1975; 192 pages. New Author? : No. Interviewer: Mitsou Ronat. Genres : Linguistics; Interviews; Language. Overall Rating : 6*/10.
Hey, let’s read a book about Linguistics, the study of Languages. I know the difference between an etymologist
and an entomologist, and do crossword puzzles, so how difficult can it be?
And I’m not messing around
with any third-rate vocabularian (yeah, that’s a
real word; it’s just very uncommon); I’m going to read something by
the grammar guru himself, Noam Chomsky. He’s written more than 50 books about
Linguistics over the course of 60+ years.
I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about.
Besides, how difficult can a
study of languages be? You just look up
the history of a bunch of words, assemble them into a coherent system, and
voila! You’ve got yourself a book on
linguistics, amiright? Let’s open one of Chomsky’s books, Language
and Responsibility, and see what jumps out at us.
Omigosh! What the heck is Syntactic
Structure??
What’s To Like...
Language and
Responsibility is divided into nine sections, plus an introductory
“Translator’s Note” (see the end of this review). The sections are:
01.
Politics
02. Linguistics and the Human
Sciences
03. A Philosophy of Language
04. Empiricism and Rationalism
05. The Birth of Generative
Grammar
06.
Semantics
07. The Extended Standard
Theory
08.
Deep Structure
09. Universal Grammar and
Unresolved Questions
My favorite chapters are highlighted in blue. Yours may vary.
The book is mostly formatted
as several interviews by Mitsou Ronat, posing questions to Noam Chomsky, but frankly, it
felt scripted to me. That’s okay though,
the other book I’ve read of Chomsky’s, reviewed here, was in the same
format, so maybe this is the style that Noam is most comfortable with.
The vocabulary is challenging. I struggled to understand terms such as Syntactic Structures, Phonological, Generative Grammar,
Anaphoric Relations, Logical Form, Deep Structures, Generative Semantics,
and Sociolinguistics, just to name a
few. To be fair though, my Spellchecker
app took a look at that list, and said it was familiar with all of them.
As you’d expect in a scholarly
presentation, there are a bunch of footnotes.
The numerical ones reference
the cited writings and can be ignored unless you want to find and read the original
papers. The alphabetic
ones give further discussion of the topic, and/or the translating challenges
encountered. Those are definitely worth
your time.
I enjoyed learning the history
of universities gradually adding Linguistics graduate classes to their
curriculum. Noam Chomsky apparently was a key catalyst in that endeavor. The “Politics” chapter might
seem to be off-topic, but it gives readers new to Noam Chomsky a glimpse at
what to expect in his many books on that subject. And it was fun to see just how much debate
can be generated in trying to understand the “Deep”
in the phrase “Deep Structures”.
Ratings…
Amazon:
4.5/5
based on 307 ratings and 28 reviews.
Goodreads: 3.81/5 based on 1,074
ratings and 60 reviews.
Excerpts...
Noam Chomsky: These empiricist hypotheses have very little
plausibility, in my opinion, it does not seem possible to account for the
development of commonsense understanding of the physical and social world, or
science, in terms of processes of induction, generalization, abstraction, and
so on. There is no such direct path from
data that are given to intelligible theories. (pg. 69)
Noam Chomsky: Many structural languages and many philosophers—Quine,
for example—claimed that grammar concepts must be defined on the basis of
scientific notions. For example, that
the concept of phoneme must be defined in terms of synonymy . . .
Mitsou Ronat: Which means saying
that r and l are different phonemes because ramp and lamp don’t have the
same meaning . . .
Noam Chomsky: Yes, that’s one example. (pg.
136)
Kindle Details…
Language
and Responsibility is half of a two-book Kindle bundle titled On Language, which Amazon describes as “some of Noam Chomsky’s most informal and highly
accessible work.” I will read
and review each book separately. The
e-book bundle costs $14.99 right now. ANAICT Language and Responsibility is
not available separately in e-book format, so the Ratings given above are for
the bundle.
Colorless green
ideas sleep furiously. (pg.
137)
Needless to say, there aren’t
any cusswords or R-rated stuff in Language and
Responsibility. There were a
number of typos, mostly involving spacing or punctuation, but these looked like
they occurred at the Publishing stage.
I found the writing style
somewhat vague. Time and again Chomsky expresses
his disagreement with tenets put forth by other linguists. That’s okay, but he doesn’t provide any
specifics, and, like most readers, I’m not familiar with the other linguists’ work
and am not motivated to read their treatises just to confirm Chomsky’s
critiques.
But the big problem I had with
the book was its rationales, and it is best exemplified by noting a phrase
which occurs ten times in the text: “a priori”. Which
means, and I quote, “knowledge, reasoning, or
assumptions formed independently of experience, observation, or
experimentation. It relies on logic, deduction, and intuition to determine
truths before investigating the facts”.
In other words, conclusions
are presented as valid without any examples or facts needed, as long as you can formulate a logical argument. Noam Chomsky has a
low regard for Empiricism. See the first
excerpt, above, for proof of this. I’m a
scientist by trade, which means I’m an empiricist, which means I have a high
esteem of empiricism.
Despite those drawbacks, I liked Language and Responsibility.
I’ve read and enjoyed several books about the history of the English
language, but the truth is I know little or nothing about the mechanics of Linguistics. I’m hoping I just picked the wrong Noam
Chomsky book to start with, as I have two more sitting on my Kindle.
6 Stars. One last thing. The book’s “Introduction” section notes that the text was subjected to two translations. It started in English (1976), was translated into French (1977), and then for whatever reason was translated back into English (1979). You’d think that means the text ended up back in its original form, but apparently that wasn’t the case. Sheesh.






