Language and Mind

Description

I'm a scientist with a background in (analytic) philosophy, and am used to technical writing and complex ideas; I picked up this book on John Searle's recommendation in an article in the New York Review of Books. I don't know what Searle was thinking; I found these lectures impenetrable.Chomsky's examples are far from illuminating and get bogged down in details -- examples of phonological or syntactical transformations involve piles upon piles of poorly introduced material, and it's frustrating to get a page and a half through some dense presentation only to discover that he then invokes some principle you've never heard of and he doesn't explain. It's claimed that these lectures are for a "general" audience, which I think must mean "a general audience of linguists".I came out the other end with barely more understanding of Chomsky's linguistics than I did coming in -- after many hours of trying to parse his rather tortured prose.I do not recommend this book to someone outside linguistics trying to get a feel for things like universal grammar and innate structures. There is some interesting material (on things like innate knowledge and the history of philosophy) that isn't compromised by Chomsky's poor sense of audience -- but it's not particularly well organized, and I'm sure there must be better coverage elsewhere, in or out of Chomsky's oeuvre.