What do you think?
Rate this book
New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind
This book is an outstanding contribution to the philosophical study of language and mind, by one of the most influential thinkers of our time. In a series of penetrating essays, Chomsky cuts through the confusion and prejudice that has infected the study of language and mind, bringing new solutions to traditional philosophical puzzles and fresh perspectives on issues of general interest, ranging from the mind-body problem to the unification of science. Using a range of imaginative and deceptively simple linguistic analyses, Chomsky defends the view that knowledge of language is internal to the human mind. He argues that a proper study of language must deal with this mental construct. According to Chomsky, therefore, human language is a "biological object" and should be analyzed using the methodology of the sciences. His examples and analyses come together in this book to give a unique and compelling perspective on language and the mind.
250 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1987
24 people are currently reading
1198 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
979 books16.9k 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 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 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 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 20, 2021
One of the many merits of this book is giving a well deserved critique of the main theories of the naturalized Philosophy of Language. Although Chomsky admits being influenced by the late Wittgenstein when he says: "It is possible that natural language has only syntax and pragmatics; it has a “semantics” only in the sense of “the study of how this instrument, whose formal structure and potentialities of expression are the subject of syntactic investigation, is actually put to use in a speech community,” to quote the earliest formulation in generative grammar 40 years ago, influenced by Wittgenstein, Austin and others", he also criticizes "The Wittgensteinian construal of knowledge as a species of ability is a paradigm example of the practice that Wittgenstein held to be a source of philosophical error. Notice that similar considerations show that knowing-how – for example, knowing how to ride a bicycle – cannot be analyzed in terms of abilities, dispositions, etc.; rather, there appears to be an irreducible cognitive element".
This doctrine gave rise to Externalism in the form of Quine's behaviorism, which "Quine and those influenced by his paradigm are enjoining the “field linguist” to depart radically from the procedures of the sciences, limiting themselves to a small part of the relevant evidence, selected in accordance with behaviorist dogma; and also to reject the standard procedures used in theory construction in the sciences. The point is not academic: the normal practice of descriptive linguists crucially exploits these assumptions, which again should be the merest truisms". And what Quine is aiming it here isn't so much different from Bloomfield's ideas in 1933. Bloomfield believed that the main target of linguistic inquiry should be observable phenomena rather than abstract cognitive processes. So in order to separate linguistics from any mentalistic theory, he rejected the classical view that the structure of language reflects the structure of thought.
After the 1950s, however, Bloomfield’s influence waned, as logical positivism ceased to be the main preoccupation of social sciences. Linguists again turned to more mentalistic attitudes and non-observable cognitive processes. With the emergence of the generative grammar approach to linguistics initiated by Chomsky in the 1960s, structural linguistics completely vanished from the linguistic mainstream.
In Chomsky's internalist view, "The internalist study of language also speaks of representations of various kinds, including phonetic and semantic representations at the interface with other systems. The representations are postulated mental entities ... Accessed by performance systems, the internal representations of language enter into interpretation, thought, and action, but there is no reason to seek any other relation to the world, as might be suggested by a well-known philosophical tradition and inappropriate analogies from informal usage ... S is also related to inner states of speaker and hearers, which enter into the ways they interpret it. Communication depends on similarity among these states. In such ways, language engages the world ... We can think of naming as a kind of “world-making” but the worlds we make are rich and intricate and substantially shared thanks to a complex shared nature. Even the conscious efforts of the sciences and the arts are guided by such properties – fortunately, or they could accomplish nothing".
So Chomsky here is just repeating himself, but this time against the new philosophical ideas of the post-Quine era, using the latest scientific results combined with well-constructed thought experiments, old philosophical ideas supporting his position and the history of science and philosophy, to show that most of these doctrines has no real basis to begin with and that it benefits from of the ambiguity of the concepts used to face "problems" that aren't problems in any speaking community. So in a nutshell it may be considered a paradigm case of what Wittgenstein constantly argued against, "the practice of constructing artificial concepts, divorced from ordinary usage, in defense of certain philosophical doctrines".
This doctrine gave rise to Externalism in the form of Quine's behaviorism, which "Quine and those influenced by his paradigm are enjoining the “field linguist” to depart radically from the procedures of the sciences, limiting themselves to a small part of the relevant evidence, selected in accordance with behaviorist dogma; and also to reject the standard procedures used in theory construction in the sciences. The point is not academic: the normal practice of descriptive linguists crucially exploits these assumptions, which again should be the merest truisms". And what Quine is aiming it here isn't so much different from Bloomfield's ideas in 1933. Bloomfield believed that the main target of linguistic inquiry should be observable phenomena rather than abstract cognitive processes. So in order to separate linguistics from any mentalistic theory, he rejected the classical view that the structure of language reflects the structure of thought.
After the 1950s, however, Bloomfield’s influence waned, as logical positivism ceased to be the main preoccupation of social sciences. Linguists again turned to more mentalistic attitudes and non-observable cognitive processes. With the emergence of the generative grammar approach to linguistics initiated by Chomsky in the 1960s, structural linguistics completely vanished from the linguistic mainstream.
In Chomsky's internalist view, "The internalist study of language also speaks of representations of various kinds, including phonetic and semantic representations at the interface with other systems. The representations are postulated mental entities ... Accessed by performance systems, the internal representations of language enter into interpretation, thought, and action, but there is no reason to seek any other relation to the world, as might be suggested by a well-known philosophical tradition and inappropriate analogies from informal usage ... S is also related to inner states of speaker and hearers, which enter into the ways they interpret it. Communication depends on similarity among these states. In such ways, language engages the world ... We can think of naming as a kind of “world-making” but the worlds we make are rich and intricate and substantially shared thanks to a complex shared nature. Even the conscious efforts of the sciences and the arts are guided by such properties – fortunately, or they could accomplish nothing".
So Chomsky here is just repeating himself, but this time against the new philosophical ideas of the post-Quine era, using the latest scientific results combined with well-constructed thought experiments, old philosophical ideas supporting his position and the history of science and philosophy, to show that most of these doctrines has no real basis to begin with and that it benefits from of the ambiguity of the concepts used to face "problems" that aren't problems in any speaking community. So in a nutshell it may be considered a paradigm case of what Wittgenstein constantly argued against, "the practice of constructing artificial concepts, divorced from ordinary usage, in defense of certain philosophical doctrines".
November 8, 2017
كنت أطالع الكتاب في المواصلات العامة عندما وجدت الشخص الجالس بجواري يطلب أن يلقي نظرة على الكتاب.. فدار بيننا الحوار التالي..
هو : لو سمحت ممكن أشوف الكتاب ده؟
أنا : (منحته الكتاب) اتفضل..
هو : الكتاب ده كويس جدًا.. اشتريته بكام؟
أنا : مش فاكر .. انا جبته من سنتين تقريبًا... (فعلا لا أذكر ثمن الكتب لأنني غالبًا أشتري عدة كتب سويًا)
هو : أنا كنت هاجيبه من الهيئة...
أنا : (توضيحًا لخطئه)... لا.. هو مش من الهيئة.. ده من المركز القومي للترجمة في الاوبرا..
هو: (مصرًا على عدم الاعتراف بجهله).. لا لا.. أنا شفته في الهيئة وكنت هاجيبه من هناك...
أنا : (لا تعليق)...
هو : (يتناول الكتاب و يلقي نظرة على عدة صفحات فيه ثم يعيده إلي) تشومسكي كتاباته عظيمة عن اللغة...
أنا : (أتناول الكتاب) ممكن... لكن بالنسبة لي الكتاب متخصص أكتر مما ينبغي..
هو : مافيش حاجة اسمها متخصص اكثر مما ينبغي..
أنا : (اندهشت من رده) اقصد ان الكتاب محتاج حد بخلفية دراسية عن مناهج البحث في اللغة علشان يفهمه مش للقارئ العادي...
هو : (بصلافة يحسد عليها فعلًا!) لو الكتاب مش في مجالك يبقي المفروض ما تقرهوش...
