Skip to main content

Creativity, Linguistics, and the Skinner–Chomsky Controversy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Models of the Human in Twentieth-Century Linguistic Theories
  • 344 Accesses

Abstract

In Keywords, Raymond Williams makes a distinction between an older and a modern definition of the word ‘create’. Before the onset of Humanism in the Renaissance period, this word was related to ‘the sense of something having been made, and thus to a past event’ and mainly used ‘in the precise context of the original divine creation of the world: creation itself, and creature, have the same root stem’ (Williams, 1976/1983, p. 82). He points out that it was not until the sixteenth century that human creation in the form of poetic imagination became part of the meaning, as exemplified by the sixteenth-century Italian poet Torquato Tasso’s statement: ‘There are two creators, God and the poet’. In fact the word ‘creative’ was coined in the eighteenth century and denotes ‘a faculty’ which is associated with art and thought (Williams, 1976/1983, p. 83). This shift from certain divine influences to the human faculty has also much to do with the general movement of Romanticism in that same century which gives rise to ideas such as self-expression, group-belonging (romantic nationalism), the aesthetics of mundane ordinary life, indeterminacy and unpredictability of human existence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Joseph (2003), Chomsky’s 1962 paper exists in four published versions, Chomsky (1962, 1964a, 1964b, 1964c), yet they all agree on the above quotation.

  2. 2.

    Instead of regarding Chomsky’s identifying and thus following a ‘Cartesian’ tradition in linguistic research as a merit, Hans Aarsleff (1970) strongly criticizes Chomsky’s distortion of linguistic history to his own advantage. One point made by Aarsleff was that instead of being ‘Cartesian’, the history of linguistics from 1660 to the Romantics was in fact dominated by Lockean thoughts.

  3. 3.

    According to Palmer (2006), MacCorquodale (1970) is almost never cited outside the field of behavior analysis. Chomsky himself chose to respond in a footnote in Chomsky (1973, p. 24) and dismissed most of the critiques: ‘The article is useful, once errors are eliminated, in revealing the bankruptcy of the operant conditioning approach to the study of verbal behaviour’.

References

  • Aarsleff, H. (1970). The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky. Language, 46(3), 570–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, J. (1991). Skinner and Chomsky 30 years later. Or: The return of the repressed. The Behavior Analyst, 14(1), 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: W.W. Norton & Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1980). Review of skinner. In N. Block (Ed.), Readings in philosophy of psychology (Vol. I, pp. 48–66). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1962). The logical basis of linguistic theory (pp. 509–574). In Preprints of papers from the 9th International congress of linguists. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1964a). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1964b). The logical basis of linguistic theory. In H. Lunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th international congress of linguists (pp. 914–978). The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1964c). The logical basis of linguistic theory. In J. A. Fodor & J. J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 211–245). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2009). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1973). Psychology and ideology. Cognition, 1, 11–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, J. (2003). Rethinking linguistic creativity. In H. Davis & T. J. Taylor (Eds.), Rethinking linguistics (pp. 121–150). London: Routledge Curzon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, J. (2010). Chomsky’s atavistic revolution (with a little help from his enemies). In D. A. Kibbee (Ed.), Chomskyan (R)evolutions (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koerner, E. F. K. (2004). Essays in the history of linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1973, February 8). Deep language. The New York review of books, 20(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of skinner’s verbal behavior. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(1), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGilvray, J. A. (2009). Introduction. In N. Chomsky (Ed.), Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. C. (2006). On Chomsky’s appraisal of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: A half century of misunderstanding. The Behavior Analyst, 29(2), 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, G. (1979). Liberty and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1972). Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. The New York review of books, 18(12), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1976).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zhou, F. (2020). Creativity, Linguistics, and the Skinner–Chomsky Controversy. In: Models of the Human in Twentieth-Century Linguistic Theories. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1255-1_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics