Recommended to those who are eager to witness the pre-existing philosophical development that paves the way for the Chomskyan enterprise. Reading the selected excerpts from Von Humboldt, who posited that not only word formation or sentence formation is combinatorial but also the lexicon, or Herbert of Cherbury who advocated a highly naturalistic view of the mind, reveals how far backward mainstream 20th-century analytic philosophy has strayed.

Chomsky encompasses the significant romantic insight that emerged from Descartes, via James Harris, Schlegel, and Herder, namely that freedom lies in an untethering from stimulus and instinct. Thus, while beasts exist in states of affairs, men dwell among mental objects. (Referentialist/extensionalist semantics versus internal generativist semantics).

There is a crucial insight to be gained that human freedom is deeply intertwined with human knowledge.

There is also an important discussion regarding how PRG (presumably some philosophical or theoretical framework) motivated the distinction between the material of language and its impact on the soul. In modern terms, this is the difference between deep and surface structure.

Another significant insight unearthed from relative obscurity is the difference between organic and mechanical form (Schlegel, Coleridge). Mechanical form is externally imposed on an object, while organic form arises from the thing's own natural morphological development. Two important developments stem from this: In Developmental Biology, the ideas of Urform of Goethe and Gt. Geoffrey, where form determines function and which was cast aside during the Darwinian revolution, have been profoundly vindicated in the past half-century. The second is Marx's theory of alienated labor, which can now be simply summarized as the imposition of mechanical form on the worker instead of allowing the development of his own organic form in the production process.

Of course, none of this was worked out in detail. For instance, PRGians had no concrete hypothesis regarding the nature of deep structure. Goethe also could not explain how the urleaf could contain all possible variations of the leaf or how this was materially realized. Although one should not draw connections between Chomsky the linguist and Chomsky the political activist, he did not hesitate to quote the following line from Von Humboldt: "der Mensch überall Eins mit dem Menschen ist" (Man is everywhere one with man).

The new edition of this book (2009) not only revitalizes the original points put forward by Chomsky in 1966 but also makes use of his latest work in biolinguistics.

I firmly believe that this is the genuine reason for its republication.

Undoubtedly, some of the aspects on which he bases his arguments have been altered or disproven by himself and others.

However, the main issue - "[the] understanding of the nature of language and the mental processes and structures that underlie its use and acquisition" - remains constant.

Both the original and the newer parts can be said to possess a certain timeless quality.

This, in turn, renders this book a very solid piece of work.

It showcases the evolution of Chomsky's ideas while still maintaining the core essence of his exploration into the mysteries of language.

The combination of the old and the new makes this book a valuable resource for scholars and enthusiasts alike, providing a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the field of linguistics.

Reading and understanding the profundities of this book presupposes two crucial aspects. Firstly, one needs to be familiar with rationalism in philosophy, which was developed by Descartes, Leibniz, Cordemoy, and others. Secondly, familiarity with the Port-Royal philosophy of grammar is essential, as it is where the notions of surface and deep structure have their roots. Additionally, the concepts of grammaire générale (universal grammar) and grammaire raisonnée (explanatory grammar - explanatory adequacy in philosophy) are considered pre-descendants of modern ideas in linguistics. However, this does not imply that a novice to these aspects will be unable to grasp what Chomsky achieves in this book. In fact, the fundamentals of Cartesian linguistic theory, with its philosophical and epistemological tenets, are explored as a first ground for Chomsky's works such as 1956's Syntactic Structures and 1965's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, with later reformulations in 1981 and 1995.

Whitehead's comment at the beginning points out the fact that cognitive psychology and linguistics are both turning to the roots of 17th, 18th, and 19th century ideas. Indeed, empiricists, based on how Locke's ideas are being refocused within today's scientific development in psychology, cognitivism, and linguistics, and the apologies made on behalf of Hume's mistakes, have received another defeat by Chomsky's rationalism in this book. Language creativity, which is free from stimulus-control and not socially learned, has its mental logical system that predefines the structures of sound and meaning, enabling us to speak creatively despite our instinctual defects, as nicely put by De La Mettrie: 'qui est que plus on gagnera du côté de l’esprit, plus on perdra du côté de l’instinct'.

Med Saussure, philosophy and literary studies took a linguistic turn. The focus shifted to language. With Chomsky, it took a cognitive turn. The focus turned to the thought process. Chomsky saw language and thinking as two sides of the same coin. For him, linguistics and psychology are the same. Language is the thought process.

Chomsky swapped the terms linguistics (the study of language) and grammar (the study of written language). This has sparked great debate among proponents and opponents of the generative approach within the field. Saussure and his followers study natural languages (such as English, Norwegian, French, etc.) and, based on this research, they want to abstract common features to form a general linguistics. For Chomsky, this is limited because language itself is alive and changing; it will never be possible to abstract something so universal from natural languages that new occurrences of natural languages will not resist the abstraction. For Saussure, language is arbitrary, consisting of concepts in binary pairs: difference is the key to how language functions; words have meaning because they are defined in opposition to other words. In this way, Saussure manages to explain the most important properties of natural language. But it also stops with natural languages - the formal languages. When poststructuralists point out that the center of the word is fluid and that natural and formal languages are in continuous change - that is, the relationship between the signifier and the signified changes - Saussure's definition of language falls short. Therefore, Chomsky believes that we should rather study the universal language: not natural languages as they exist in the world, but the language faculty itself, as it exists in human biology. So it is Saussure who best fits the label "grammarian", while Chomsky is the leading linguist.

Chomsky's main thesis is that human language is a creative process rather than a product. We have a language faculty - universal grammar (UG) - that is innate and the same for all humans. This thesis leads Chomsky back to Descartes' theory of the difference between humans and animals, through Humboldt, the Port-Royal monks, and many others. Chomsky believes that pre-Saussurean linguistics has been underestimated because the philosophers were not normative; they did not start with natural languages as Saussure does. They started with what is universal for all human languages, namely the ability to form, share, and perceive thoughts. "It should be noted, incidentally, that the lack of formulation of precise rules for sentence construction was not only due to inattention in Cartesian linguistics. To a certain extent, it was a consequence of the expressed assumption that the order of words in a sentence directly corresponds to the flow of thought, at least in a "well-formed" language..." Forming, sharing, and perceiving thoughts - linguistic communication - are creative processes: the products I call natural languages are generated (hence "generative grammar") through this creative process, and this creative process is attributed to the universal human language faculty: universal grammar.

Chomsky's theory preserves a humanistic optimism during a period of positivist behaviorist reductionism and an objective stance during a period of poststructuralist epistemological relativism. Perhaps it is these things that have made his theory so popular. The empirical material for Chomsky's theory includes, for example, evidence that sentences, regardless of language, have the same hierarchical structure, with the subject as the superordinate sentence element. (Universal language can thus seem a bit like predicate logic.) Other alternatives to Chomsky come from functionalists who emphasize the social and bodily situatedness of humans and highlight the principle of analogy for linguistic innovation, and cognitive grammarians, who believe that syntax is experience-based and starts from the senses and the cognitive categories that are common to all humans. Chomsky, on the other hand, believes that these theories are not sufficient to explain the enormous (infinite) linguistic productivity that humans are capable of, based on relatively low stimuli from the external world.

In Kicking and Screaming, Chet and Otis have a book club, and they gather to discuss Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses. Chet, the eternal student, initiates the book club meeting by exclaiming, "Thank god we speak fluent Spanish!" Meanwhile, Otis, who hasn't read the book, begins to look nervous. This book is likely to evoke similar responses (the nature of which will depend on one's language proficiency); at least a third of the book is composed of untranslated passages from medieval and enlightenment thinkers in French, Latin, and German.

This is a highly engaging and accessible overview of the historical antecedents of the 20th-century cognitivist revolution in linguistics. Chomsky quotes passages where Descartes, Humboldt, Arnauld, and others present poverty of stimulus arguments, postulate the existence of deep (logical) structure, and prefigure many other tenets of contemporary (or near-contemporary) linguistics. Chomsky doesn't explicitly draw the connections between the historical texts he's discussing and "current work" (since the essay was written in 1966), as he states, "the reader familiar with current work in so-called 'generative grammar' should have little trouble in making these connections for himself" (p.2). However, he is correct in that the connections are clear enough, and the topic is fascinating enough, that this concise book serves as an excellent, lively introduction to Chomsky's commitments in the mid-1960s. Moreover, it has piqued my interest in learning more about the Port-Royal logicians.

Read to prepare an exam in linguistics.

I embarked on reading an earlier edition, and truly found it extremely challenging.

The introduction to this edition penned by James Mc Gilvray significantly clarified a great deal of the differences between Rationalists and Empiricists.

In the "Chomsky" section of the book, the fact that the examples have been translated into English and the notes have been updated renders it much more straightforward and easier to read.

This not only helps in better understanding the complex theories but also makes the learning process more engaging.

As I continue to read, I am hopeful that these improvements will assist me in preparing well for the upcoming linguistics exam.

I am looking forward to delving deeper into the text and uncovering more valuable insights.

The combination of the updated content and the clear introduction gives me confidence that I will be able to master the subject matter and perform well in the exam.

It's really cool! This simple phrase holds a world of meaning. When we say something is cool, it implies a sense of awesomeness, excitement, and even a touch of mystery. It could refer to a person with a unique style, a fascinating idea, or an amazing experience. Cool things have the power to capture our attention and make us feel special. They stand out from the ordinary and add a sparkle to our lives. Whether it's a cool gadget, a cool song, or a cool place, these things have the ability to make us smile and feel a rush of enthusiasm. So, the next time you come across something that's cool, take a moment to appreciate it and let the coolness soak in. It's a wonderful feeling that can brighten up your day and make you feel alive.

This book fundamentally focuses on tracing the Chomskyan theory of language back to the French Port-Royal Grammarians in the 17th century. What Chomsky expounds regarding the underlying and surface structure of language did not originate directly from Chomsky himself. Instead, it had already been deliberated upon by the Port-Royal Grammarians, albeit in a less conscious manner.

I believe the following analogy encapsulates the Cartesian linguistics from Plato to Chomsky: The "deep" forms that God created the world are like the underlying structure of language. The world that is visible is analogous to the surface structure of language. God, who is invisible (or rather, the abstract representations of these), transforms them by "transformational" rules (hence, "transformational grammar") to yield the "surface" form, just as the Invisible God created the visible world.

This analogy helps to clarify the complex relationship between the different aspects of language and how they have evolved over time within the framework of Cartesian linguistics. It also shows the importance of understanding the historical roots of modern linguistic theories.

This is an introductory work for contemporary studies of transformational generative grammar.

It masterfully presents its historical development from Port Royal to Chomsky's own perspective.

However, it dedicates only a few pages to communication, leaving a feeling as if it were a mutilated text.

Nevertheless, it is still a magnificent book.

Despite the shortcoming in the coverage of communication, the detailed exploration of the historical evolution of transformational generative grammar makes this book an essential resource for scholars and students in the field.

The author's clear and engaging writing style also makes it accessible to a wider audience.

Overall, it is a valuable contribution to the study of grammar and language.