Que peut le bon sens comparé à ce que peut peut-être la connaissance scientifique ? Noam Chomsky a rappelé que le progrès des sciences a amené à se rendre compte que le bon sens, ou sens commun, pouvait se tromper de façon spectaculaire. La même chose n’est-elle pas susceptible de se passer en matière morale et politique ? Après tout, le sens commun un peu éduqué ne peut-il suffire pour nous procurer les lumières dont nous avons besoin pour l’action (...) ? Pierre Bourdieu était évidemment convaincu que la connaissance procurée par les sciences sociales est finalement la seule qui soit susceptible de nous permettre de comprendre réellement les mécanismes qui engendrent l’inégalité, l’injustice, l’oppression, etc. [Jacques Bouveresse se souvient] d’avoir pris la défense de Noam Chomsky, au moins une fois, devant Bourdieu, parce que Chomsky avait écrit que comprendre comment opèrent ces mécanismes d’assujettissement et d’oppression qui engendrent l’inégalité et l’injustice n’est pas très difficile ; il suffit d’un peu de bon sens, de psychologie – et de cynisme, ajoutait-il. (shrink)

There is no doubt that the 9/11 atrocities were an event of historic importance, not -- regrettably -- because of their scale, but because of the choice of innocent victims. It had been recognised for some time that with new technology, the industrial powers would probably lose their virtual monopoly of violence, retaining only an enormous preponderance.

This article suggests that Chomsky’s notorious ‘London’ argument against semantics looks much more plausible that it is usually interpreted as being when seen in the light of something apparently remote from its concerns, viz., David Lewis’s distinction between natural and non-natural properties.

In philosophical circles, but not only there, Chomsky's views on natural language regularly fall a prey to misrepresentation. Very often the confusion involves the creative aspect of language use, an aspect of linguistic performance, which tends to be confounded with the notion recursivity, a property of the grammatical competence system. The present article clears away the most deep-seated confusions and proves that criticism of generative grammar based upon them cannot be upheld. In particular, it shows that the existence of (...) metaphors, and deviations from rules more generally, reinforces rather than refutes Chomsky's theory so long as the crucial distinction between knowledge of language (competence) and language use (performance) is taken heed of. It is argued that theories which deny this distinction and view human language as a set of dispositions or as an ability are misguided. The final section illustrates some properties of Universal Grammar (UG) by means of data from the domain of negative polarity and subject-object asymmetries. Though these phenomena are far from being fully understood, the present level of our insight warrants the conclusion that they lend considerable support to the Chomskyan conception of UG as a highly complex and richly articulated linguistic genotype. (shrink)

The monograph shows that in the last 50 years theoretical linguistics remains a compendium of mutually contradicting doctrines on multiple levels: the level of general theories of language, the level of its main constituents (the lexicon, syntax, and the lexical-syntactic interface that connects them), and the lower levels of specific linguistic problems (such as lexical polysemy, grammatical meanings, etc.). The contradictions of contemporary linguistic theories are indicative of a deep crisis. Evolutionary-synthetic theory of language is aimed at overcoming this crisis. (...) It implements a multidisciplinary approach that describes the language a) in evolutionary and ontogenetic development and b) in close interaction with other human subsystems: the mental representation of the world, human activity and social interaction. Language is defined as a dual system developing in ontogeny: 'universal sensory sublanguage + ethnically specific functional sublanguage' where the sensory sublanguage is used to describe the 'visible' world (accessible to the senses), and the functional sublanguage is employed to describe the conceivable world ('comprehended by human mind'). Within the framework of the approach presented, many problems are solved: 1) the cognitive (non-verbal) language for representing language meanings; 2) diversity and unity of languages (using the structure alternative to Chomsky's Universal Grammar); 3) the main (original) function of the language; 4) the cognitive language of thought (its basis is the lexical and grammatical meanings of the sensory sublanguage); 5) dual (functionally prototypical) structure of human categories; 6) mechanisms in the early acquisition of lexical and grammatical meanings; 7) the meaning (assignment) of the syntactic structure of a sentence, etc. The book deals with a wide range of issues related to human cognition, glottogenesis and anthropogenesis, universal cognitive structures for the representation of objects, actions and situations, so it will be of interest not only to linguists, but also to psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers. (shrink)

