Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:10:47.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A ‘Galilean’ science of language1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2014

CHRISTINA BEHME
CHRISTINA BEHME*
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
*
Author's address: Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, 6135 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Science of Language, published in the sixth decade of Noam Chomsky's linguistic career, defends views that are visibly out of touch with recent research in formal linguistics, developmental child psychology, computational modeling of language acquisition, and language evolution. I argue that the poor quality of this volume is representative of the serious shortcomings of Chomsky's recent scholarship, especially of his criticism of and contribution to debates about language evolution. Chomsky creates the impression that he is quoting titbits of a massive body of scientific work he has conducted or is intimately familiar with. Yet his speculations reveal a lack of even basic understanding of biology, and an unwillingness to engage seriously with the relevant literature. At the same time, he ridicules the work of virtually all other theorists, without spelling out the views he disagrees with. A critical analysis of the ‘Galilean method’ demonstrates that Chomsky uses appeal to authority to insulate his own proposals against falsification by empirical counter-evidence. This form of discourse bears no serious relation to the way science proceeds.

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 671 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am greatly indebted to Avery Andrews, Michael Arbib, Derek Bickerton, Paul Bloom, Rudie Botha, Ted Briscoe, Morten Christiansen, Patricia Churchland, Michael Corballis, Peter Culicover, Stanley Dubinsky, Shimon Edelman, Jeff Elman, Dan Everett, Dan Flage, Susan Fred Schmerling, Jim Hurford, Ray Jackendoff, David Johnson, Dan Lassiter, Robert Levine, Philip Lieberman, Brian MacWhinney, Robert Martin, Frederick Newmeyer, David Papineau, Paul Postal, Michael Studdert-Kennedy, Geoffrey Sampson, Pieter Seuren, Maggie Tallerman, Michael Tomasello, and Virginia Valian for very helpful replies to my inquiries and for commenting on earlier drafts. Further gratitude is owed to the editor Bob Borsley and three anonymous referees of Journal of Linguistics. All remaining errors are mine.

References

REFERENCES

Aarsleff, Hans. 1970. The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky. Language 46, 570–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarsleff, Hans. 1971. ‘Cartesian linguistics’: History or fantasy? Language Sciences 17, 1–12.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arbib, Michael A. 2005. From monkey-like action recognition to human language: An evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28, 105–167.Google Scholar
Arbib, Michael A. 2008. From grasp to language: Embodied concepts and the challenge of abstraction. Journal of Physiology Paris 102, 4–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arbib, Michael A. 2012. How the brain got language: The Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Martin & Al-Mutairi, Fahad. 2012. UG or not UG: Where is recursion? Iberia 4, 35–60.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, Brown, Colin & Marslen-Wilson, William. 1986. Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 249–262.Google Scholar
Behme, Christina. 2009. Review of Cartesian linguistics. Metapsychology Online Reviews 13, http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=5110&cn=394 (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Behme, Christina. 2013a. Review of Noam Chomsky, The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Philosophy in Review XXXIII, 100–103.Google Scholar
Behme, Christina. 2013b. Review of Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka & Pello Salaburu (eds.), Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Journal of Linguistics 49, 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behme, Christina. 2014. Evaluating Cartesian linguistics: From historic antecedents to computational modeling. Potsdam: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bishop, Dorothy. 2012. What Chomsky doesn't get about child language. Review of Noam Chomsky, The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. http://deevybee.blogspot.ca/2012/09/what-chomsky-didnt-get-about-child.html (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Boden, Margaret A. 2006. Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boden, Margaret A. 2008. Odd man out: Reply to reviewers. Artificial Intelligence 172, 1944–1964.Google Scholar
Botha, Rudolph P. 1999. On Chomsky's “fable” of instantaneous language evolution. Language and Communication 19, 243–257.Google Scholar
Bricmont, Jean & Franck, Julie (eds.). 2010. Chomsky notebook. New York: Columbia University Press. [First published in French, by L'herne, 2007.]Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario. 2002. Philosophy of science: From problem to theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1962. A transformational approach to syntax. In Hill, Archibald (ed.), Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, 124–169. Austin, TX: The University of Texas.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966a. Cartesian linguistics. New York: Haper & Row. [Third edition published by Cambridge University Press, 2009.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966b. Topics in the theory of generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966c. Linguistic theory. In Maed, Robert (ed.), Language teaching: Broader contexts (North East Conference Reports), 43–49. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1968. Language and mind. New York: Hartcourt.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Human nature: Justice versus power. http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Peters, Stanley (ed.), Goals of linguistic theory, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982a. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982b. Noam Chomsky on the generative enterprise: A discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Robert, Noam. 1985. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. In Stainton, Robert (ed.), Perspectives in the philosophy of language, 3–44. Peterborough. ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger Scientific.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1997. Conhecimento da História e construção Teórica na Lingüística Moderna. Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 13, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. The architecture of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000c. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagerika, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2002. On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Some simple evo devo theses: How true might they be for language? Presented at Alice V. and David H. Morris Symposium on Language and Communication, Stony Brook, SUNY, New York.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Symposium on Margaret Boden, Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Artificial Intelligence 171, 1094–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. Human nature and the origins of language. Radical Anthropology 2, 19–23.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2009a. Opening remarks. In Piattelli-Palmarini, et al. (eds.), 13–43.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2009b. Concluding remarks. In Piattelli-Palmarini, et al. (eds.), 379–401.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Appendix: Interview with Noam Chomsky. In Ludlow, Peter (ed.), The philosophy of generative linguistics, 174–191. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2012. Minimal recursion: Exploring the prospects. Ms., MIT. [To appear in Roeper, Tom & Speas, Margaret (eds.), Recursion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The manuscript is available at http://www.letras.ufrj.br/poslinguistica/recursion/papers/2-noam-chomsky.pdf, accessed 14 March 2014.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection, Lingua 130, 33–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425–504.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. & Chater, Nick. 1999. Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science 23, 157–205.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. & Chater, Nick. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31, 489–558.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris & Stabler, Edward P.. 2011. A formalization of minimalist syntax. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001691 (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The symbolic species. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Diamond, Jared. 1999. Guns, germs, and steel: The fate of human societies. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex & Hornstein, Norbert. 2011. Basquing in minimalism. Biolinguistics 5 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1986. A nice derangement of epitaphs. In Lepore, Eric (ed.), Truth and interpretation, 459–476. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1991. The logical basis of metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1993. The seas of language. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 1991. Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning 7, 195–224.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1986. Pirahã. In Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1, 200–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1987. A lìngua Pirahã e a teoria da sintaxe: Descrição, perspectivas e teoria. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2005a. Biology and language: A consideration of alternatives. Journal of Linguistics 41, 157–175.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2005b. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46, 621–646.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert. 2006. Review of Chomsky's minimalism by Pieter Seuren. Mind 115, 469–472.Google Scholar
Fischer, Klaus. 1992. Die Wissenschaftstheorie Galileis – oder: Contra Feyerabend. Journal for General Philosophy of Science/Zeitschrift für allgemein Wissenschaftstheorie 23, 165–197.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2010. The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, Hauser, Marc D. & Chomsky, Noam. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97, 179–210.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 2009. A note on methodology in linguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32.5, 454–455.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2001. Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory. Lingua 111, 639–666.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1968. The emperor's new ideas. In Hook, Sidney (ed.), Language and philosophy, 138–142. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay & Vrba, Elisabeth S.. 1982. Exaptation – a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8, 4–15.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 2001. Review of Noam Chomsky, New horizons in the study of language and mind. The Journal of Philosophy 98, 265–269.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane. 2007. Obituary: William Oliver Bright. Language 83, 628–641.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2014. More on recursion. Faculty of language. http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.ca/2014/01/more-on-recursion.html (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Hurford, James R. & Dediu, Dan. 2007. Diversity in languages, genes, and the language faculty. In Botha, Rudolph P. & Knight, Chris (eds.), The cradle of language (Studies in the Evolution of Language), 163–185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language 87, 586–624.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Pinker, Steven. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky. Cognition 97, 211–225.Google Scholar
Kinsella, Anna. 2009. Language evolution and syntactic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kljajevic, Vanja. 2009. Review of Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka & Pello Salaburu (eds.), Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Linguist List, http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?SubID=4552884 (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Lassiter, Daniel. 2008. Semantic externalism, language variation, and sociolinguistic accommodation. Mind and Language 23, 607–633.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1957. Review of Noam Chomsky, Syntactic structures. Language 33, 375–408.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie A., Pesetsky, David & Yang, Charles. 2013. Recursive misrepresentations: A reply to Levinson. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001822 (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 2006. Toward an evolutionary biology of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 2013. The unpredictable species. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. In press. Review of Noam Chomsky, The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Modern Language Review.Google Scholar
Ludlow, Peter. 2011. The philosophy of generative grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2004. A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 31, 883–914.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2005. Language evolution and human development. In Bjorklund, David & Pellegrini, Anthony (eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development, 383–410. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2010. Computational models of child language learning: An introduction. Journal of Child Language 37, 477–485.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian & Snow, Catherine. 1985. The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language 12, 271–296.Google Scholar
McBrearty, Sally & Brooks, Alison. 2000. The revolution that wasn't: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453–563.Google Scholar
Mukherji, Nirmalangshu. 2010. Review of Jean Bricmont & Julie Franck (eds.), Chomsky notebook. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24494-chomsky-notebook/.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David & Rodrigues, Cilene. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85, 355–404.Google Scholar
Özsoy, A. Sumru & Nakipoğlu, Mine (eds.). 2009. Noam Chomsky on language and cognition. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Papineau, David. 2008. Review of Daniel [L.] Everett, Don't sleep there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. The Independent, 14 November 2008.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2009. Against taking linguistic diversity at ‘face value’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 464–465.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Что дѣлать? What is to be done? Presented at Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting. Slides from plenary talk, 4 January 2013. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/Pesetsky_LSA_plenary_talk_slides_2013.pdf (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Uriagereka, Juan & Salaburu, Pello (eds.). 2009. Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Bloom, Paul. 1990. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 707–784.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2005. Foreword. In Sampson, Geoffrey (ed.), The ‘language instinct’ debate, revised edn., vii–xi. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2012. Chomsky's foundational admission. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001569 (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2011a. On the mathematical foundations of Syntactic structures. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20, 277–296.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoff[rey K]. 2011b. Remarks by Noam Chomsky in London. Linguist List 22.4631, http://linguistlist.org/issues/22/22-4631.html (accessed 14 March 2014).Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2012. Review of Noam Chomsky The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Times Higher Education 2,044, 5 April 2012, page 51. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/419565.article.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Scholz, Barbara C.. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19, 9–50.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1967. The ‘Innateness Hypothesis’ and explanatory models in linguistics. Synthese 17, 12–22.Google Scholar
Reiss, John. 2009. Not by design: Retiring Darwin's watchmaker. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2001. Empirical linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2002. Exploring the richness of the stimulus. The Linguistic Review 19, 73–104.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1972. Chomsky's revolution in linguistics. The New York Review of Books, 29 June 1972, pages 16–24. http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19720629.htm.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1998. Western linguistics: A historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 2009. Concerning the roots of transformational generative grammar. Historiographia Linguistica 36, 97–115.Google Scholar
Smith, Neil. 1999. Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 1998. The particulate origins of language generativity: From syllable to gesture. In Hurford, James R., Studdert-Kennedy, Michael & Knight, Chris (eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language, 202–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomalin, Marcus. 2011. Syntactic structures and recursive devices: A legacy of imprecision. The Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20, 297–315.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2004. What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Studies in Language 28, 642–644.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2009. Discussion of concluding remarks. In Piattelli-Palmarini, et al. (eds.), 405–409.Google Scholar
Watumull, Jeffrey, Hauser, Marc D., Roberts, Ian G. & Hornstein, Norbert. 2014. On recursion. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1–7.Google Scholar
Weckerly, Jill & Elman, Jeffrey L.. 1992. A PDP approach to processing center-embedded sentences. The Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 139–156. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry. 1976. Teleological explanations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar