of which is really two books in itself, and this volume suffers from this. That is, it's not clear that it was a good idea for them to publish all of this in one bundle, as reading it all together, I found myself constantly annoyed at Chomsky for repeating himself so much on the one hand and not going into more depth on the other. Of course, that's because I was actually reading three separate works, not one, all of them written at a relatively low level of depth.
The first book -- the interview -- was quite interesting. It was interesting to hear Chomsky discuss a range of things, from politics to linguistics, and it was nice to see the sharpness of his mind and how he resisted the interviewers attempts to create links where there were none (between, for example, his pioneering work in linguistics and his political activism). The interview also gave a great picture of how Chomsky developed his ideas. It was fascinating to see how he looked at the past in terms of the generative grammar he developed, seeing how he found fragments of his theory both in his own early work and in the work of early philosophers.
The second book felt defensive and bullyish. It is hard to know what the intellectual climate was in the 70s when he wrote it -- I gather he was under constant attack, but I don't know. It's also frustrating not to know how the developments in neurology and cognitive science have affected the theories he discussed. I will definitely be seeking later writings to learn about this.
At any rate, I found Chomsky's way of handling intellectual debate obnoxious, pigheaded, and mean. For example, he makes incessant recourse to imagining a character he calls "S", a scientist free of our intellectual history and prejudices. The "character" is of course Chomsky himself, and his point it merely to say that he is above intellectual history and a real scientist, whereas those who disagree with him are prejudiced and stupid. It's also evident from much of the book that he and his "opponents" have been going back and forth through several publications simply reiterating their points and insulting each other. This is not my idea of good reading.
Nonetheless, I'm giving this three stars because I did actually finish it, and there were sections that were quite interesting.
The book is really two books, the second of which is really two books in itself, and this volume suffers from this. That is, it's not clear that it was a good idea for them to publish all of this in one bundle, as reading it all together, I found myself constantly annoyed at Chomsky for repeating himself so much on the one hand and not going into more depth on the other. Of course, that's because I was actually reading three separate works, not one, all of them written at a relatively low level of depth.
The first book -- the interview -- was quite interesting. It was interesting to hear Chomsky discuss a range of things, from politics to linguistics, and it was nice to see the sharpness of his mind and how he resisted the interviewers attempts to create links where there were none (between, for example, his pioneering work in linguistics and his political activism). The interview also gave a great picture of how Chomsky developed his ideas. It was fascinating to see how he looked at the past in terms of the generative grammar he developed, seeing how he found fragments of his theory both in his own early work and in the work of early philosophers.
The second book felt defensive and bullyish. It is hard to know what the intellectual climate was in the 70s when he wrote it -- I gather he was under constant attack, but I don't know. It's also frustrating not to know how the developments in neurology and cognitive science have affected the theories he discussed. I will definitely be seeking later writings to learn about this.
At any rate, I found Chomsky's way of handling intellectual debate obnoxious, pigheaded, and mean. For example, he makes incessant recourse to imagining a character he calls "S", a scientist free of our intellectual history and prejudices. The "character" is of course Chomsky himself, and his point it merely to say that he is above intellectual history and a real scientist, whereas those who disagree with him are prejudiced and stupid. It's also evident from much of the book that he and his "opponents" have been going back and forth through several publications simply reiterating their points and insulting each other. This is not my idea of good reading.
Nonetheless, I'm giving this three stars because I did actually finish it, and there were sections that were quite interesting.
December 8, 2016
Noam Chomsky is such a smart guy but he is also a bit of a pedant. I really wish this could have been a bit more readable because there were so many wonderful ideas in the book. But I got bogged down by the language because I'm just a regular person and not a linguistic scholar. It was a tedious read and I am happily donating it to my local library.
March 14, 2022
In the rationalist tradition of Plato, Leibniz, Descartes, Hume, and Kant – Chomsky is constructing a theory of language and is defending it against empiricists and behaviorists. Chomsky is criticizing and rejecting the modern approach to language as something completely exterior, as primarily a tool for communication, as an evolutionary benefit, as a transparent or logical system, and similar. Instead, Chomsky prefers the innate, rather purposeless, partially unknown and mysterious, infinitely flexible and similar aspects of language. The implications of his linguistics theory are all over the place: the nature of language, human nature and education, the limits of knowledge and “mysteries”, the nature of sciences, the ideological assumptions and implications of different theories of language, ethics and the type of legitimate government, and so on. For someone not familiar with the linguistic field, this book can get quite technical; while Chomsky spends a lot of time refuting his critics.
