Cover not available
Part of
History of Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences, (ICHoLS 14), Paris, 28 August – 1 September
Edited by Émilie Aussant and Jean-Michel Fortis
[Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 127] 2020
► pp. 157–170

On the reception and revivification of Cartesian linguistics

| Boston College
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.
Keywords: Cartesian linguistics, 20th century American linguistics, historiography of generative grammar, biolinguistics
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
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.127.11tho
References (77)
References
Aarsleff, Hans. 1967. The study of language in England, 1780–1860. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
. 1970. “The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky”. Language 56. 570–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1971. “‘Cartesian linguistics’: History or fantasy?” Language Sciences 17: 1–12.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Ilse. 1979. “Some critics of Chomskyan theory reviewed”. Studies in Language 3:3.439–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behme, Christina. 2009. [Review of the book Cartesian linguistics (3rd ed.)]. Metapsychology Online Reviews 13:36. On-line: [URL] (last access 1 January 2018).
. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Evaluating Cartesian linguistics: From historical antecedents to computational modeling. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Is the ontology of biolinguistics coherent?” Language Sciences 47.32–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010. Language in cognition: Uncovering mental structures and the rules behind them. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 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
. 2013. “Biolinguistics: Fact, fiction, and forecast”. Biolinguistics 7.316–328.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Beyond Humboldt’s problem: Reflections on biolinguistics and its relation to generative grammar”. Language Sciences 50.127–132.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2007. “The Biolinguistics manifesto”. Biolinguistics 1.1–8.Google Scholar
Bracken, Harry M. 1970. “Chomsky’s variation on a theme by Descartes”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 18.181–192.Google Scholar
1972. “Chomsky’s Cartesianism”. Language Sciences 22.11–17.Google Scholar
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
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
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
. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 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
. 1973, July 19. “Chomsky replies” [Letter to the editor]. The New York Review of Books 19.Google Scholar
. 1979. Language and responsibility. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 2004a. “The Biolinguistic perspective after 50 Years”. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica, Universita di Firenze 14.3–12.Google Scholar
. 2004b. The generative enterprise revisited: Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui, and Mihoko Zushi. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Thoughts on minds and language”. International Journal on Humanistic Ideology 1.13–42.Google Scholar
. 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
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cooper, David E. 1972. “Innateness: Old and new”. The Philosophical Review 81.465–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
DeGraff, Michel. 2001. “On the origin of creoles: A Cartesian critique of Neo-Darwinian linguistics”. Linguistic Typology 5:2.213–310.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Julia. 2003. “Turn to the history of linguistics: Noam Chomsky and Charles Hockett in the 1960s”. Historiographia Linguistica 20:1/2.129–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellman, Jack. 1976. “Concerning the validity of the term ‘Cartesian linguistics.’”. Linguistics 182.35–37.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1992. Foundations of generative syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria, and Robert Rodman. (1974). An introduction to language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2002. Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Golumbia, David. 2015. “The language of science and the science of language: Chomsky’s Cartesianism”. diacritics 43:1.38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1969a. “Some recent developments in American linguistics”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 70:2.192–227.Google Scholar
. 1969b. “Some recent studies on Port-Royal and Vaugelas”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12:2.207–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. “Linguistics in the university: The question of social accountability”. In New directions in linguistics and semiotics, ed. by James E. Copeland, 51–67 (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 32). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harlan, David. 1997. The degradation of American history. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1968. [Review of the book Cartesian linguistics]. The Philosophical Review 77:2.229–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1965. “Sound change”. Language 41.185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Grover. 2000. Essential introductory linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 2000. Biolinguistics: Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Joseph, John E. 2010. “Chomsky’s atavistic revolution (with a little help from his enemies)”, In Chomskyan (R)evolutions, ed. by Douglas A. Kibbee, 1–18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1973, February 8. “Deep Language” [Letter to the editor]. The New York Review of Books 19.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. [Review of the book Grammaire générale et raisonnée, ou la grammaire du Port-Royal]. Language 45.343–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1968. Language and its structure: Some fundamental linguistic concepts. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 2010. Grammar as science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meader, Clarence L., and John H. Muyskens. 1950. Handbook of biolinguistics. Toledo, Ohio: Herbert C. Weller.Google Scholar
Miel, Jan. 1969. “Pascal, Port-Royal, and Cartesian linguistics”. Journal of the History of Ideas 30.261–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Padley, G. A. 1985. Grammatical theory in western Europe 1500–1700: Trends in vernacular grammar I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pariente, Jean-Claude. 1985. L’analyse du langage à Port-Royal. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
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
. 1972. “On the non-existence of Cartesian linguistics”. In Cartesian studies, ed. by R. J. Butler, 137–145. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2009. “The incoherence of Chomsky’s ‘biolinguistic’ ontology”. Biolinguistics 3.104–123.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Salus, Peter H. 1969. “PRE-pre-Cartesian linguistics”. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 429–434.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1972, June 29. “Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics”. The New York Review of Books 18.12–29.Google Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Edwin Williams. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verhaar, John W. M., S. J. 1971. “Philosophy and linguistic theory”. Language Sciences 14.1–11.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. 1968. [Review of the book Cartesian linguistics]. International Journal of American Linguistics 34.290–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lorenzo, Guillermo
2021. Otto Jespersen, one more broken leg in the historical stool of generative linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica 48:2-3 ► pp. 302 ff. DOI logo

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.