Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

Rating:
Summary: Sure, I'll bite
Review: Choamsky's a smart guy. I agree with the sentiment that the current composite rating is unfairly affected by someone whose utterly unhelpful and unsupported review seems little more than an odd fit of pique. So let's cancel it out!

Rating:
Summary: Aspects is like space
Review: Hmmm. If I had to pin down in accurate one word to fit in my feelings towards this book for you said for to not to drink the drink I would admit that reasons for understanding how would you like a cinnamon biscuit thrown at your head were a little undervalued considering that jelly works in subtle and unegotiable ways.

Rating:
Summary: elegant
Review: I agree the one star review below is confusing, especially since, if this book is to be attacked, it should be on the basis of the ideas, not the organization. In fact, I think Chomsky's work represents some of the most concise, elegant, and well formulated academic writing I've ever come across; for that reason alone, this book is a classic in the genre. Of course there are certain assumptions on which his theory rests which have since been discredited, but this book is still influential, even within competing linguistic theories, and is very important from a historical perspective. Be forewarned, the text is extremely dense and slow going.

Rating:
Summary: Aspects is like space
Review: It's a little strange to find or place reviews of such a seminal and magisterial work on a commercial web site. Aspects (and Syntactic Structures) essentially created the intellectual space in which linguists have operated for almost half a century. Not reading Aspects is only possible in the way that not reading "Origin of Species" is. An interested reader can certainly learn the same stuff another way -- more easily, in fact -- but when you come to understand it, you will want to get to the source for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: The 60s Linguistics Nuclear-Bomb: Cannot be ignored.
Review: Joe from Providence.
I was a linguistics student when this book came out. Students and instructors alike were baffled, spent hours trying to understand it, and loved it or berated it. But no one could remain neutral about Chomsky's Theory of Syntax.
Many years after graduate courses in different linguistic grammars, I picked it up again, and it is a comparatively easy read for present or former lingusitics students.
The initial problem readers encountered was Chomsky's presupposition of a wide knowledge of all aspects of linguistics (and some major theories of learning behavior)-- he presupposes that you have grasped the sources that he either is reacting to or revising: What came before is what forced Chomsky to begin creating his theory of syntax. This is NOT like his later books: this IS syntax, the "technical kind." And that is partially what makes the book so important.

Regardless of your opinion or reaction to this book: NO ONE CAN IGNORE IT, or its effect on linguistics after its publication.

IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO READ 'WHAT SOMEONE SAYS CHOMSKY SAID.' Read the original.

Rating:
Summary: The final account
Review: This is the single most influential book in the cognitive sciences. Everybody in that field defines their position in relation to this book.

Has it stood the test of time?

The fundamental distinction in the book is between 'competence' and 'performance.' We can have a hard, mathematical and super precise science of competence, but not of performance. Performance, at the time this book was written, was a "mystery." Chomsky went on to claim that it would always be a mystery.

As it turns out, Chomsky's distinction (which is fairly isomorphic to Kant's position of "knowledge" and "faith," whether he knows it or not) has turned out wrong. Sociobiologists have basically made "Orwell's problem" (why do we know so little about such obvious stuff?) into a permanent fact of human nature. It is effectively the case that all societies have elites, they all have crime, and they all exercise violence to lesser or greater degrees. And if you read Chomsky's work in politics (all of which is in the realm of performance or Kantian faith) he comes out and says it: every state that has ever existed is run by gangsters.

What of the idea of 'competence'? It will probably last a long time, it may very well be the equivalent of mass in physics. But there are problems with it. Namely that it treats the person who applies it and is alive as though he or she is dead. It is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy that is derivate on the Universal self fulfilling prophecy and tries to usurp the Universal's power. My guess is that it is like Freud's Oedipus. It has overwhelming heuristic and pragmatic value, but no ontological power.

(What is it with these Jews? They come up with the best ideas!)