Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:36:57.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Current trends in Chomsky

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

When the editor first suggested that it might be useful to have a short, article introducing some of Noam Chomsky’s ideas, I agreed, and was about to begin when John Lyons’ book appeared and made the exercise rather redundant. His introduction is unquestionably the most lucid and coherent account of Chomsky’s linguistic work that we have, and I thought it would be pointless to write at that time an article which would in effect be little more than a paraphrase of its topic sentences. There are, however, a few things that might be said about recent trends, not dealt with by Lyons, which are needed in order to complete an outline understanding of the contemporary scene in generative linguistics; also a few critical comments, from someone a mite less sympathetic to the Chomskyan approach than Lyons is, might be helpful to anyone wanting to reach an evaluation of this field. Hence the following remarks. But first, some background, and a review of what Lyons does say.

It is quite remarkable how Chomsky’s name has become a vogue word in intellectual circles. He is known about, sometimes, even when his discipline, linguistics, is not. To an academic linguist, of course, this can be embarrassing. I suppose it is always the way when a teenage discipline catches everyone’s attention through a famous practitioner: one does not know whether to be grateful, because of the publicity to the subject, or furious, because of the over-simplification and polemic which publicity invariably brings. In Chomsky’s case, in this country, the popular awareness of the man dates from the mid-sixties. I recall talking to a number of puzzled academics, in the spring of 1969, who could not understand why anyone should have queued in the rain to hear someone speak at Oxford, or queue without getting in at University College London, that same year. In common-rooms at that time, everyone seemed to be claiming his work to have particular significance to them—psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, educationalists, biologists—even, sometimes, linguists.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Chomsky, Fontana Modern Masters, 1970. 120 pp. 30pGoogle Scholar.

1 Ironically, the situation is now reversed, and workers from other fields may find themselves labelled linguists without warning, merely because of an interest in language: witness the series of lectures given to the Institute of Contemporary Arts in 1970, and published under the title Linguistics at Large. Only six of the fourteen lecturers were professional linguists; the remainder belonged to disciplines with a far more ancient and acceptably‐labelled family tree than linguistics is able to show.

1 This use of the term ‘rule’ is not to be identified with the particular ‘rules of correctness’, which are a regular part of popular discussion of language.