scholarly journals The linguistic philosophy of Noam Chomsky: from the Cartesian tradition to generative grammar

2018 ◽  
pp. 88-100
Author(s):  
Mikhail A. Kornienko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Linguistic Philosophy

scholarly journals The Linguistic Philosophy of Noam Chomsky

2014 ◽  
pp. 103-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Binoy Barman
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Analytic Philosophy ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Philosophical Investigation ◽  
Human Being ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Human Child ◽  
Mental Exercise ◽  
Linguistic Philosophy

Noam Chomsky, one of the most famous linguists of the twentieth century, based his linguistic works on certain philosophical doctrines. His main contribution to linguistics is Transformational Generative Grammar, which is founded on mentalist philosophy. He opposes the behaviourist psychology in favour of innatism for explaining the acquisition of language. He claims that it becomes possible for human child to learn a language for the linguistic faculty with which the child is born, and that the use of language for an adult is mostly a mental exercise. His ideas brought about a revolution in linguistics, dubbed as Chomskyan Revolution. According to him, the part of language which is innate to human being would be called Universal Grammar. His philosophy holds a strong propensity to rationalism in search of a cognitive foundation. His theory is a continuation of analytic philosophy, which puts language in the centre of philosophical investigation. He would also be identified as an essentialist. This paper considers various aspects of Chomsky’s linguistic philosophy with necessary elaborations.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pp.v51i1-2.17681

On the Other Hand

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Freidin ◽  
Juan Uriagereka ◽  
David Berlinski
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
History Of

The following remarks attempt to place Jean-Roger Vergnaud’s letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik more centrally within the history of modern generative grammar from its inception to the present.

Nominalization

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Short Contribution ◽  
Morphological Complexity ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Theoretical Morphology ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Major Factors

Chomsky’s Remarks on Nominalization (RoN), published in 1970, has had an immense impact on syntax, and far reaching ramifications for phonology, semantics, and morphology. Among other major factors, RoN[R1] propelled the emergence of theoretical morphology as a distinct subfield within generative grammar. The original agenda set up by RoN, as augmented by supplemental work on argument structure, on the typology of derived nominals, and on the role of morphological complexity, continue to inform major contemporary theoretical approaches to morphosyntax in general, and to the study of derived nominals, in particular. This volume brings together contributions which address these issues from different perspectives and which, importantly, focus on a broad range of typologically diverse languages (Archi, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hiaki, Icelandic, Japanese, Jingpo, Korean, Mayan, Mẽbengokre, Navajo, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Turkish, Udmurt). The volume also contains an introduction by the editors as well as a short contribution by Noam Chomsky.<153>

Generative coda

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 423-430
Author(s):  
ELLY VAN GELDEREN
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Innate Knowledge

Generative grammar has its beginnings in the late 1950s with the work of Noam Chomsky and emphasizes innate linguistic knowledge, or Universal Grammar. Children use their innate knowledge and, on the basis of the language they hear spoken, also known as the E(xternalized)-Language, come up with a grammar, also known as the I(nternalized)-Language (see Chomsky 1986: 19–24). Generative grammar focuses on the ability of native speakers to speak and understand grammatical sentences.

scholarly journals THE LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF NOAM CHOMSKY

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (14) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Isabella Buniyatova
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Linguistic Philosophy

The paper offers a preliminary overview of the Chomskian revolution in linguistics, with special emphasis laid on his anthropological stance. The pivotal ideas of language faculty as a cognitive capacity of mind, language creativity that follows from the fundamentals of philosophical rationalism, generative procedure, as well as aims of to-date linguistic theory are highlighted.

scholarly journals تعليم النحو العربي لغير الناطقين بالعربية على ضوء نظرية تشومسكي

Al-Ma rifah ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-73
Author(s):  
ابتهال محمد البار
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Data ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Second Language Learner ◽  
Arabic Speakers ◽  
Native Arabic Speakers ◽  
Scientific Value

This research aims to study the concept of transformational-generative grammar by Noam Chomsky as well as the foundation of this theory and its actional principles in terms of language acquisition, and try to use the theoretical data in teaching Arabic grammar to non-native Arabic speakers. This can be done by using the analytical descriptive approach. This research is considered important because it deals with a modern linguistic theory which has a scientific value in the modern language lesson and employs it in the field of teaching Arabic grammar. The study has benefited from data of the transformational-generative grammar in the case of coping with teaching the rules of Arabic grammar to answer fundamental questions, which are: what are the foundations of transformational-generative grammar theory? What are the rules of transformational in Arabic grammar? What are the benefits of the transformational-generative grammar theory non-native Arabic speakers? The research concluded that the conscious practice of language takes place from a constructional point of view within the meaning and not just to the practical. Second language learner must be familiar with the vocal, and grammatical system in order to be able to practice the language with its rules. Finally, the aim is not to limit the linguistic attitudes in the educational process; as the generative grammar believes that a person has a tremendous ability to produce unlimited linguistic patterns of limited linguistic elements.

IDEOLOGY AND LINGUISTIC THEORY: NOAM CHOMSKY AND THE DEEP STRUCTURE DEBATES.Geoffrey J. Huck and John A. Goldsmith. London: Routledge, 1995. Pp. 186. $25.00 cloth.

1997 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-402
Author(s):  
Susanne Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Deep Structure ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Central Focus ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Informative Case ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
Deductive Science

The authors begin their book with the assertion, “Many linguists today assume that theirs is an empirical and deductive science, and that scientific progress in the domain of their research is possible” (p. 1). They then proceed in an interesting, well-written, and informative case study of the evolution of generative grammar to cast doubt on the veracity of this assertion. The central focus is the nature of the debates among researchers developing what came to be known as generative semantics and interpretive semantics. The book attempts to detail who influenced whom and who was interested in what. More particularly, Huck and Goldsmith ask to what extent data, analyses, and argumentation were critical to the debates. The central question is: To what extent were generativist scholars moved one way or the other by rational considerations? The answer, not surprisingly, is: Not much. The real story is one about personalities, not about truth and reason. They attempt to explain why paying particular attention to the personalities involved, the role of the linguistic institutions where the participants worked, and the research agendas of each is important.

Classical Generative Morphology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pius ten Hacken
Keyword(s):  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Subject Field ◽  
Generative Linguistics ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Prominent Component ◽  
Blocking Effects ◽  
Rule Application ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Rewrite Rules ◽  
Bracketing Paradoxes

The scope of classical generative morphology is not clearly determined. All three components need clarification. The boundaries of what counts as generative linguistics are not unambiguously set, but it can be assumed that all generative work in linguistics is inspired by the work of Noam Chomsky. Morphology was a much more prominent component of linguistic theory in earlier approaches, but of course the subject field had to be accounted for also in generative linguistics. The label classical can be seen as restricting the scope both to the more mainstream approaches and to a period that ends before the present. Here, the early 1990s will be taken as the time when classical theorizing gave way to contemporary generative morphology. In the earliest presentations of generative linguistics, there was no lexicon. The introduction of the lexicon made many of the ideas formulated before obsolete. Chomsky’s Lexicalist Hypothesis provided the basis for a new start of research in morphology. Two contrasting elaborations appeared in the early 1970s. Halle proposed a model based on the combination of morphemes, Jackendoff one based on the representation and analysis of full words. Against this background, a number of characteristic issues were discussed in the 1970s and 1980s. One such issue was the form of rules. Here there was a shift from transformations to rewrite rules. This shift can be seen particularly well in the discussion of verbal compounds, e.g., truck driver. The question whether and how morphology should be distinguished from syntax generated a lot of discussion. Another broad question was the degree to which rules of morphology should be thought of as operating in separate components. This can be observed in the issue of the distinction of inflection and derivation and in level ordering. The latter was a proposal to divide affixes into classes with different phonological and other effects on the base they attach to. A side effect of level ordering was the appearance of bracketing paradoxes, where, for instance, generative grammarian has a phonological constituent grammarian but a semantic constituent generative grammar. Another aspect of rule application which can be constructed as a difference between morphology and syntax is productivity. In general, syntactic rules are more productive and morphological rules display blocking effects, where, for instance, unpossible is blocked by the existence of impossible. Being classical, much of the discussions in this period serves as a shared background for the emergence and discussion of current generative approaches in morphology. The transition to these theories started in the 1990s, although some of them appeared only in the early 2000s.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document