Thanks for providing a handy reference point, but oy! Streisand is the epitomy, a model, a prototype of a lounge singer: pretentious, over emoting interpreter of kitschy, sentimental pop tunes that Broadway geniuses turn out by the dozen for the petty bourgeois audiences. Even Jimmy Webb's MacArthur Park was above that. Trash is trash, I'm afraid. Compare to Dusty Springfield of the same era, or to early Dionne Warwick. Or compare to the male Barbra Robert Goulet of Feelings and similar torch operas!
I can't discuss linguistics, but as I said, a reference point is a pretty good indicator nevertheless.
Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were brilliant politicians. That doesn't mean they are worthy of respect. Nor does it mean that there political philosophies were correct.
The transformational grammar started by Chomsky is an exercise in mental gymnastics. His postulate, the univeral grammar, is totally unprovable.
Let me give you an example. Let's suppose we say that the deep structure of the number 25 is 4. So how do we start with 4 and get to 25? By applying the rules of our grammar, the transformation, to 4. So what is the transformation rule? You coud add 21 to 4. Or you could multiply by 7 and subtract 3. Or could just add 1 to it until you get to 25. Or you could add 100 and keep subtracting 1 until you get to 25.
Any of these "transformations" to 4 will yield 25. But does that prove that the deep structure of 25 is 4? And which rule is the correct one?
The entire edifice of Chomskian linguistics is built on nothing more substantial than his personal whim and the entire field of American linguistics has been duped.