Currently reading
August 17, 2025academic reading, it is truly so over
December 29, 2024
So boring. Oh my word.
August 2, 2019
I found very little substance here, if any exists to be found at all. I have read books on linguistics before, so for a book called "On Language", a linguistics discussion is what I came for and tried to find. To be honest, I picked this up in the first place because it was recommended to our book club by someone else, and I picked the previous choice, so I was obligated to read this one.
The biggest frustration was that there was no structure or argument thread throughout at all. This is a collection of interviews Chomsky did and essays he wrote about various topics he found interesting. So while one of his stances might be that one cannot speak about language without speaking about politics at the same time, he does not embody his perspective here at all. While sometimes he talks about some grammar and sentence structure specifics found in the English language, most of the time he rambles on about sociopolitical topics that occurred during his time. Chomsky has a lot of opinions about different things, but fails to back up his claims adequately or to connect his thoughts together into a cohesive argument.
Chomsky's "On Language" also just seems so narrow-minded and outdated. Most of his references are to political swings occurring in the '60s and this book was first published in the '70s. It hasn't aged well, and I am at a lost to see how Chomsky's body of work is still relevant to today at all. He may have been an important member of the intelligentsia in his day, but I expected more from a seemingly respected linguist.
Furthermore, the scope of these discussions was just so limited. All of Chomsky's references are based in recent (for the time of first publication) American events, but the United States is not the only country that speaks English, and English is not even the most-spoken language in the world. Mandarin Chinese is currently the most-spoken language in the world at 1.1 billion speakers, with only 983 million English speakers. For a book titled "On Language", I expected a more intelligent perspective.
I would NOT recommend this to ANYONE. Not worth the time or money. Search elsewhere, anywhere else, for better discussion on language, society, and politics.
The biggest frustration was that there was no structure or argument thread throughout at all. This is a collection of interviews Chomsky did and essays he wrote about various topics he found interesting. So while one of his stances might be that one cannot speak about language without speaking about politics at the same time, he does not embody his perspective here at all. While sometimes he talks about some grammar and sentence structure specifics found in the English language, most of the time he rambles on about sociopolitical topics that occurred during his time. Chomsky has a lot of opinions about different things, but fails to back up his claims adequately or to connect his thoughts together into a cohesive argument.
Chomsky's "On Language" also just seems so narrow-minded and outdated. Most of his references are to political swings occurring in the '60s and this book was first published in the '70s. It hasn't aged well, and I am at a lost to see how Chomsky's body of work is still relevant to today at all. He may have been an important member of the intelligentsia in his day, but I expected more from a seemingly respected linguist.
Furthermore, the scope of these discussions was just so limited. All of Chomsky's references are based in recent (for the time of first publication) American events, but the United States is not the only country that speaks English, and English is not even the most-spoken language in the world. Mandarin Chinese is currently the most-spoken language in the world at 1.1 billion speakers, with only 983 million English speakers. For a book titled "On Language", I expected a more intelligent perspective.
I would NOT recommend this to ANYONE. Not worth the time or money. Search elsewhere, anywhere else, for better discussion on language, society, and politics.
March 30, 2007
I defy anyone who is not associated with the linguistics dept. at MIT to get through this book. This is wicked tough. I had to have an intervention with myself and just let it go one quarter read...
Whatever, he's still a fucking genius. A fucking genius he still is, or still...he is a fucking genius.
Whatever, he's still a fucking genius. A fucking genius he still is, or still...he is a fucking genius.
December 4, 2017
Unlike functionalists, who claim that language has developed to serve the function of communication, Chomsky identifies language with the cognitive faculty itself. Thought, to Chomsky, is not about communication, but about conceptualizing and systematizing knowledge. Humans do this with a cognitive system called language. Language, according to Chomsky is the cognitive system which is particular to the human mind. Finding a foundation in Descartes, though rejecting his substance dualism, Chomsky explains how language is universal to all humans, because it is the defining feature of our nature: res cogitas. In a debate against Foucault, who is skeptical to the notion that there is a human nature transcending historical context, Chomsky explains that he believes in a universal human nature, which in principle can be understood as several systems, but which currently is most fully and most scientifically understood as a linguistic system.
What is the scope of linguisics according to chomsky? Some points on universal grammar:
- generative grammar proposes to understand language in terms of syntactic categories. Not function or relational arbitrations.
- Rules of natural languages are not universal. It is the conditions which govern the rules that are universal.
- language is generated by innate grammar. (Chomsky does not use the term «the innateness hypothesis». He says nobody has ever disagreed that there is something innate. The term therefore is misleading. UG can be understood as Platos innateness hypothesis (from the dialogue Meno) purged of preexistence, cf. Leibniz and Cudworth, but that is not the complete picture of UG.)
- There are certain truths that are entirely contained within the universal grammar, i.e. their truth value is contained within the internal relations of sentences. E.g: «i persuaded him to...» entails «he (now) intends to...» or in the sentence «john saw him» it is clear that john is not the reference of «him». However: truth values are rarely determined within the syntax of grammar itself: most sentences are determined by the facts of the world itself and are not known a priori.
- semantics is not universal, at least there is no theory as yet which advocates such a view. This means that grammar is primary to semantic meaning.
This has implication for the structure of thoughts: they are determined by the universal grammar with reference only to the facts of the world. Meaning all semantic content is created with reference to the world. (This is good news for socrates and aristotle, not so much for plato).
- The factor which determines semantic content is called deep structure. Deep structure lies above the level of universal grammar, but on the level of the mind, not production. Surface structure is the physical manifestation of that content in phonology.
The main service of the deep structure is embedding theme into sentences. Surface structure contain the cues for understanding utterances, but this is not to say that language primarily serves the function of communications. Rather, there is a logic to the surface structure that lends itself to interpretation by comparing it to other formal or informal schemas. Logic (e.g. of the propositional kind) is an abstraction of the surface structure, not a feature of deep structure. (NB! Deep structure is not universal grammar. Deep structure is specific to natural languages, although it may in practice be common to all of them.)
Furthermore, elements on the level of surface structure are not always visible, i.e. They can be realized in the structure without being realized in physics.
- There is no proof to suggest that language is a global phenomenon in the brain. Beliefs and attitudes are intertwined with language in the real world, but they are not part of language itself.
- in natural languages facts enter into the structure of sentences. Between agents and action there is often purpose, instrument, intention, etc... this is fact entering the language and these relations are not part of universal grammar.
Universal Grammar in sum: UG is not grammar. Grammar qua grammar is stipulated in the deep and surface structures og language. UG is the theory of what is behind grammar. Logic - if there are such things as innate logical rules, as many philosophers suggest, and not just apparent rules abstracted from cognitive practice - is situated at the level of deep structure: it is the basic rule of thought, but it is not the condition for the existence of these rules. UG is the theory of these conditions.
Challenges to the Generative theory of language:
- From Structuralism: the fact that language is not a code seems counterintuitive. The element of phonemes; the fact that only perceptible changes in pronunciation can enact changes in meaning does seem to point to this, although this is a minor intervention. The code view is common to both behaviorists and saussureans.
- From Cognitive linguists: the language as global intervention: there is little evidence to suppose that language is different to other cognitive events. There is thus little reason to stipulate the existence of a language faculty in the brain that is seperate from the rest of brain activity.
- From Functionalism: the social aspect of the development of language (in infants) seems to indicate that language is aquired specifically for the sake of communication. In this view, language is part of a larger system of communication also involving non-linguisic practices. The communications view of language is not the same view as language as code. In the functionalist view there are considerations of body, local relevance, and dialogic creativity, so language as communication will be better understood as coordinating intentionalities rather than as code.
What is the scope of linguisics according to chomsky? Some points on universal grammar:
- generative grammar proposes to understand language in terms of syntactic categories. Not function or relational arbitrations.
- Rules of natural languages are not universal. It is the conditions which govern the rules that are universal.
- language is generated by innate grammar. (Chomsky does not use the term «the innateness hypothesis». He says nobody has ever disagreed that there is something innate. The term therefore is misleading. UG can be understood as Platos innateness hypothesis (from the dialogue Meno) purged of preexistence, cf. Leibniz and Cudworth, but that is not the complete picture of UG.)
- There are certain truths that are entirely contained within the universal grammar, i.e. their truth value is contained within the internal relations of sentences. E.g: «i persuaded him to...» entails «he (now) intends to...» or in the sentence «john saw him» it is clear that john is not the reference of «him». However: truth values are rarely determined within the syntax of grammar itself: most sentences are determined by the facts of the world itself and are not known a priori.
- semantics is not universal, at least there is no theory as yet which advocates such a view. This means that grammar is primary to semantic meaning.
This has implication for the structure of thoughts: they are determined by the universal grammar with reference only to the facts of the world. Meaning all semantic content is created with reference to the world. (This is good news for socrates and aristotle, not so much for plato).
- The factor which determines semantic content is called deep structure. Deep structure lies above the level of universal grammar, but on the level of the mind, not production. Surface structure is the physical manifestation of that content in phonology.
The main service of the deep structure is embedding theme into sentences. Surface structure contain the cues for understanding utterances, but this is not to say that language primarily serves the function of communications. Rather, there is a logic to the surface structure that lends itself to interpretation by comparing it to other formal or informal schemas. Logic (e.g. of the propositional kind) is an abstraction of the surface structure, not a feature of deep structure. (NB! Deep structure is not universal grammar. Deep structure is specific to natural languages, although it may in practice be common to all of them.)
Furthermore, elements on the level of surface structure are not always visible, i.e. They can be realized in the structure without being realized in physics.
- There is no proof to suggest that language is a global phenomenon in the brain. Beliefs and attitudes are intertwined with language in the real world, but they are not part of language itself.
- in natural languages facts enter into the structure of sentences. Between agents and action there is often purpose, instrument, intention, etc... this is fact entering the language and these relations are not part of universal grammar.
Universal Grammar in sum: UG is not grammar. Grammar qua grammar is stipulated in the deep and surface structures og language. UG is the theory of what is behind grammar. Logic - if there are such things as innate logical rules, as many philosophers suggest, and not just apparent rules abstracted from cognitive practice - is situated at the level of deep structure: it is the basic rule of thought, but it is not the condition for the existence of these rules. UG is the theory of these conditions.
Challenges to the Generative theory of language:
- From Structuralism: the fact that language is not a code seems counterintuitive. The element of phonemes; the fact that only perceptible changes in pronunciation can enact changes in meaning does seem to point to this, although this is a minor intervention. The code view is common to both behaviorists and saussureans.
- From Cognitive linguists: the language as global intervention: there is little evidence to suppose that language is different to other cognitive events. There is thus little reason to stipulate the existence of a language faculty in the brain that is seperate from the rest of brain activity.
- From Functionalism: the social aspect of the development of language (in infants) seems to indicate that language is aquired specifically for the sake of communication. In this view, language is part of a larger system of communication also involving non-linguisic practices. The communications view of language is not the same view as language as code. In the functionalist view there are considerations of body, local relevance, and dialogic creativity, so language as communication will be better understood as coordinating intentionalities rather than as code.
January 3, 2020
This book was a real slog to get through even for someone who has studied Language at Masters level. Chomsky frequently delves into incomprehensible theorems, many of which are utterly baffling and ultimately render the text demotivating. Granted, there are snippets of insight and thought-provoking analysis but as an overall experience, I found the book impenetrable.
May 17, 2008
When all the partisan shouting about Chomsky as traitor/radical/anti-Semite/etc. has died down, he'll still be the foremost linguistic philosopher of our age. This collection contains his most important work not aimed exclusively at an academic readership.
January 8, 2008
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this book.
If you want to know why, email me =)
If you want to know why, email me =)
May 16, 2025
As a fan of Chomsky’s politically oriented work & as an educator increasingly drawn towards linguistics as they relate to social science, I was very excited to read this; however, it really lost me midway through the second book, Reflections on Language, specifically the third chapter. There are certainly novel insights into Chomsky’s influential theory of generative grammar, or our biological predisposition to language acquisition, & some of the general political-theoretical ramifications of language, empiricism, & rationalism. I enjoyed the first book in full, & did enjoy portions of the 2nd, but this is not exactly what I’m cut out for. It’s a bit wild that this is deemed some of his most accessible work.
