Customer Reviews

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Joe from Providence.
I was a linguistics student when this book came out. Students and instructors alike were baffled, spent hours trying to understand it, and loved it or berated it. But no one could remain neutral about Chomsky's Theory of Syntax.
Many years after graduate courses in different linguistic grammars, I picked it up again, and it is a comparatively easy read for present or former lingusitics students.
The initial problem readers encountered was Chomsky's presupposition of a wide knowledge of all aspects of linguistics (and some major theories of learning behavior)-- he presupposes that you have grasped the sources that he either is reacting to or revising: What came before is what forced Chomsky to begin creating his theory of syntax. This is NOT like his later books: this IS syntax, the "technical kind." And that is partially what makes the book so important.

Regardless of your opinion or reaction to this book: NO ONE CAN IGNORE IT, or its effect on linguistics after its publication.

IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO READ 'WHAT SOMEONE SAYS CHOMSKY SAID.' Read the original.

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax is the work in which Noam Chomsky first makes known his controversial theories of language. The follow up to his primary work, Syntactic Structures, this work includes the introduction of such concepts as Deep Structure, Universal Grammar, and makes clear the realtionship between grammar and meaning. This is also the work which sparked the "generative semantics" debate that charged all through the 1970's. If you are a linguist, you must read this book. The theory may be outdated, but the history is the real importance. Besides, it's written by Chomsky, so the language is sure to be as powerful as it is clear and concise!

I agree the one star review below is confusing, especially since, if this book is to be attacked, it should be on the basis of the ideas, not the organization. In fact, I think Chomsky's work represents some of the most concise, elegant, and well formulated academic writing I've ever come across; for that reason alone, this book is a classic in the genre. Of course there are certain assumptions on which his theory rests which have since been discredited, but this book is still influential, even within competing linguistic theories, and is very important from a historical perspective. Be forewarned, the text is extremely dense and slow going.

It's a little strange to find or place reviews of such a seminal and magisterial work on a commercial web site. Aspects (and Syntactic Structures) essentially created the intellectual space in which linguists have operated for almost half a century. Not reading Aspects is only possible in the way that not reading "Origin of Species" is. An interested reader can certainly learn the same stuff another way -- more easily, in fact -- but when you come to understand it, you will want to get to the source for yourself.

This book covers several aspects that conventional grammar theory fails to explain. As a student of English as a second language, I find his work (on the English language) precise and very instructive.
Since this is a new area of attention for me, which all came to happen when I started to prepare for my grammar section on the GMAT exam, I find his work as linguist, the ultimate piece of knowledge on the field. What I mean is that by reading half of any of his book (on linguistic), you develop a mental picture of his theory. He makes any other books I read on grammar, which are essentially filled with rules, just too limited if you try to find further explanations about the rules. For example, find out why the sentence, "I had a book stolen", can have three meanings (Pg. 21).
Finally, what can we say about the person who questioned Skinner with enough grounds? Some of his other work could be questionable, but he is one of the most influential authors of our times with no doubt. I wish more research and development were possible to actually attain a universal grammar concept.
I mean just check out the book from a public library, or buy it if you are really interested on knowing why we say what we say and giving the proper meaning to words.
My background: I learned English as a Second Language 20 years ago. I have an engineer degree and a Master's, both from a US - tier two - college with a great football team. I am looking forward to an Executive MBA from a tier-one school with a terrible football team. I just got detoured with my study of conventional English grammar. I hope my novice opinion on Dr. Chomsky's work can help you to consider this book.

One of the most important works of Chomsky's. It is preceded by experimental modelling of linguistic knowledge based on rewriting rules and the resulting conclusion of the need for transformations and is followed by new innovating ideas on restricting the power of transformations. We already see the deep thinking that went into the development of the next stage. He discusses the idea of 'singulary transformations' which the individual transformations were, then, composed of and which later developed into Move-alpha, Delete-alpha, etc. He argues very persuasively for a separate 'lexicon' and the kind of information we should expect to find there. Overall, it is rich with seeds that later developed into the ideas comprising the 'principles and parameters' theory. And most importantly, it gives the shrewd and disciplined argumentation, which became a standard of Chomsky's later works and generative grammar in general.

I read the two reviews to find out why this book had an average rating of 3 stars. The first one was informative, and the other, it turns out, was written by some dork who panned Chomsky's book for being "unorganized".

Choamsky's a smart guy. I agree with the sentiment that the current composite rating is unfairly affected by someone whose utterly unhelpful and unsupported review seems little more than an odd fit of pique. So let's cancel it out!

As a Ph.D. student in linguistics I had to read a lot of classic books in the field. Chomsky always struck me as awfully dry. Read syntactic structures if you must. BTW why bother writing a review if you have not read the book....

This is the single most influential book in the cognitive sciences. Everybody in that field defines their position in relation to this book.

Has it stood the test of time?

The fundamental distinction in the book is between 'competence' and 'performance.' We can have a hard, mathematical and super precise science of competence, but not of performance. Performance, at the time this book was written, was a "mystery." Chomsky went on to claim that it would always be a mystery.

As it turns out, Chomsky's distinction (which is fairly isomorphic to Kant's position of "knowledge" and "faith," whether he knows it or not) has turned out wrong. Sociobiologists have basically made "Orwell's problem" (why do we know so little about such obvious stuff?) into a permanent fact of human nature. It is effectively the case that all societies have elites, they all have crime, and they all exercise violence to lesser or greater degrees. And if you read Chomsky's work in politics (all of which is in the realm of performance or Kantian faith) he comes out and says it: every state that has ever existed is run by gangsters.

What of the idea of 'competence'? It will probably last a long time, it may very well be the equivalent of mass in physics. But there are problems with it. Namely that it treats the person who applies it and is alive as though he or she is dead. It is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy that is derivate on the Universal self fulfilling prophecy and tries to usurp the Universal's power. My guess is that it is like Freud's Oedipus. It has overwhelming heuristic and pragmatic value, but no ontological power.

(What is it with these Jews? They come up with the best ideas!)