Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought

Chomsky argues that a rationalist tradition in the study of language—running from Descartes through the Port-Royal grammarians to Wilhelm von Humboldt—anticipated the core insights of transformational generative grammar. He claims this tradition recognized language's infinite creativity, the distinction between surface and deep structure, and the mind's innate faculties enabling language acquisition. The book rejects the assumption that these ideas are novel inventions of twentieth-century linguistics. It also implicitly criticizes empiricist theories of language and mind, which Chomsky believes dominated Anglophone philosophy and had obscured this rationalist heritage . The book was largely ignored and denounced when first published in 1966, partly because it contained untranslated quotations and partly because of its trenchant criticisms of empiricism .

The most devastating critique came from Hans Aarsleff of Princeton University, whose 1970 paper "The History of Linguistics and Professor Chomsky" argued that Chomsky's version of history was "fundamentally false" . Aarsleff demonstrated that the term "Cartesian" has no historical justification for the linguistic theory in the Port-Royal Grammar, and that Locke—not Descartes—was the dominating force in linguistic thought from 1660 to the Romantics. He showed that Du Marsais was strongly anti-Cartesian and pro-Lockean, and that Condillac's 1746 Essai, entirely Lockean, was the basic and most influential work in eighteenth-century linguistic theory. Aarsleff concluded that Chomsky's version of history was the product of "serious deficiencies in knowledge and research" .

In the Introduction to the original 1966 edition, Chomsky freely admitted that "the aptness of the term 'Cartesian Linguistics' ... may well be questioned on several grounds" . He acknowledged that the objections he raised against the use of the term for the subject matter under discussion were "quite pertinent" . This admission indicates that Chomsky himself recognized the historical label was problematic, even as he proceeded to use it as the organizing framework for the book. A 1969 review noted that if the term were considered merely a "définition de nom" for a general rationalist attitude toward fundamental linguistic problems, the objections might be less damaging—but this is precisely what his critics disputed .

The book's historical claims were "widely, and rightly, judged to be a radical failure," yet it paradoxically led to a sudden revival of interest in the history of linguistics . The very upswing in historical studies caused by Cartesian Linguistics ended up undermining Chomsky's thesis. As one scholarly assessment put it, the upswing in historical studies "ended up showing that the real pedigree belongs to Generative Semantics, developed by the same 'angry young men' Chomsky was so bent on destroying" . The book thus achieved the opposite of its intended effect: rather than securing Chomsky's position as the rightful heir of a rationalist tradition, it stimulated research that demonstrated the tradition was more Lockean and empiricist than Cartesian .

The book emerged at a moment of professional crisis for Chomsky. Having achieved supremacy in syntactic theory, he faced dissent from within generative grammar, led by students and colleagues who challenged his insistence on the radical autonomy of syntax . Chomsky saw these developments as "little less than treason" . A scholarly analysis argues that Cartesian Linguistics was Chomsky's attempt to shore up his position by "means of a historical pedigree" . The book thus functioned not merely as intellectual history but as a strategic intervention in a disciplinary dispute: by situating his program within a prestigious rationalist tradition, Chomsky sought to legitimize his theoretical commitments against internal rivals.

The third edition, published by Cambridge University Press in 2009, included a new introduction by James McGilvray and translated all the French and German quotations that had remained untranslated in the original . This addressed one of the primary reasons the first edition was ignored . The edition also contextualized the relationship between the original 1966 text and contemporary biolinguistic work . McGilvray's introduction focuses on the contrast between rationalist and empiricist approaches and discusses Chomsky's "rationalist-romantic" approach, emphasizing linguistic creativity and innate mental faculties . The new edition made the book more accessible to a larger audience while preserving its original arguments and historical claims.