I was ultimately left disappointed & struggled to follow passages which seemed rather obtuse in their framing, particularly certain variables which were (to me) somewhat shoddily designated. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m hardly the strongest at following “variable-driven” passages, whether in physics, metaphysics, or linguistics, BUT I can generally tough it out under some difficult circumstances; I genuinely read the Deleuze & Guattari books, I read a lot of Neo-Platonism last year, but I quickly decided this wasn’t gonna do it for me at a certain point. I feel somewhat justified based on several other reviews & the fact that we’ve simply learned far more about the specific neurological structures Chomsky is addressing hypothetically throughout.
I was ultimately left disappointed & struggled to follow passages which seemed rather obtuse in their framing, particularly certain variables which were (to me) somewhat shoddily designated. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m hardly the strongest at following “variable-driven” passages, whether in physics, metaphysics, or linguistics, BUT I can generally tough it out under some difficult circumstances; I genuinely read the Deleuze & Guattari books, I read a lot of Neo-Platonism last year, but I quickly decided this wasn’t gonna do it for me at a certain point. I feel somewhat justified based on several other reviews & the fact that we’ve simply learned far more about the specific neurological structures Chomsky is addressing hypothetically throughout.
March 7, 2007
Language and Responsibility: A fantastic interview with Noam Chomsky, where he discusses issues in politics, connections between linguistics and psychology, and some detailed discussion about some of his theories regarding language. It's a little bit technical and presupposes you know his general theories, but the purpose of this interview was to superficially discuss the large paradigm shift instigated by Chomsky and how it has since developed and been received.
Reflections on Language: More technically grounded in linguistics than the first part, this is the methodology that was so ground-breaking on the release of Syntactic Structures, the book that turned linguistics around forever. If you're curious about how Chomsky flipped the entire discipline on its head and why, here is where he discusses it.
On the whole, this collection is not very accessible for the non-academic, but if you like a challenge and want to witness a great thinker, whether you enjoy linguistics or not, check this out.
Reflections on Language: More technically grounded in linguistics than the first part, this is the methodology that was so ground-breaking on the release of Syntactic Structures, the book that turned linguistics around forever. If you're curious about how Chomsky flipped the entire discipline on its head and why, here is where he discusses it.
On the whole, this collection is not very accessible for the non-academic, but if you like a challenge and want to witness a great thinker, whether you enjoy linguistics or not, check this out.
October 21, 2010
Perhaps a little over-technical in its orientation, but really a very informative read.
May 4, 2013
Incredible!!!
January 12, 2019
A comprehensive and succinct summary of linguistics, by the renowned father of modern linguistics. This is like taking a delightful stroll down memory lane. Wonderful!
November 18, 2021
excellent talk by Chomsky on the ghost in the machine of consciousness.
https://youtu.be/D5in5EdjhD0
https://youtu.be/D5in5EdjhD0
December 24, 2021
mayhaps this just doesn't work well as an audiobook, but i feel like the physics envy -esque overmathematicization of what could be relatively simple and relatable anecdotes (for example, othe anecdote of how the scientist goes about researching the question) detracts from the presentation of ideas. additionally, when he argues against various critics, he kind of jumps into the fray without much prelude and actual summary of what the criticisms were in the first place, so you have to go and google the specific works/people referenced unless you have an unreasonable amount of pre-existing erudition about the specific details of his previous books, which, if you did, would kind of defeat the purpose of reading this book in the first place. despite all this he weaves together many interesting threads and insights into a very nuanced discussion of the biological limits of language, and how those limits also don't necessarily have the negative implications that biological essentialists tend to shoehorn in. I really enjoy the rigor and dedication to following the moral complexity through and dissecting it. he's essentially fending off arguments from both sides but backing it up with serious consideration and research, which is extremely commendable
October 16, 2025
This is the book that anchored my admiration for Chomsky. As a neurodivergent student, later diagnosed with ADHD, I struggled with the fluid, unstated rules of social language. Chomsky's theories offered a revelation: that beneath the chaos of speech lies a universal, structured grammar, a predictable, logical bedrock. It wasn't that my brain was broken; it was that the surface-level noise was. This framework gave me a sense of order, making the act of communication feel less like a social minefield and more like a decipherable system. It was the first time academic theory felt like a personal key.