أنا : (أرغب في لكمه لكن أحاول الهدوء) امال ايه هى الثقافة؟ مش المفروض ان الثقافة ان الواحد يقرا في اكتر من مجال؟
هو : (بحدة) .. لأ لأ... ما ينفعش.. (ثم بنوع من التباهي) أنا بأدرس في كلية دار العلوم (كلية دار العلوم كلية خاصة بدراسات اللغة العربية لمن لا يعرف.. ومن فضلك لا تسل لماذا أستاذًا جامعيًا يستقل المواصلات العامة في مصر!!) ..
أنا : (أصمت ولا أرد .. لا أرغب في مواصلة الحوار مع شخصية بهذا الغباء)....
هو : (لا يجد ردًا فيصمت قليلًا.. ثم لا يجد بدًا من المتابعة بنفسه) وأنا بادرس في الجامعة كنت بأقول أن نظريات تشومسكي للغة ونظريات الغرب عموما ممكن حتي تطبيقها على اللغة العربية... لكن المشكلة أننا بناخد دايما النظريات من بره و نطبقها زي ما هى على لغتنا بدون أي اعتبار لأي خصوصية لغوية..
أنا : أنا مادرستش مناهج بحثية .. لكن من فهمي الشخصي اعتقد ان الانجليزي مختلف عن العربي.. تكوينات الجملة والنحو والبلاغة يختلف عن الانجليزي...
هو : ما انا باقول ان هنا خصوصية النص... ممكن ناخد النظرية من بره لكن تعدلها بالشكل اللي يتواءم مع العربي يعني لما يكون النص..
أنا : ( مقاطعًا إياها بحدة) شكرًا لحضرتك لكن انا نازل المحطة اللي جاية..
هذا الحوار جعلني أندهش من العقلية الدراسية في مصر... هذه الفكرة الغربية التي قالها "الأستاذ الجامعي" بأن الشخص لا يجب عليه أن يقرأ في كتاب ليس في تخصصه.. كيف تكون هذه هى عقلية أستاذ جامعي؟ ما الذي يقوله للطلبة؟؟ "ما تقروش اي حاجة غير كتب العربي!؟؟"
فكرة شديدة الغباء تجعل العلم نوعًا من الكهنوت حكرًا على أفراد معينين... هل يحق لي أن أقول لشخص يقرأ كتابًا هندسيًا "ابتعد عنه لأنه ليس مجالك!"
بالفعل لم أفهم أي شيء من الكتاب... لكن لا يعني هذا أن أرفض القراءة في المجال بأكمله! ... ببساطة كل ما يحتاجه الامر هو أن أقرأ كتبًا أخرى أكثر تبسيطًا للمجال هذا...
فإذا كان الأمر هكذا ... لماذا اشتريت الكتاب أساسًا؟؟
ببساطة لأني لا أرفض أي كتاب يقع في يدي أبدًا... الكتاب الهدف منه أن يُقرأ ... وبالتالي دوري أن أقرأه...
وهنا تحديدًا عندما التقطت هذا الكتاب تخيلت انه سيحوي تفسيرًا للنظريات التي تعني بالعلاقة بين اللغة والعقل.. والكيفية التي ينتج عنها اللغة...
لكن ما وجدته هو مجموعة من المحاضرات التي ألقاها تشومسكي في عدة مناسبات... وتلك المحاضرات ينتقد فيها تشومسكي النظريات اللغوية الاخرى...
المشكلة هنا أن القارئ يجب أن يكون ملمًا أولًا بكل تلك النظريات فتشومسكي لا يشرح أيًا منها... فبطبيعة تلك المحاضرات فهى موجهة للأكاديميين الحضور... لهذا لم أستطع ان أفهم ما يتحدث عنه تشومسكي..
قد اعود إليه مجددًا يومًا ما لكن لو القارئ من أمثالي -أي ذي خلفية غير لغوية- فلا أعتقد أنه سيستفيد منه مطلقًا...
هو : لو سمحت ممكن أشوف الكتاب ده؟
أنا : (منحته الكتاب) اتفضل..
هو : الكتاب ده كويس جدًا.. اشتريته بكام؟
أنا : مش فاكر .. انا جبته من سنتين تقريبًا... (فعلا لا أذكر ثمن الكتب لأنني غالبًا أشتري عدة كتب سويًا)
هو : أنا كنت هاجيبه من الهيئة...
أنا : (توضيحًا لخطئه)... لا.. هو مش من الهيئة.. ده من المركز القومي للترجمة في الاوبرا..
هو: (مصرًا على عدم الاعتراف بجهله).. لا لا.. أنا شفته في الهيئة وكنت هاجيبه من هناك...
أنا : (لا تعليق)...
هو : (يتناول الكتاب و يلقي نظرة على عدة صفحات فيه ثم يعيده إلي) تشومسكي كتاباته عظيمة عن اللغة...
أنا : (أتناول الكتاب) ممكن... لكن بالنسبة لي الكتاب متخصص أكتر مما ينبغي..
هو : مافيش حاجة اسمها متخصص اكثر مما ينبغي..
أنا : (اندهشت من رده) اقصد ان الكتاب محتاج حد بخلفية دراسية عن مناهج البحث في اللغة علشان يفهمه مش للقارئ العادي...
هو : (بصلافة يحسد عليها فعلًا!) لو الكتاب مش في مجالك يبقي المفروض ما تقرهوش...
أنا : (أرغب في لكمه لكن أحاول الهدوء) امال ايه هى الثقافة؟ مش المفروض ان الثقافة ان الواحد يقرا في اكتر من مجال؟
هو : (بحدة) .. لأ لأ... ما ينفعش.. (ثم بنوع من التباهي) أنا بأدرس في كلية دار العلوم (كلية دار العلوم كلية خاصة بدراسات اللغة العربية لمن لا يعرف.. ومن فضلك لا تسل لماذا أستاذًا جامعيًا يستقل المواصلات العامة في مصر!!) ..
أنا : (أصمت ولا أرد .. لا أرغب في مواصلة الحوار مع شخصية بهذا الغباء)....
هو : (لا يجد ردًا فيصمت قليلًا.. ثم لا يجد بدًا من المتابعة بنفسه) وأنا بادرس في الجامعة كنت بأقول أن نظريات تشومسكي للغة ونظريات الغرب عموما ممكن حتي تطبيقها على اللغة العربية... لكن المشكلة أننا بناخد دايما النظريات من بره و نطبقها زي ما هى على لغتنا بدون أي اعتبار لأي خصوصية لغوية..
أنا : أنا مادرستش مناهج بحثية .. لكن من فهمي الشخصي اعتقد ان الانجليزي مختلف عن العربي.. تكوينات الجملة والنحو والبلاغة يختلف عن الانجليزي...
هو : ما انا باقول ان هنا خصوصية النص... ممكن ناخد النظرية من بره لكن تعدلها بالشكل اللي يتواءم مع العربي يعني لما يكون النص..
أنا : ( مقاطعًا إياها بحدة) شكرًا لحضرتك لكن انا نازل المحطة اللي جاية..
هذا الحوار جعلني أندهش من العقلية الدراسية في مصر... هذه الفكرة الغربية التي قالها "الأستاذ الجامعي" بأن الشخص لا يجب عليه أن يقرأ في كتاب ليس في تخصصه.. كيف تكون هذه هى عقلية أستاذ جامعي؟ ما الذي يقوله للطلبة؟؟ "ما تقروش اي حاجة غير كتب العربي!؟؟"
فكرة شديدة الغباء تجعل العلم نوعًا من الكهنوت حكرًا على أفراد معينين... هل يحق لي أن أقول لشخص يقرأ كتابًا هندسيًا "ابتعد عنه لأنه ليس مجالك!"
بالفعل لم أفهم أي شيء من الكتاب... لكن لا يعني هذا أن أرفض القراءة في المجال بأكمله! ... ببساطة كل ما يحتاجه الامر هو أن أقرأ كتبًا أخرى أكثر تبسيطًا للمجال هذا...
فإذا كان الأمر هكذا ... لماذا اشتريت الكتاب أساسًا؟؟
ببساطة لأني لا أرفض أي كتاب يقع في يدي أبدًا... الكتاب الهدف منه أن يُقرأ ... وبالتالي دوري أن أقرأه...
وهنا تحديدًا عندما التقطت هذا الكتاب تخيلت انه سيحوي تفسيرًا للنظريات التي تعني بالعلاقة بين اللغة والعقل.. والكيفية التي ينتج عنها اللغة...
لكن ما وجدته هو مجموعة من المحاضرات التي ألقاها تشومسكي في عدة مناسبات... وتلك المحاضرات ينتقد فيها تشومسكي النظريات اللغوية الاخرى...
المشكلة هنا أن القارئ يجب أن يكون ملمًا أولًا بكل تلك النظريات فتشومسكي لا يشرح أيًا منها... فبطبيعة تلك المحاضرات فهى موجهة للأكاديميين الحضور... لهذا لم أستطع ان أفهم ما يتحدث عنه تشومسكي..
قد اعود إليه مجددًا يومًا ما لكن لو القارئ من أمثالي -أي ذي خلفية غير لغوية- فلا أعتقد أنه سيستفيد منه مطلقًا...
March 1, 2014
بحث في جذور اللغة والعقل .. نشوء اللغة .. وعلاقتها بالعقل
February 21, 2012
Is Chomsky fallible? Clearly. But I find that many criticisms of Chomsky are often based on gross generalizations of his ideas or misrepresentations of his ideas. The most substantive criticisms of Chomsky are narrow criticisms aimed at specific claims of theoretical linguistics - for example, the psychological status of transformational operations such as "Move" and "Merge."
Chomsky is not explicitly defending any such narrow claims here. Rather, he accomplishes two major tasks, although he does not explicitly identify these as his goals in any of the essays. The first is providing philosophical ground for the all practitioners of modern, mainstream linguistics as a natural science. The second is using the insights of naturalistic linguistics to respond to large swaths of work in the philosophy of language. He succeeds to a large extent because his argumentation is clear and precise, although by no means trivial.
Chomsky is not explicitly defending any such narrow claims here. Rather, he accomplishes two major tasks, although he does not explicitly identify these as his goals in any of the essays. The first is providing philosophical ground for the all practitioners of modern, mainstream linguistics as a natural science. The second is using the insights of naturalistic linguistics to respond to large swaths of work in the philosophy of language. He succeeds to a large extent because his argumentation is clear and precise, although by no means trivial.
October 1, 2007
Chomsky takes almost all of philosophical common sense about language and mind by the neck and shakes the crap out of it. His primary target in the various essays collected here is methodological dualism: the idea that the empirical study of language and mind has to proceed by different methods than the empirical study of other topics. Along the way he attacks the idea of the explanatory value of public language and the idea that it is possible to formulate a coherent notion of body (or the physical) to play a role in the so-called mind-body problem. And Chomsky provides a range of examples that might serve as fodder for contextualists who want to argue that our grasp of ordinary language is thoroughly interest-relative. There is plenty to disagree with here, but it's exciting philosophy.
February 28, 2008
Probably the most interesting and engaging book to emerge on theoretical linguistics in the past twenty-five years. Relevant topics addressed in the book include philosophy, cognitive science, logic, psychology, computation, psycholinguistics, as well as biolinguistics.
Note: Chomsky himself agreed with my estimation of the book. If you would like a more detailed treatment of the book, email me. I will send you the monograph I have written regarding this work, as well as other topics, books and papers in the field of Chomskyan Linguistics.
Note: Chomsky himself agreed with my estimation of the book. If you would like a more detailed treatment of the book, email me. I will send you the monograph I have written regarding this work, as well as other topics, books and papers in the field of Chomskyan Linguistics.
August 29, 2024
It was a long and winding rant, repetitive to the point of sounding more than just a little deranged. I hope not all of Chomsky's books are like that. I'm taking up the Lectures on Government and Binding and The Minimalist Program next.
March 12, 2021
Fantastic collection of essays covering a wide spectrum of topics from linguistic theory to the philosophy of language.
October 23, 2015
UPDATE ON 06/11/13:
I suppose I've read Noam Chomsky's New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind three times or so now, and the book is exciting to me each time I've read it because of its pioneering work in studying language scientifically and also for its reflections on scientific enterprises generally. First, regarding language, the research program Chomsky created for linguistics seeks to discover what principles govern the growth of language in the mind/brain and develops models that try to account for those principles. This is not much different, incidentally, than the way people investigate the underlying principles that would allow for the growth of a particular cell, perhaps also in the way that that cell would grow into a child; in those matters of biology, research is done in how the growth of the cell occurs and what principles would govern or allow for that growth.
Regarding science, Chomsky writes:
REVIEW ON 11/07/10:
This book is an exciting view of the human language faculty. According to Chomsky's pioneering linguistic theory, human beings have an innate capacity for language. His current theory of language suggests that a language would better be viewed as an i-language, which would be a human being's individual language faculty, which would be in a different state at different times. The state of a human's language faculty will be a set of expressions that are made up of phonetic and semantic elements. These can be further decomposed into lexical items, which in ordinary usage would be something like the vocabulary words and 'chunk' and collocated words (e.g., 'in the context of'). So essentially knowing a language is knowing a set of lexical items and their movement. This is a working hypothesis of language, anyway, and it seems awfully plausible.
I suppose I've read Noam Chomsky's New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind three times or so now, and the book is exciting to me each time I've read it because of its pioneering work in studying language scientifically and also for its reflections on scientific enterprises generally. First, regarding language, the research program Chomsky created for linguistics seeks to discover what principles govern the growth of language in the mind/brain and develops models that try to account for those principles. This is not much different, incidentally, than the way people investigate the underlying principles that would allow for the growth of a particular cell, perhaps also in the way that that cell would grow into a child; in those matters of biology, research is done in how the growth of the cell occurs and what principles would govern or allow for that growth.
Regarding science, Chomsky writes:
We should by now be able to accept that we can do no more than seek "best theories," with no independent standard for evaluation apart from contribution to understanding, and hope for unification but with no advance doctrine about how, or whether, it can be achieved.A little later, he writes:
Naturalistic inquiry is a particular human enterprise that seeks a special kind of understanding, attainable for humans in some few domains when problems can be simplified enough. Meanwhile, we live our lives, facing as best we can problems of radically different kinds, far too rich in character to be able to discern explanatory principles of any depth, if these even exist.If one looks carefully at the successful sciences, they do not try to account for problems of ordinary discourse but problems of a particular kind, relative to a particular subject, and the easier it can be simplified and modeled the better. This is not to disparage the sciences, but rather to be aware of scientific limitations to account for everything in the world. That is ultimately hoping for too much. If some people who study the social sciences read this, they might benefit, perhaps.
REVIEW ON 11/07/10:
This book is an exciting view of the human language faculty. According to Chomsky's pioneering linguistic theory, human beings have an innate capacity for language. His current theory of language suggests that a language would better be viewed as an i-language, which would be a human being's individual language faculty, which would be in a different state at different times. The state of a human's language faculty will be a set of expressions that are made up of phonetic and semantic elements. These can be further decomposed into lexical items, which in ordinary usage would be something like the vocabulary words and 'chunk' and collocated words (e.g., 'in the context of'). So essentially knowing a language is knowing a set of lexical items and their movement. This is a working hypothesis of language, anyway, and it seems awfully plausible.
March 17, 2011
I have read a lot of texts on cognitive linguistics and I have come to the following conclusion with regards to Chomsky's achievements: He poses many questions about the nature of human language that are interesting and worth debating. However, his answers to these question are sometimes doubtful, and this is due to one general point; i.e. Chomsky believes cognitive linguistics to be a part of natural science. Therefore, I partly agree with some of the criticism from more Wittgensteinian philosophers such as John Searle. By all means, read this book, reflect upon Chomsky's (sometimes repetitive) arguments. Then read Wittgenstein. Or the other way around, I guess.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews