On the reception and revivification of Cartesian
linguistics
Fifty years after its publication, it is timely to return
to Noam Chomsky’s Cartesian linguistics to explore
what this controversial text accomplished, what it didn’t
accomplish, and for whom. I begin with the context of midcentury
American linguists’ historical consciousness into which
Cartesian linguistics initially appeared, then
review responses to the book by (first) philosophers and historians
of linguistics, and (second) generative linguists versus linguists
not associated with generativism, especially those in the United
States. I evaluate whether the book achieved Chomsky’s own goals,
then close by calling attention to an emerging second life of
Cartesian linguistics, beginning around
2000.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.American historiography of linguistics before 1966
- 3.Response to Cartesian linguistics from
philosophers and historians of linguistics
- 4.Response of linguists
- 5.Did Cartesian linguistics meet Chomsky’s own
goals?
- 6.Cartesian linguistics in the twenty-first
century
- 7.Conclusion
-
References
References (77)
References
Aarsleff, Hans. 1967. The
study of language in England,
1780–1860. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aarsleff, Hans. 1970. “The
history of linguistics and Professor
Chomsky”. Language 56. 570–585. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aarsleff, Hans. 1971. “‘Cartesian
linguistics’: History or
fantasy?” Language
Sciences 17: 1–12.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Appleby, Joyce. 1989. “One
good turn deserves another: Moving beyond the linguistic; A
response to David
Harlan”. The American
Historical
Review 94: 5. 1326–1332. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Behme, Christina. 2009. [Review
of the book Cartesian
linguistics (3rd
ed.)]. Metapsychology Online
Reviews 13:36. On-line: [URL] (last
access 1 January 2018).
Behme, Christina. 2014a. “A
‘Galilean’ science of
language” [Review of the
book The science of language: Interviews with James
McGilvray]. Journal of
Linguistics 50.671–704. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Behme, Christina. 2014b. Evaluating
Cartesian linguistics: From historical antecedents to
computational
modeling. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Behme, Christina. 2015. “Is
the ontology of biolinguistics
coherent?” Language
Sciences 47.32–42. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blitman, Delphine. 2010. “Chomsky
et l’empirisme: de la critique de l’empirisme au sens de
l’innéisme et du rationalisme
chomskyens”. Histoire
Épistémologie
Langage 32:1. 139–167. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010. Language
in cognition: Uncovering mental structures and the rules
behind
them. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric. 2011. “Some
reflections on Darwin’s problem in the context of Cartesian
biolinguistics”. In The
biolinguistic
enterprise, ed. by Anna Maria di Sciullo, and Cedric Boeckx, 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric. 2013. “Biolinguistics:
Fact, fiction, and
forecast”. Biolinguistics 7.316–328.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric. 2015. “Beyond
Humboldt’s problem: Reflections on biolinguistics and its
relation to generative
grammar”. Language
Sciences 50.127–132.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2007. “The
Biolinguistics
manifesto”. Biolinguistics 1.1–8.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bracken, Harry M. 1970. “Chomsky’s
variation on a theme by
Descartes”. Journal of the
History of
Philosophy 18.181–192.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bracken, Harry M. 1972. “Chomsky’s
Cartesianism”. Language
Sciences 22.11–17.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brekle, Herbert E. 1975. “The
seventeenth
century”. In Current
trends in linguistics: Vol. 13. Historiography of
linguistics, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 277–382. The Hague: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Breva-Claramonte, Manuel. 1977. “Sanctius’s
antecedents: The beginnings of transformational
grammar”. Language
Sciences 44.10–18 (Part
1) & 45.6–21 (Part
2).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. “The
logical basis of linguistic
theory”. In Proceedings
of the Ninth International Congress of
Linguists”, ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 914–978. The Hague: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects
of the theory of
syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian
linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist
thought. New York: Harper and Row. 2nd
ed. 2002, New Zealand: Cybereditions; 3rd
ed. (ed. and with Introduction by
James
McGilvray) 2009, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1973, July 19. “Chomsky
replies” [Letter to the
editor]. The New York Review of
Books 19.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1979. Language
and responsibility. New York: Pantheon Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge
of language. New York: Praeger.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 2004a. “The
Biolinguistic perspective after 50
Years”. Quaderni del
Dipartimento di Linguistica, Universita di
Firenze 14.3–12.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 2004b. The
generative enterprise revisited: Discussions with Riny
Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui, and Mihoko
Zushi. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 2009. “Thoughts
on minds and
language”. International
Journal on Humanistic
Ideology 1.13–42.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 2017. “The
Galilean
challenge”. Inference:
International Review of
Science 3:1 On-line: [URL] > (last
access 1 January 2018).
Chomsky, Noam, and Michel Foucault. 1971/2006. “Human
nature: Justice versus power: A debate between Noam Chomsky
and Michel
Foucault”. Originally broadcast on Dutch television November 1971. Transcript
published 2006 in Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, The
Chomsky-Foucault
debate, 1–67. New York: The New Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The
sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cooper, David E. 1972. “Innateness:
Old and new”. The
Philosophical
Review 81.465–483. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Danto, Arthur C. 1975. “Preface”. General
and rational grammar: The Port-Royal
grammar, by Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot (Jacques Rieux, and Bernard E. Rollin, eds. and
trans.), 11–17. The Hague: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeGraff, Michel. 2001. “On
the origin of creoles: A Cartesian critique of Neo-Darwinian
linguistics”. Linguistic
Typology 5:2.213–310.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dik, S. C., J. G. Kooij, and E. M. Uhlenbeck. 1968. “Some
impressions of the Tenth International Congress of
Linguists”. Lingua 19.225–232. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fellman, Jack. 1976. “Concerning
the validity of the term ‘Cartesian
linguistics.’”. Linguistics 182.35–37.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freidin, Robert. 1992. Foundations
of generative
syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fromkin, Victoria, and Robert Rodman. (1974). An
introduction to language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, Talmy. 2013. “On
the intellectual roots of functionalism in
linguistics.” In Functional
approaches to
language, ed. by Shannon T. Bischoff and Carmen Jany, 9–29. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Golumbia, David. 2015. “The
language of science and the science of language: Chomsky’s
Cartesianism”. diacritics 43:1.38–62. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1969a. “Some
recent developments in American
linguistics”. Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen 70:2.192–227.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1969b. “Some
recent studies on Port-Royal and
Vaugelas”. Acta Linguistica
Hafniensia 12:2.207–233. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harlan, David. 1997. The
degradation of American
history. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harman, Gilbert. 1968. [Review
of the book Cartesian
linguistics]. The
Philosophical
Review 77:2.229–235. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hockett, Charles. 1965. “Sound
change”. Language 41.185–204. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hudson, Grover. 2000. Essential
introductory
linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jenkins, Lyle. 2000. Biolinguistics:
Exploring the biology of
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Joly, André. 1977. “La
linguistique cartésienne: Une erreur
mémorable”. In La
grammaire générale: Des Modistes aux
Ideologues, ed. by André Joly, and Jean Stéfanini, 165–199. Lille, France: Université de Lille III.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George. 1973, February 8. “Deep
Language” [Letter to the
editor]. The New York Review of
Books 19.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. [Review
of the book Grammaire générale et raisonnée, ou la
grammaire du
Port-Royal]. Language 45.343–364. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. 1968. Language
and its structure: Some fundamental linguistic
concepts. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lappin, Shalom, Robert D. Levine, and David E. Johnson. 2000. “The
structure of unscientific
revolutions”. Natural
Language and Linguistic
Theory 18:3.665–671. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larson, Richard K. 2010. Grammar
as science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological
foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meader, Clarence L., and John H. Muyskens. 1950. Handbook
of biolinguistics. Toledo, Ohio: Herbert C. Weller.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miel, Jan. 1969. “Pascal,
Port-Royal, and Cartesian
linguistics”. Journal of the
History of
Ideas 30.261–271. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Otero, Carlos. 1995. “From
Lebrixa’s grammar to Cartesian language theory: A
retrojective
view”. In Contemporary
research in Romance linguistics: Papers from the 22nd
Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, El Paso / Cd.
Juárez, February
1992, ed. by Jon Amastae, Grant Goodall, Mario Montalbetti, and Marianne Phinney, 135–166. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padley, G. A. 1985. Grammatical
theory in western Europe 1500–1700: Trends in vernacular
grammar
I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pariente, Jean-Claude. 1985. L’analyse
du langage à
Port-Royal. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Percival, W. Keith. 1968. “The
notion of usage in Vaugelas and in the Port Royal
grammar”. Papers from the
Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics
Society, 165–176.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Percival, W. Keith. 1972. “On
the non-existence of Cartesian
linguistics”. In Cartesian
studies, ed. by R. J. Butler, 137–145. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Postal, Paul M. 2009. “The
incoherence of Chomsky’s ‘biolinguistic’
ontology”. Biolinguistics 3.104–123.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rorty, Richard. 1984. “The historiography of philosophy: Four genres”. In Philosophy in history: Essays on the historiography of philosophy, ed. by Richard Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner, 49–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Salmon, Vivian. 1979
[1969]. [Review of the book
Cartesian
linguistics]. Journal
of
Linguistics 5.165–187. (Reprinted
as ‘Pre-Cartesian linguistics’, in Vivian Salmon
1979, The study of language
in 17th century
England, 63–85 [=
Studies in the History of the Language Sciences,
17]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Salus, Peter H. 1969. “PRE-pre-Cartesian
linguistics”. Papers from the
Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics
Society, 429–434.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, John R. 1972, June 29. “Chomsky’s
revolution in
linguistics”. The New York
Review of
Books 18.12–29.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simone, Raffaele. 1998. “The
early modern
period”. In History
of linguistics: Vol. 3. Renaissance and early modern
linguistics, ed. by Giulio Lepschy, 149–236. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sullivan, John J. 1980. “Noam
Chomsky and Cartesian
linguistics”. In Psychology
of language and thought: Essays on the theory and history of
psycholinguistics, ed. by R. W. Rieber, 197–223. Boston Mass.: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tavoni, Mirko. 1998. “Renaissance
linguistics”. In History
of linguistics: Vol. 3. Renaissance and early modern
linguistics, ed. Giulio Lepschy, 1–108. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Edwin Williams. 1986. Introduction
to the theory of
grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verhaar, John W. M., S. J. 1971. “Philosophy
and linguistic
theory”. Language
Sciences 14.1–11.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zimmer, Karl E. 1968. [Review
of the book Cartesian
linguistics]. International
Journal of American
Linguistics 34.290–303. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.