Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (Paperback)

by Noam Chomsky (Author)
Key Phrases: generalized learning procedure, combinatory principles, creativity observations, Cartesian Linguistics, Plato's Problem, Common Notions (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description
No descriptive material is available for this title.

Book Description
Tracing the development of linguistic theory from Descartes to Wilhelm von Humboldt, Chomsky's book is one of the most original and profound studies of language and mind ever written. This third edition includes a new and specially written introduction by James McGilvray, contextualising the work for the twenty-first century. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 119 pages
• Publisher: University Press of America (August 28, 1983)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0819130923
• ISBN-13: 978-0819130921
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,404,881 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Language and mind, August 29, 2008

By	Viktor Blasjo - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

"Descartes was able to convince himself that all aspects of animal behaviour can be explained on the assumption that an animal is an automaton" (p. 3), but he did not believe that the creative aspect of language use could be so explained. While a machine can mimic some superficial aspects of language, it can not be made to "'reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do'" (p. 4). Humboldt went further and argued that this creative aspect of language use, the ability to "'make infinite use of finite means,'" is made possible only "'through the identity of the thought-producing and the language-producing power'" (p. 20).

This human linguistic capacity must be innate, since "'all children learn to speak and understand at approximately the same age, in spite of the most diverse of circumstances'" (Humboldt, p. 64), "'without even excepting idiots,'" while "'on the other hand, there is no other animal, however perfect and fortunately circumstanced it may be, which can do the same'" (Descartes, p. 4). Further proof that ideas are innate in the mind follows from Descartes' conviction that "'nothing reaches our mind from external objects through the organs of sense beyond certain corporeal movements,'" since this allows him to issue a challenge to his opponents "'to instruct me as to what corporeal movement it is which can form in our mind any common notion, e.g., the notion that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another'" (p. 67).

All of this suggests that the study of linguistics should focus on deep structure as opposed to surface structure. "The deep structure that expresses the meaning is common to all languages, so it is claimed, being a simple reflection of the forms of thought, [while] the transformational rules that convert deep to surface structure differ from language to language" (p. 35). Unfortunately such studies had little to show for themselves during the period in question save for some mildly suggestive examples, e.g., of how a simple subject-attribute sentence such as "Dieu invisible a créé le monde visible" in fact contains three propositions (pp. 33-34), or how "what is affirmative or negative 'in appearance' may or may not be in meaning, that is, in deep structure" (p. 44), etc. Relatedly, the "Cartesian" point of view also suggests that the study of linguistics should focus on explanation rather than description. For example, a descriptive grammar (of French, which is what these people were studying) may state the rule that a relative clause may not be added to a noun that has no article or only the indefinite article de, e.g. one cannot say "il a esté blessé d'un coup de fleche, qui estoit empoisonnée" (p. 56; sic, with old conjugations of être). The Port-Royal Grammar offered a more explanatory approach which reformulated the rule in terms of whether the noun in question is "determined," whether by article or otherwise, which captures the underlying reason for the rule and simultaneously explains numerous counterexamples to the rule. But ultimately these attempts at explanatory linguistics brought few insights.

0 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Chomsky rules! (sorry Noam), April 20, 2009

By	Grant Martell "GM" (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (Paperback)

what can I say?
to know his work is to love him.
read everything the man has written.