This volume examines some of the arguments that have been put forward over the years to explain the way in which understanding is acquired. The author looks firstly at the empricist thesis of genesis without structure, and secondly at the opposing theory, represented by Chomsky of structure without genesis. His greatest sympathy is with the theory of Piaget, who represents structure with genesis. He considers that Piaget's account is flawed, however, by its biological model and by its failure to (...) deal adequately with the problem of objectivity. The second part of the book contains chapters on language, the differences between early and later learning, and on teaching. The book provides a general understanding of the principles that make it possible, and the differences between the ways in which they work at different stages. (shrink)

The philosophy of mind is one of the fastest-growing areas in philosophy, not least because of its connections with related areas of psychology, linguistics and computation. This _Companion_ is an alphabetically arranged reference guide to the subject, firmly rooted in the philosophy of mind, but with a number of entries that survey adjacent fields of interest. The book is introduced by the editor's substantial _Essay on the Philosophy of Mind_ which serves as an overview of the subject, and is closely (...) referenced to the entries in the Companion. Among the entries themselves are several "self-profiles" by leading philosophers in the field, including Chomsky, Davidson, Dennett, Dretske, Fodor, Lewis, Searle and Stalnaker, in which their own positions within the subject are articulated. In some more complex areas, more than one author has been invited to write on the same topic, giving a polarity of viewpoints within the book's overall coverage. All main entries have a full bibliography, and the book is indexed to the high standards set by other volumes in the Blackwell Companions to Philosophy series. (shrink)

This review analyzes Chomsky’s rationale for devising a theory of generative grammar to replace the “standard theory” of Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) by one that shifts responsibility for the semantic interpretation of sentences from the forms generated in deep structure to those generated by the entire syntactic apparatus of generative grammar. The shift was very much a work in progress when this review was written, and the outcome it predicted occurred only a few years later with (...) the publication of Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures (1981). (shrink)

It is unfortunate that Francis Y. Lin, in ‘Chomsky on the “ordinary language” view of language’ pays little attention to his own remark, ‘Chomsky’s criticisms make us realize that we should not be content with general and vague formulations of convention, ability, and so on. We must make such notions precise and provide details’ Lin speaks so imprecisely and provides so few details of notions on which he relies heavily, such as ‘general learning mechanism’ and ‘sentence frame’, that (...) readers must employ large amounts of guesswork to place even a halfway specific interpretation on his proposals and claims. (shrink)

The thesis we develop in this essay is that all humans are endowed with a moral faculty. The moral faculty enables us to produce moral judgments on the basis of the causes and consequences of actions. As an empirical research program, we follow the framework of modern linguistics.1 The spirit of the argument dates back at least to the economist Adam Smith (1759/1976) who argued for something akin to a moral grammar, and more recently, to the political philosopher John Rawls (...) (1971). The logic of the argument, however, comes from Noam Chomsky’s thinking on language specifically and the nature of knowledge more generally (Chomsky, 1986, 1988, 2000; Saporta, 1978). If the nature of moral knowledge is comparable in some way to the nature of linguistic knowledge, as defended recently by Harman (1977), Dwyer (1999, 2004), and Mikhail (2000; in press), then what should we expect to find when we look at the anatomy of our moral faculty? Is there a grammar, and if so, how can the moral grammarian uncover its structure? Are we aware of our moral grammar, its method of operation, and its moment-to-moment functioning in our judgments? Is there a universal moral grammar that allows each child to build a particular moral grammar? Once acquired, are different moral grammars mutually incomprehensible in the same way that a native Chinese speaker finds a native Italian speaker incomprehensible? How does the child acquire a particular moral grammar, especially if her experiences are impoverished relative to the moral judgments she makes? Are there certain forms of brain damage that disrupt moral competence but leave other forms of reasoning intact? And how did this machinery evolve, and for what particular adaptive function? We will have more to say about many of these questions later on, and Hauser (2006) develops others. However, in order to flesh out the key ideas and particular empirical research paths, let us turn to some of the central questions in the study of our language faculty.. (shrink)

Montalbetti (1984) points out certain semantic differences between phonetically full and phonetically empty pronouns (henceforth full and n u l l pronouns) that challenge the traditional interpretive parallelism between empty and full categories (see Chomsky 1981, 1982). He shows that both in subject (1) and object position (2), while null pronouns can be interpreted as bound variables (as in (1a) and (2a) ), full pronouns cannot (as in (1c) and (2c)).

Paraconsistent logics are characterized by rejection of ex falso quodlibet, the principle of explosion, which states that from a contradiction, anything can be derived. Strikingly these logics have found a wide range of application, despite the misgivings of philosophers as prominent as Lewis and Putnam. Such applications, I will argue, are of significant philosophical interest. They suggest ways to employ these logics in philosophical and scientific theories. To this end I will sketch out a ‘naturalized semantic dialetheism’ following Priest’s early (...) suggestion that the principles governing human natural language may well be inconsistent. There will be a significant deviation from Priest’s work, namely, the assumption of a broadly Chomskyan picture of semantics. This allows us to explain natural language inconsistency tolerance without commitment to contentious views in formal logic. (shrink)

Nott, a novelist, poet and writer on philosophy and criticism, examines current Anglo-American philosophers and finds them too parochial in that they analyze language scientifically and by doing so limit the scope of philosophy. The real problems are endless moral ones in Nott’s estimation, and they have been ignored by analysts who have concentrated on what we say not on what we do or ought to do. She believes that philosophy is a humane study which cannot help being ethical and (...) social. The development and direction of philosophy as being critical are acceptable if the criticism is concerned with metaphysical concepts and the structure and use of language in a way that is not abstract and syntactical. A reference is made on Chomsky’s Aspects by Nott who reveals her inability to comprehend the philosophical implications of deep structure analysis. Peirce in his relativistic approach to truth and knowledge, however, is singled out because truth as he analyzed it was not a collection of certainties but a function of belief inside a human world of common meanings. An inquiry, we are told, is valid if it moves toward a logical method of science. With this approach emphasis is placed on knowing rather than what is to be known provided the knower represents our common capacity for arriving at judgments on which we agree. The pragmatism of Peirce gives us a natural concrete expansion to our concepts. Understanding means understanding part of our world in a pragmatic sense as opposed to the analytic approach that does not concern itself with the world. In the concluding chapter, Nott states that the present day philosophical act has been narrowly circumscribed and by implication wrongly defined. The philosopher does not want to commit himself to practical opinions nor write a comprehensive treatise on the human situation. Nott ends by saying that the philosopher must examine his environment and the distinctness of the human person. Unfortunately, Kathleen Nott has not considered the complexities of human existence nor has she made an attempt to consider them seriously as seen by her rejection of philosophers who attempt to define the complexities of human existence.—G. D. (shrink)

I compare the tasks that Noam Chomsky and W. V. Quine assign the grammarian and point out that in many cases where Chomsky sees a question of fact Quine sees only a question of convenience. I argue that these differences are attributable, at least in part, to a difference in view concerning the data. Chomsky relies mostly on a speaker's reports of his linguistic intuitions. Quine finds this source methodologically moot. I develop a series of arguments that (...) draw on Quine's theory of radical translation to defend Quine's doubts. (shrink)

The correct locus (or loci) of binding theory has been a matter of much discussion. Theories can be seen as varying along at least two dimensions. The rst is whether binding theory is con gurationally determined (that is, the theory exploits the geometry of a phrase marker, appealing to such purely structural notions as c-command and government) or whether the theory depends rather on examining the relations between items selected by a predicate (where by selection I am intending to cover (...) everything from semantic dependencies to syntactic subcategorization). The second is the level of grammar on which binding is de ned. Attempting to roughly equate levels across di erent theories, suggestions have included the semantics/lexical conceptual structure (Jackendo 1992), thematic structure (Jackendo 1972, Wilkins 1988), argument structure/D-structure/initial grammatical relations (Manning 1994, Belletti and Rizzi 1988, Perlmutter 1984), surface syntax/grammatical relations, logical form, linear order, pragmatics (Levinson 1991), and discourse (Iida 1992). The data is su ciently varied and complex that many theories end up as mixtures, variously employing a combination of elements along both dimensions (for instance, Chomsky (1986) relies purely on con gurational notions for the relationship between an anaphor and its antecedent, but uses concepts from selection in the de nition of the binding domain of an anaphor). LFG has always rejected a con gurational account of binding. For instancError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMapError: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMape, Simpson (1991) argues that a con gurational theory of binding in Warlpiri cannot be maintained, among other reasons because nite clauses lack a VP.. (shrink)

Chomsky's current Biolinguistic methodology is shown to comport with what might be called 'established' aspects of biological method, thereby raising, in the biolinguistic domain, issues concerning biological autonomy from the physical sciences. At least current irreducibility of biology, including biolinguistics, stems in at least some cases from the very nature of what I will claim is physiological, or inter-organ/inter-component, macro-levels of explanation which play a new and central explanatory role in Chomsky's inter-componential explanation of certain properties of the (...) syntactic component of Universal Grammar. Under this new mode of explanation, certain physiological functions of cognitive mental organs are hypothesized, in an attempt to explain aspects of their internal anatomy. Thus, the internal anatomy of the syntactic component exhibits features that enable it to effectively interface with other 'adjacent' organs, such as the Conceptual-Intensional system and the Sensory- Motor system. These two interface systems take as their inputs the assembled outputs of the syntactic component and, as a result of the very syntactic structure imposed by the syntax are then able to assign their sound and meaning interpretations. If this is an accurate characterization, Chomsky's long-standing postulation of mental organs, and I will argue, the advancement of new hypotheses concerning physiological inter-organ functions, has attained in current biolinguistic Minimalist method a significant unification with foundational aspects of physiological explanation in other areas of biology. (shrink)

This collection of original essays brings together a world-class lineup of philosophers to provide the most comprehensive critical treatment of Ted Honderich’s philosophy, focusing on three major areas of his work: (1) his theory of consciousness; (2) his extensive and ground-breaking work on determinism and freedom; and (3) his views on right and wrong, including his Principle of Humanity and his judgments on terrorism. Grote Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University College London, Honderich is a (...) leading contemporary philosopher of mind, determinism and freedom, and morals. The collection begins with a comprehensive introduction written by Honderich followed by fourteen original chapters separated into three sections. Each section concludes with a set of remarks by Honderich. Contributors include Noam Chomsky, Paul Snowdon, Alastair Hannay, Barbara Gail Montero, Barry Smith, Derk Pereboom, Paul Russell, Kevin Timpe, Gregg D. Caruso, Mary Warnock, Paul Gilbert, Richard J. Norman, Michael Neumann, and Saul Smilansky. (shrink)

Recent challenges to Chomsky's poverty of the stimulus thesis for language acquisition suggest that children's primary data may carry “indirect evidence” about linguistic constructions despite containing no instances of them. Indirect evidence is claimed to suffice for grammar acquisition, without need for innate knowledge. This article reports experiments based on those of Reali and Christiansen (2005), who demonstrated that a simple bigram language model can induce the correct form of auxiliary inversion in certain complex questions. This article investigates the (...) nature of the indirect evidence that supports this learning, and assesses how reliably it is available. Results confirm the original finding for one specific sentence type but show that the model's success is highly circumscribed. It performs poorly on inversion in related constructions in English and Dutch. Because other, more powerful statistical models have so far been shown to succeed only on the same limited subset of cases as the bigram model, it remains to be seen whether stimulus richness can be substantiated more generally. (shrink)

Peter Abelard (1079–1142 ce) was the most wide‐ranging philosopher of the twelfth century. He quickly established himself as a leading teacher of logic in and near Paris shortly after 1100. After his affair with Heloise, and his subsequent castration, Abelard became a monk, but he returned to teaching in the Paris schools until 1140, when his work was condemned by a Church Council at Sens. His logical writings were based around discussion of the “Old Logic”: Porphyry's Isagoge, aristotle'S Categories and (...) On Interpretation and boethius'S textbook on topical inference. They comprise a freestanding Dialectica (“Logic”; probably c.1116), a set of commentaries (known as the Logica [Ingredientibus], c. 1119) and a later (c. 1125) commentary on the Isagoge (Logica Nostrorum Petititoni Sociorum or Glossulae). In a work Abelard called his Theologia, issued in three main versions (between 1120 and c.1134), he attempted a logical analysis of trinitarian relations and explored the philosophical problems surrounding God's claims to omnipotence and omniscience. The Collationes (“Debates,” also known as “Dialogue between a Christian, a Philosopher and a Jew”; probably c.1130) present a rational investigation into the nature of the highest good, in which the Christian and the Philosopher (who seems to be modeled on a philosopher of pagan antiquity) are remarkably in agreement. The unfinished Scito teipsum (“Know thyself,” also known as the “Ethics”; c.1138) analyses moral action. (shrink)

Pourquoi associer les noms de Russell, Orwell et Chomsky? Quelles parentés y a-t-il entre leurs pensées mais aussi entre leurs engagements militants respectifs? Quel genre de lumières pouvons-nous espérer d’eux sur le thème « Rationalité, vérité et démocratie »? Il est largement admis que les tyrannies s’appuient sur le mensonge et les préjugés, et que la démocratie suppose l’existence d’un espace public des raisons où s’affrontent pacifiquement des citoyens éclairés. Mais il est largement admis aussi que le savoir confère (...) habituellement à celui qui le possède une supériorité et une autorité sur celui qui ne le possède pas. Le relativisme, nous dit-on, garantit le droit des dominés et des minorités à défendre leur propre vision du monde. Certes, il peut arriver qu’il leur offre temporairement une protection efficace. Mais, fondamentalement, il est contradictoire avec tout projet d’émancipation car il dépossède les dominés des armes de la critique. (shrink)

L’article se propose d’explorer l’usage que Chomsky fait de la référence à la philosophie de Descartes. À partir des années 1950, le linguiste et philosophe Noam Chomsky remet l’innéisme sur le devant de la scène en défendant l’existence d’une faculté innée de langage. Comme l’indique sans équivoque le titre de son ouvrage paru en 1966, La linguistique cartésienne, Chomsky inscrit sa pensée dans la tradition cartésienne. Mais ce que Chomsky entend par « faculté innée » est-il (...) vraiment similaire à ce que Descartes nomme « idée innée »? L’usage que fait Chomsky de Descartes relève-t-il simplement d’un procédé rhétorique, comme le soutiennent certains commentateurs, ou est-il le signe d’une authentique proximité conceptuelle? Selon certains commentateurs, cet usage est purement rhétorique. D’une part, le tournant naturaliste opéré au XXe siècle a déplacé la réflexion sur l’esprit d’un plan métaphysique purement a priori à un plan scientifique purement empirique. D’autre part, le domaine où s’exerce prioritairement la pensée de Chomsky – le domaine linguistique – est un domaine largement ignoré par Descartes. Enfin, concevoir l'esprit comme contenant des facultés spécifiques innées paraît incompatible avec le caractère indifférencié et uniforme de l’esprit cartésien. L’article entend montrer au contraire que l’usage que fait Chomsky de Descartes révèle un véritable air de famille entre innéisme chomskyen et innéisme cartésien. D’une part, c’est bien le caractère a priori des principes que Chomsky postule qui fait écho aux idées innées cartésiennes. D’autre part, Chomsky dessine une tradition linguistique de type rationaliste qui pose l’universalité des structures grammaticales au nom de l’universalité même des caractères distinctifs fondamentaux de l’esprit que l’on trouve chez Descartes. Enfin, Descartes et Chomsky défendent tous deux un innéisme dispositionnel. En somme, l’article conclut que ce qui relie Chomsky à Descartes n’est pas la définition de la grammaire universelle innée, que ce dernier n’aurait, sans doute, pas acceptée ; c’est une manière similaire de poser le problème de l’acquisition de la connaissance, et partant de le résoudre. (shrink)

To his credit, Chomsky puts them all on his website, whether it’s The New Yorker describing him as “the devil’s accountant†and “one of the greatest minds of the 20th centuryâ€, or The Nation, which lampooned him as “a very familiar kind of academic hack†whose career has been “the product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of detractors, and the fudging of his findingsâ€. He stands accused of asserting that every US President since Franklin D Roosevelt should have (...) been impeached as war criminals; of supporting the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia; and of comparing Israel to the Third Reich. (shrink)

Facultés, concepts, théories et modules innés... Le débat philosophique contemporain sur la structure naturelle de l'esprit multiplie les références aux idées innées. Noam Chomsky lui-même, défenseur d'une faculté innée de langage, s'inscrit dans la lignée de la philosophie moderne. Mais les idées innées contemporaines ont-elles le même sens que celles posées par Descartes et Leibniz? Les progrès des sciences biologiques et cognitives permettent-ils d'attester ou d'infirmer l'existence des idées innées? L'étude analyse les théories modernes et contemporaines des idées innées (...) puis propose une définition de l'innéisme qui démontre l'actualité du débat amorcé à l'âge classique entre innéisme et empirisme."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

In Rules and Representations, first published in 1980, Noam Chomsky lays out many of the concepts that have made his approach to linguistics and human cognition so instrumental to our understanding of language.Chomsky arrives at his well-known position that there is a universal grammar, structured in the human mind and common to all human languages. Based on Chomsky's 1978 Woodbridge Lectures, this edition contains revised versions of the lectures and two new essays.

Den Zusammenhang der Arbeit stellt die Dreigliedrigkeit Realität- Sprache-Denken dar; das Fehlen dieses Zusammenhangs bei Chomsky und Skinner wird aufgedeckt und damit der Mythos einer fetischisierten Sprache. Das geschieht primär durch die Analyse theoretischer Prämis- sen, die die Richtung der Arbeitsresultate festschreiben und relevante Fragestellungen aussparen. Die Arbeit zeigt, wie das konstruiert wurde und welche Konsequenzen das theoretisch und z.T. auch praktisch hat. Damit stehen nicht nur die theoretischen Interessen der beiden Autoren, sondern die der Linguistik zur Debatte, zumal (...) als einer Disziplin, die nicht autark ist, sondern Wissen über Welt voraussetzt und selbst ideologisch produziert. (shrink)

La pensée de Noam Chomsky sur le langage ne se réduit pas aux innovations théoriques qui ont fait la réputation de leur auteur. Sa singularité dans le champ du savoir doit aussi être cherchée dans un programme scientifique qui s'est développé au cours des années dans une absolue cohérence et dans la relative stabilité des options philosophiques qui constituent le fondement épistémologique de la Grammaire Générative. C'est précisément à ces dernières que s'intéresse ce livre. Chomsky aborde des questions (...) qui relèvent de la philosophie des sciences et de celle de l'esprit. Les solutions qu'il propose dérivent de la conception qu'il se fait de l'objet d'étude, la grammaire plutôt que le langage, qui, s'il doit être abordé en utilisant les méthodes en usage dans les sciences de la nature, impose aussi la définition d'une épistémologie spécifique. (shrink)