What do you think of the current stage of Generative Grammar as an approach to the Galilean challenge? Is there any need for a qualitative leap forward such as those from Transformational Grammar to GB and then to the MP?

Chomsky: Contemporary work addresses only part of the challenge: the task of accounting for the uniquely human capacity to create an unbounded array of structured expressions interpreted as thoughts, and the means by which they are externalized (in actual fact, very rarely).  But the other part of the challenge has to do with the use of this capacity: what’s been called “the creative aspect of language use” – repeat, “use.” That is, the ability to use language in a manner that we may be “incited and inclined” to do by circumstances, though we are not “compelled” and might do otherwise — the ability to use language in ways that are appropriate to circumstances, but not caused by them, a fundamental distinction.  These were the among the primary concerns that led Descartes to postulate a second substance, res cogitans.  Sometimes commentators now quote Humboldt’s aphorism about language involving “infinite use of finite means” – usually overlooking the fact that he was talking about use.  This gap in understanding is of course not specific to the study of language.  Virtually nothing is understood about voluntary action even in far simpler cases, like the decision to lift your finger, matters often not properly recognized.

For the specific and sufficiently awesome and significant task of accounting for the capacity to generate thoughts, the minimalist program seems to me to formulate the most far-reaching goals we can hope to attain, and in recent years, there has, I think, been substantial progress in establishing the plausibility of the “strong minimalist thesis,” an idea that seemed outlandish not long ago.  About 20 years ago I gave talks on language in Brasilia, organized by Lucia Lobato, which I think were published in Brazil at the time. In them, I speculated that we might discover someday that language is like a snowflake, that is, assuming its form by what amount to laws of nature in the simplest possible way.  To put it picturesquely, we may discover that language is “designed” to be beautiful but not usable – more prosaically, that it favors computational efficiency over communicative efficiency.  I think that by now we can provide interesting support for such speculations.  There are of course enormous challenges ahead, among them to show that the apparent variety and diversity of language is only superficial, having to do mostly with matters of externalization, that is, with the effort to interconnect two unrelated systems, true language (I-language) and the sensorimotor system (and of course arbitrary lexical choice).

Note: This question was kindly answered by Chomsky after a talk the gave to the Department of Linguistics of IEL/Unicamp, on September 4, 2018.