August 7, 2025
How many words does you know?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 2, 2018
Chomsky argues that mainstream media in the United States (radio, news broadcasting, talk-shows etc.) act as gatekeeper to the range of political thought disseminated to the public. By declining guest appearances from those whose politics fall outside of the canonical positions (republican, democrat), American media can give the outward appearance of free & open discussion while actually suppressing the range of argumentation in politics.
As Chomsky goes on to write, this kind of repression achieves similar end-results as dictatorial states but through a different mechanism; whereas dictatorships often dissuade citizens to advocate controversial political platforms through physical repression (death threats, actual murder, etc), the United States can dissuade citizens from exercising free speech through other, equally effective means. If you have socialist views in the US, for example, you will either 1. not be permitted on any kind of large-audience platform or 2. invited and then actively characterized as a kind of buffoon / crazy ideologue.
Chomsky is a brilliant, monotonic speaker (think savant robot) and that translates 1:1 into his writing. If you are more interested in the academically pure groundwork he laid in cognitive linguistics, read his other books. If you want to understand how his work in linguistics translates into US political discourse, read this one.
As Chomsky goes on to write, this kind of repression achieves similar end-results as dictatorial states but through a different mechanism; whereas dictatorships often dissuade citizens to advocate controversial political platforms through physical repression (death threats, actual murder, etc), the United States can dissuade citizens from exercising free speech through other, equally effective means. If you have socialist views in the US, for example, you will either 1. not be permitted on any kind of large-audience platform or 2. invited and then actively characterized as a kind of buffoon / crazy ideologue.
Chomsky is a brilliant, monotonic speaker (think savant robot) and that translates 1:1 into his writing. If you are more interested in the academically pure groundwork he laid in cognitive linguistics, read his other books. If you want to understand how his work in linguistics translates into US political discourse, read this one.
June 27, 2025
I read On Language in 2001, at a time when I was just beginning to suspect that language wasn’t just how we express thought — it was how we created it. The book, structured as a dialogue between Chomsky and Mitsou Ronat, felt like eavesdropping on a quiet but seismic philosophical awakening. It wasn't flashy. No rhetorical fireworks. Just deep thought, sentence after sentence, pressing into the heart of what makes us human.
Chomsky speaks here of syntax not as mere structure, but as something almost biological — hardwired, innate. “Universal grammar,” he says, isn’t learned; it’s uncovered. Reading that at the time, I remember closing the book mid-chapter and whispering, “Wait… is the mind a kind of language organ?” It felt like brushing against the machinery of consciousness itself.
What struck me most was the pairing: Ronat’s intelligent, respectful probing and Chomsky’s razor-sharp, sometimes austere replies. He’s not warm, but he is clear — frighteningly so. Like someone who’s spent a lifetime listening for patterns the rest of us only mumble.
Reading this at the turn of the century, in a world already tilting toward mass media noise, I felt like I’d been handed a compass. Language isn’t just a tool. It’s a truth-teller. And Chomsky? He’s the one holding the mirror.
Chomsky speaks here of syntax not as mere structure, but as something almost biological — hardwired, innate. “Universal grammar,” he says, isn’t learned; it’s uncovered. Reading that at the time, I remember closing the book mid-chapter and whispering, “Wait… is the mind a kind of language organ?” It felt like brushing against the machinery of consciousness itself.
What struck me most was the pairing: Ronat’s intelligent, respectful probing and Chomsky’s razor-sharp, sometimes austere replies. He’s not warm, but he is clear — frighteningly so. Like someone who’s spent a lifetime listening for patterns the rest of us only mumble.
Reading this at the turn of the century, in a world already tilting toward mass media noise, I felt like I’d been handed a compass. Language isn’t just a tool. It’s a truth-teller. And Chomsky? He’s the one holding the mirror.
May 14, 2014
Three and a half. I appreciate the introduction to Chomsky's ideas about generative grammar and universal grammar. The man is a linguistics legend, whose brilliant insights helped lead to the development of the field of evolutionary psychology (which I recently discovered). However, these texts are uneven, lacking clear connectors from Chomsky's political ideas to his broad linguistic theories, to specific examples of potential universal grammatical frames, to detailed defenses of his theories and responses to challengers in the field. Essentially, I'm not quite sure the scope or intended audience for this book, though I appreciate many of its insights.
December 23, 2021
What a chonky Chomsky. Honestly, I’m shocked in this short tome he didn’t redefine the word dense because of you look it up in the dictionary, this should have a prominent place next to it!
