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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 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.
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.
Andresen, J. (1991). Skinner and Chomsky 30 years later. Or: The return of the repressed. The Behavior Analyst, 14(1), 49–60.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: W.W. Norton & Co..
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.
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).
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.
Chomsky, N. (1964a). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
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.
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.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2009). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1966).
Chomsky, N. (1973). Psychology and ideology. Cognition, 1, 11–46.
Joseph, J. (2003). Rethinking linguistic creativity. In H. Davis & T. J. Taylor (Eds.), Rethinking linguistics (pp. 121–150). London: Routledge Curzon.
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.
Koerner, E. F. K. (2004). Essays in the history of linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Lakoff, G. (1973, February 8). Deep language. The New York review of books, 20(1).
MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of skinner’s verbal behavior. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(1), 83–99.
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).
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.
Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. London: Routledge.
Sampson, G. (1979). Liberty and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1972). Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. The New York review of books, 18(12), 16–24.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1976).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1255-1_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-1254-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-1255-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)