01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 |
Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that's where the light is. It has no other choice.Humboldt and the Cartesian Tradition There is a remarkable consistency to Chomsky's political work. His fundamental values have remained virtually unchanged since childhood. He has supported and looked for ways to nourish the libertarian and creative character of the human being, and has sought the company of those who share his commitment to do so. Once one becomes familiar with the basic impulses that guide Chomsky and, to a certain extent, the others who populate the broad milieu to which he has contributed and from which he has taken it becomes possible to predict the approach that he will take to a particular issue, if not the substance of his response. The same cannot, of course, be said of Chomsky's linguistic work. In this domain, Chomsky has distinguished himself by moving forward in his research on the basis of new data. Nevertheless, much of what has come to be considered Chomsky's major contribution to the field he produced quite early in his career: Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew, his 1956 paper with Halle and Lukoff, his (unpublished) 1959 Texas-conference paper on contemporary generative phonology, and the linguistic parts of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Linguistic research has since been deemed a scientific area of study, and has been enriched by new insights into the nature of speech and language. But this innovation owes a great deal to Chomsky, who had the courage to reconceive the implications of what he had learned in the academy.
|
|
Journal of Symbolic Logic (with search engine) The Mathematics of Sentence Structure |
The details of Chomsky's early contribution to the field are complex,
and have caused much confusion among historians (especially linguistic
historians), particularly when it comes to the relationship between
his early work and other work undertaken in the field. This confusion
may be somewhat alleviated if we consider that except for "Systems of
Syntactic Analysis," his 1953 article on procedural-constructional
approaches that appeared in the Journal of Symbolic Logic,
virtually all of Chomsky's work is a rejection of the
Bloomfield-Harris school, particularly in terms of his emphasis on the
generativity of human language and the tenet that any theory of
grammar must account for the speaker's ability to understand sentences
that he or she hears for the first time. This is not to suggest that
there is in Chomsky's work an emphasis on the often-mentioned
"distinction" between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences; in
fact, as Chomsky points out, in Logical Structure and
Syntactic Structures "there is no such bifurcation: there
are just varying degrees of grammaticalness." Every expression "falls
among them somewhere and there is no special two-way split" (27 June
1995). In the area of discovery procedures, another frequently
discussed issue is that "a linguistic theory should not be identified
with a manual of useful procedures, nor should it be expected to
provide mechanical procedures for the discovery of grammars"
(Syntactic Structures 55n6). The aim, instead, becomes to
develop a grammar that is able to generate sentences, just as the
speaker of a language is able to produce a virtually infinite number
of sentences using the finite number of words and grammatical rules
known to him or her.
|