There were a lot of great ideas but I think at times Chomsky forgot he wasn’t speaking to fellow MIT lecturers and thinkers. He got in his own way with his verbiage at times (oh, the irony) but overall if you take the time to dig deep enough it is fascinating to try and see how this man thinks. So while “Chomsky in his own words” for some is a great idea, I’m smart enough to realize when I need an interpreter.
There were a lot of great ideas but I think at times Chomsky forgot he wasn’t speaking to fellow MIT lecturers and thinkers. He got in his own way with his verbiage at times (oh, the irony) but overall if you take the time to dig deep enough it is fascinating to try and see how this man thinks. So while “Chomsky in his own words” for some is a great idea, I’m smart enough to realize when I need an interpreter.
February 19, 2021
Hot take: this man needs an editor
If this were a paper I wrote in college there would be brackets around many, many sections. A red “concise” would be written in a nearby margin.
That being said this made me reconsider my grasp on the English language. There are insights everywhere in the work. Often, they were buried under a layer of words and ideas beyond my initial comprehension.
Note: I have no background in linguistics
If this were a paper I wrote in college there would be brackets around many, many sections. A red “concise” would be written in a nearby margin.
That being said this made me reconsider my grasp on the English language. There are insights everywhere in the work. Often, they were buried under a layer of words and ideas beyond my initial comprehension.
Note: I have no background in linguistics
March 16, 2022
You realize his bread and butter is linguistics, right? He’s great this is amazing. Even if you just have a passing interest this is a seminal work.
You don’t have to read it in it’s entirety. But at least use this as reference.
You don’t have to read it in it’s entirety. But at least use this as reference.
November 3, 2007
It’s some really good stuff... and then it also has a lot dialogue, making it fell more like an interview than an articulation of thought.
August 9, 2013
That's settled, I am not a linguist. ;) Still, another insightful read. Love Chomsky.
March 13, 2020
If you haven't read anything by old Noam...I wonder why? So expand. If you have read more than one of his books you get it.
July 20, 2020
If you like essays written and dedicated to the dismantling of the author’s critics, grab the popcorn. The guy lays into people who disagree with him in a really funny way. He’s careful to unpick their ideas before he corrects them on their misunderstandings and finally kicks them with a little snide comment about how they lack the capacity to understand and form competent ideas.
Burn.
Seriously though, more than anything else this book opens out the idea of language and reveals it to be the most mysterious, complex and fascinating invention in human history. It is amazing! It doesn’t make sense. Language, I mean. We seem to have discovered it, more than it being an invention really. There are so many layers to it.
The way I look at language now, I think that it is a way of communicating ideas that actually alters our minds as we use it. So we are in a state of symbiosis. Just like the internet has shortened our attention spans and now, rather than learning and knowing information, our brains merely learn the location of information so we can find it again if we need it. Ultimately resulting in a culture that passively consumes media, rather than engaging with it. Leading to people liking awful millennial fiction that leaves you with a fuzzy warm feeling of comfort and doesn’t challenge you or make you grow.
Chomsky would agree. He’s a guy who passionately loves language. For him, it is meant to be used as a tool to convey ideas and to be used creatively. He isn’t the sort of guy who reads, watches or listens to anything unless it is going to enhance his existence.
He is a man after my own heart.
Burn.
Seriously though, more than anything else this book opens out the idea of language and reveals it to be the most mysterious, complex and fascinating invention in human history. It is amazing! It doesn’t make sense. Language, I mean. We seem to have discovered it, more than it being an invention really. There are so many layers to it.
The way I look at language now, I think that it is a way of communicating ideas that actually alters our minds as we use it. So we are in a state of symbiosis. Just like the internet has shortened our attention spans and now, rather than learning and knowing information, our brains merely learn the location of information so we can find it again if we need it. Ultimately resulting in a culture that passively consumes media, rather than engaging with it. Leading to people liking awful millennial fiction that leaves you with a fuzzy warm feeling of comfort and doesn’t challenge you or make you grow.
Chomsky would agree. He’s a guy who passionately loves language. For him, it is meant to be used as a tool to convey ideas and to be used creatively. He isn’t the sort of guy who reads, watches or listens to anything unless it is going to enhance his existence.
He is a man after my own heart.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews