In a glance,

In the Western world, Descartes is known as the founder of a new philosophy. In fact, the term "new philosophy" is applied to philosophy from Descartes onwards. A new era begins from the age of Descartes, and we can witness its influence in various fields of science.

Although some linguists believe that all the important linguistic studies before the 19th century, which are no longer within the scope of linguistics today, can be summarized in a few sentences, Noam Chomsky does not accept this theory. In his book "Cartesian Linguistics", he wants to return to the past, pay attention to the studies of the 17th and 18th centuries and the early 19th century, and make the minds aware of new discoveries. Therefore, he uses the term "Cartesian Linguistics", which seems strange, to cover languages. He says: "I do not try to describe Cartesian Linguistics as this science itself wants, but I try to direct my attention to the ideas and arrangements that appeared in a completely independent way in new works." Therefore, it is not difficult for those who are familiar with Chomsky's grammar to understand and comprehend these issues. But the main question raised about Cartesian Linguistics is whether the issues related to language that are found in Descartes' works are based on his mind or have roots in earlier works. And if not, why do we study Cartesian Linguistics and even Descartes does not pay attention to language in his important works such as "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason" and "Meditations". Can we speak with a common interpretation of Cartesian Linguistics?

Chomsky, with his knowledge of these facts and the worthiness of knowing such questions, deals with this problem in a small-volume book. This book is divided into four main parts, namely:

The creative aspect of language use

The structure of the mind and the structure of language

Description and explanation in linguistics

The acquisition and use of language

Finally, a summary of Chomsky's statements is presented. The author of this book aims to show that the new theories of linguistics are mentioned in previous studies.

Descartes' philosophy has had a profound impact on modern-day linguistics.

His ideas about the nature of knowledge and the mind have provided a framework for understanding how language works.

In modern linguistics, Cartesian philosophy is often used to explore the relationship between language and thought.

For example, some linguists believe that language is a tool for expressing pre-existing thoughts, while others argue that language actually shapes our thoughts.

Descartes' emphasis on the importance of clear and distinct ideas also has implications for linguistics.

Linguists strive to develop clear and precise theories about language in order to better understand its structure and function.

This essay provides a concise and interesting overview of Cartesian philosophy as it applies to modern-day linguistics.

It is recommended for anyone with a slight background in either subject who wants to learn more about this fascinating area of study.

I remember reading everything Noam Chomsky ever wrote. It was quite a daunting task, but by doing so, I became pretty adept in linguistics, cognitive science, psychology, and so on.

Well, I never knew I would have to properly learn French to do it. After all, I had a grandfather and grandmother in Paris, both tenured Professors of French Studies. Yes, I knew the language by the age of 8, but not to a technical philosophical extent.

Thus, this book actually forced me to learn to read technical French (and German if I recall) as the entire book was in French. The English translations are important as now people can see how good of an intellectual historian Noam really is and the importance of this book. However, it still loses the je ne sais quoi of the French language, which is a beautiful language.

Chomsky basically takes a strong look at the Cartesians, who are the philosophers who followed in the philosophical paradigm shift of Rene Descartes. At this time, as Chomsky points out, there was not much separation between Philosophy and Science. The beginnings of specialization begin here. Chomsky's scholarship is quite outstanding whatever field he is writing in, and here he really hammers home the notion that it is Cartesian Rationalism that was coming to similar conclusions (at least at the general philosophic level) that language is something that separates man from automata. This is much of what this small book by Chomsky is about, but I won't spoil the rest. I disagree with the description that this book was somehow controversial. Obscure perhaps, and not widely read perhaps, but it is certainly clear and convincing. In the pursuit of knowledge, it is a good thing to know there are people who laid the foundation well before you arrived on the scene. Descartes is someone whose shoulders we must stand on so that we can continue the great work.

I arrived at the translation by Gabriel and Joan Ferrater (which is always good). It is interesting, but I hope to be able to expand it.

I don't quite understand what contributions it makes beyond the state of the question.

Perhaps with further exploration and analysis, we can uncover the hidden depths and unique perspectives that this translation holds.

It could potentially offer new insights into the subject matter, or present a different way of looking at the existing knowledge.

By delving deeper into the text, we might be able to identify the specific aspects that make this translation stand out and add value to the overall discussion.

This could involve examining the language used, the interpretations provided, or the connections made with other related works.

Only through a more comprehensive and in-depth study can we fully appreciate the significance and potential of this translation.

Generative grammar, in general, and rationalistic philosophy of mind, in particular, possess a long-reaching and profound tradition.

Chomsky, a prominent figure in this field, unveils this tradition by reviewing modernist authors who are utterly unknown to many, such as the Oxford Platonists.

His exploration provides valuable insights into the historical and intellectual roots of these concepts.

McGilvray offers an excellent introduction to this topic, which helps readers to better understand the significance and complexity of generative grammar and rationalistic philosophy of mind.

However, it should be noted that there are too many notes in the text, which may sometimes disrupt the flow of reading.

Despite this minor drawback, the overall work is a valuable contribution to the field and值得一读 for those interested in language, mind, and philosophy.

It turns out that Noam Chomsky did not invent the following ideas.

First, human language is generative, meaning one can construct indefinitely many novel utterances from a finite set of morphemes. Second, language is acquired unconsciously, and speakers know things about language that they weren't explicitly taught and aren't really aware of. Third, languages are unified by an underlying "universal grammar". Fourth, language operates at two levels: deep structure (logical form) and surface structure (phonetic form).

In fact, these notions are hundreds of years old. Chomsky traces the articulation of these ideas in the philosophy of language. For example, who knew that the Port-Royal Grammar and Logic of the 1660's describes a prototype theory of universal grammar? It's interesting trivia and intellectual history.

However, there are some gripes. Annoyingly, my 1966 edition provides long passages of French and German with no translation. Moreover, Chomsky frequently references and criticizes the attitudes of modern linguistics (circa 1950's) without clearly describing the ideas he's backhanding. This can make it difficult for the reader to fully understand his arguments.

Although I have discovered that some of Chomsky's theories and assumptions are seriously flawed, there is no denying that this is an impressive and distinctive work of thought.

It has propelled the field of linguistics to advance by leaps and bounds.

However, some might argue that it has also set the field of linguistics back a few light years simultaneously.

Chomsky's work has had a profound impact on the study of language, inspiring countless scholars to explore and question the nature of language.

Despite its flaws, it remains an important and influential piece of work that continues to shape the field of linguistics today.

Noam Chomsky has a truly distinctive style when it comes to revealing his approaches towards logical fallacies and their emotional reflection.

This remarkable book represents Chomsky's in-depth interpretation of Descartes’s philosophy and approach to language. As Descartes expounded, the Cartesian linguists held the view that language is a rather simple process that serves to reflect the identity of the person and is not necessarily primarily for communication purposes.

Chomsky, on the other hand, has an extremely profound ideology regarding language. He delves into the complexity that a language can possess by sharing various aspects such as sound, vocabulary, syntax, and more. Chomsky employs a rational manner in dealing with language, wherein he discusses the Port-royal grammar to analyze the philosophy of language. Additionally, he also lucidly explains the foundation of the UG (universal grammar).

Overall, this is a very interesting book that offers valuable insights into understanding the philosophy of language, spanning from Descartes to Chomsky. It provides readers with a comprehensive perspective on the evolution and nuances of language philosophy over time.

Science, as per Chomsky, reveals that humans are biologically designed to be creative beings who also choose social interaction in accordance with the conditions of autonomy. This science can, and should if we are to be rational, assist in formulating a vision based on the idea that shared living among humans enables them to have a better life and fulfill their needs. Chomsky's science of nature can be the key to renewing and strengthening the educational moral values.

— James McGilvray.

Chomsky aims to understand the "precise nature of the cognitive buildup prior to modern languages, evaluate the contemporary significance of this contribution, and find ways to utilize it in enhancing the study of language. Considering the philosophical-scientific dilemmas that have arisen regarding the nature or origin of language and its acquisition in relation to the mind/brain, body/matter, and specifically human nature, from the perspective of the cognitive interests of generative grammars and its research program which was established independently from the philosophical grammar of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It provides important insights into the works of historical figures and uncovers and discusses historical texts that are often overlooked but are clearly relevant to the subject. The book also explains the basic methodology for studying the mind in Chomsky and other rationalist-romantic thinkers, and the place of the rationalist-romantic view of the mind and its study in Chomsky's works. (The science of the mind has evolved since 1966, with the publication of Cartesian Linguistics, into what is now known as biological linguistics.)

Through the term "Cartesian Linguistics," Chomsky attempts to identify the distinctive features of a set of ideas and interests that appear in the tradition of "philosophical grammar" or "general grammar," which developed starting from (1660) Grammaire générale et raisonnée by Port-Royal; in general linguistics that developed during the romantic period and afterwards directly; and in the rationalist philosophy of the mind that forms part of the common background between them. Through the discussion of the romantic theories of language and mind in this framework, Chomsky emphasizes that his concern here is not to transfer specific ideas and doctrines, but rather to transfer their content and contemporary significance fundamentally.

And through his presentation, we can explore the intellectual conflict that circulates in the cognitive sciences between the empirical and the rationalist-romantic.

"The general assumption of Cartesian Linguistics is that the principles of language and natural logic are known innately, and that they are to a large extent a prerequisite for language acquisition rather than a matter related to 'humility' or 'training'. "

An excellent book for those interested in the study of language and the mind, and their relationships.

UPDATED REVIEW: Tuesday, October 1, 2024

In Cartesian Linguistics, Noam Chomsky endeavors to depict his work in linguistics and cognitive science as functioning within the rationalist tradition of the Cartesians from the 17th and 18th centuries. He aims to reveal to the reader some of the lost gems of that work which he believes most of his contemporaries overlooked. This work is not without merit, yet it is more of an interesting curiosity than anything else. A far superior popular explanation of the work Chomsky is engaged in can be discovered in his \\n  New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind\\n. The latter is highly recommended.

ORIGINAL REVIEW: January 17, 2014 (five stars)

Noam Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics explores how the modern study of language is continuous with a tradition that dates all the way back to the era and thought of Rene Descartes in the 17th century. According to Chomsky, modern linguistics, similar to Descartes, posits that language is a unique trait of human beings. It also assumes, like Descartes, that the human mind has knowledge prior to experience. This knowledge pertains to principles of language, shape, number, and others. The human mind takes the fragmented data received through the senses and interprets it using innate principles and structures. Little is known about how learning occurs, for instance, learning a new language after puberty (a very different matter compared to 'learning' a language as a child). However, it appears that innate principles must be present in the mind to even make it possible to learn a new language.

This work by Chomsky provides valuable insights into the connection between modern linguistics and the Cartesian tradition, shedding light on the fundamental nature of language and the human mind. It challenges our understanding of how language is acquired and processed, and encourages further exploration in the field of linguistics and cognitive science.

Chomsky has always had a somewhat pompous self-estimation. For example, he recently compared himself to the Galileo of language. However, at least his early work is mostly understandable. In mainstream linguistics, there is a strange division of labor. Chomsky is given the de facto title of chief philosopher. The rest of the standard theory/government-and-binding/principles-and-parameters/minimalist group seems to prefer to be like sheep, only elaborating on or justifying the philosophical insights of their ersatz shepherd. But this early work, Cartesian Linguistics, does develop a program and attitude that has been rewarding to many, even if the underlying assumptions of the Cartesian program are not valid in the long run and are not justified by their sources.

This book is pompous in another way too. About a third of the book consists of lengthy quotations from French and German. In the edition I own, these are untranslated, so I have to recall my French as best I can and skip the German. Now there is a slightly less pompous edition available with the passages translated.

Nevertheless, Cartesian Linguistics presents a unified and in some ways compelling argument for the innateness of languages. This ideology of language characterizes almost all work in modern syntax and semantics. Although this ideology has been seriously questioned in recent work with an anthropological, typological, cognitive, or historical bent, the Cartesian emphasis still seems to hold an honored place in introductory linguistics classes.

The error in Chomsky's approach seems to be his assumption that language is primarily the organ of thought, if not only an organ of thought. As absurd as it may seem, Chomsky has坚持 his view over the years that the sociocultural and communicative aspects of language are some kind of side-effect of language as thought. Of course, there is much more to communication than generating, transmitting, and decoding thought. But this would align linguistics with other fields of study, thereby calling into question the autonomy or what Hanks called the irreducibility of language. However, when Chomsky launched his sorties into the field of philosophy, he did not worry about the purity of linguistics.

Chomsky misreads many of the quotes he asks us to read. I have read Humboldt in translation, not in German, but I can tell that Chomsky's reading of Humboldt is seriously wrong. Humboldt was not a generativist. His view of language was dialectical, seeing the expressions of the speaker as both ergon and energeia. Ergon is language as work, like a work that has been created and now constrains linguistic creation as the sedimented, ossified, and more or less frozen product of historical tradition. Energeia is language as work, like working, and includes the creative effort to move against and beyond the dead mass of ideas to pull the language in new directions through novel forms and expressions. Chomsky is either a bit dim or possibly dishonest in seeing his own ideas reflected in Humboldt. For Chomsky, ergon is innateness and energeia is generative creativity. The actual ideas in Humboldt are dialectically historicist and romantically relativist; not rationalist, but closer to Sapir and Whorf than to anything in Chomsky.

Chomsky also fails to consider the historical background of the Port-Royal grammarians. The Port-Royal Grammar was not a theoretical attempt to justify a belief in the innateness of language. In fact, it was more like modern prescriptive grammar, but with a vengeance. The idea was to abolish variation (condemning variation as irrational, of course) for the sake of a nationalist ideological unity. For the Port-Royal people, there could be only one true reasoning, and so only one variety of language (which happens to be French) would be tolerated. Chomsky's appropriation of this prescriptive French tradition (which is still alive and well, as anyone who has been to Paris knows) is an act of academic piracy.

In conclusion, there are still many vibrant ideas in Cartesian Linguistics. Some later work in pragmatics and Montague semantics is anticipated here in places, and the door was left open (at least in the mid-sixties) for some work with a more anthropological bent. At the end of the work, there is also an attempt to save (or apologize for) the sometimes violent comparisons between his work and that of his 'rationalist' predecessors: \\"...a certain distortion is introduced by the organization of this survey, as a projection backwards of certain ideas of contemporary interest rather than as a systematic presentation of the framework within which these ideas rose and found their place.\\" I feel that Chomsky could use a bit of this humility and hermeneutical insight today.

This book is truly excellent when it comes to delving into what Chomsky is aiming for in his pursuit of a Generative Grammar. It is a system of syntatical rules and transforms that has the ability to recursively generate all possible utterance forms of natural languages from biologically hardwired primitives. The strong motivation for this project stems from the "methodological dualism" that Chomsky uncovers in empirical accounts of language acquisition and use.

Chomsky contends that cognitive scientifically minded accounts fail to recognize the empirical fact that the poverty of stimulus in linguistic acquisition makes it impossible for "conditioning," no matter how liberally conceived, to effectively explain how we acquire language. Secondly, even the most sophisticated connectionist models of language acquisition are unable to capture the unbounded creative freedom of language users to produce completely novel sentences. Chomsky's naturalistic alternative is an account of a native mental Generative Grammar that enables us to acquire and use language as we do because of our biological makeup.

The parallels between Descartes' own views on language and modern linguistic and cognitive scientific thought are interestingly presented, although not in exhaustive detail. Chomsky's summary provides a good snapshot of the book's central theme:

"it seems that after a long interruption, linguistics and cognitive psychology are now turning their attention to approaches to the study of language structure and mental processes which in part originated and in part were revitalized in the “century of genius” and which were fruitfully developed until well into the nineteenth century. The creative aspect of language use is once again a central concern of linguistics, and the theories of universal grammar that were outlined in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have been revived and elaborated in the theory of transformational generative grammar. With this renewal of the study of universal formal conditions on the system of linguistic rules, it becomes possible to take up once again the search for deeper explanations for the phenomena found in particular languages and observed in actual performance. Contemporary work has finally begun to face some simple facts about language that have been long neglected, for example, the fact that the speaker of a language knows a great deal that he has not learned and that his normal linguistic behavior cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of “stimulus control,”“conditioning,”“generalization and analogy,”“patterns” and “habit structures,” or “dispositions to respond,” in any reasonably clear sense of these much abused terms. As a result, a fresh look has been taken, not only at language structure, but at the preconditions for language acquisition and at the perceptual function of abstract systems of internalized rules. I have tried to indicate, in this summary of Cartesian linguistics and the theory of mind from which it arose, that much of what is coming to light in this work was foreshadowed or even explicitly formulated in earlier and now largely forgotten studies" (p. 108).