The History of Linguistics and Professor Chomsky

Abstract

This paper argues that Chomsky’s version of the history of linguistics is fundamentally false. With evidence drawn from recent reviews and some additional information, it argues that the term ‘Cartesian’ has no historical justification in regard to the linguistic theory embodied in the 1660 Port-Royal Grammar. The paper then examines the history of linguistics from 1660 to the Romantics, a period in which Chomsky finds much scattered evidence for the persistent dominance of the Cartesian tradition. Contrary to Chomsky’s opinion, however, Locke and not Descartes was the dominating force. Du Marsais was strongly anti-Cartesian and outspokenly pro-Lockean. The basic and most influential work in 18th century linguistic theory was Condillac’s Essai (1746), which is entirely Lockean; this work revived linguistic theory at the mid-century, including universal grammar. There is no conflict between universal grammar and the entirely Locke-derived theoretical work on the origin of language. Chomsky’s version of history is the product of serious deficiencies in knowledge and research, and is an obstacle to the creation of a true and significant history of linguistics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 83 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.