Posted on 03/15/2003 4:29:32 AM PST by ultimate_robber_baron
Pariah Against A Prophet By Marc Miyake, Amritas.Com Many conservatives regard Chomsky as a linguist who falters out of his field. Unfortunately, they are giving Chomsky too much credit. Chomsky's linguistics are as warped as his politics. As someone with a PhD in linguistics, I think I am qualified to judge his professional credentials. Prior to Chomsky, linguists engaged in a lot of data collection to understand the diversity of human language. I'm vehemently anti-PC, but in this case, I think the word 'diversity' is justified. There's a lot out there, and someone's got to catalog it. However, Chomsky rejected this approach. He wanted to look into something 'deeper' (academese for 'pretentious and nonexistent'). So he invented something called 'universal grammar' which is somehow programmed into us at birth. Now it is obvious to anyone who's studied a foreign language that there is no such thing as 'universal grammar': there are a lot of differences between any two languages' structures. How does Chomsky account for these differences? He claims that we formulate 'deep structures' in our heads using 'universal grammar'. Then we use 'transformations' to change these (invisible, nonexistent) 'deep structures' into 'surface structures' (which are what we actually say and write). There are innumerable problems with this. For starters: 1. Where did this 'universal grammar' come from, and how did it end up becoming part of our biology? Not many Chomskyans are interested in evolutionary biology. 'Universal grammar' simply IS. (I myself suspect that there may be a universal grammar sans scare quotes, but I doubt that it has much in common with Chomskyan 'universal grammar'.) 2. How can we see this 'universal grammar' and 'deep structures' if they are hidden behind 'transformations'? 3. How can we see the 'transformations'? 4. How can any child learn the 'transformations' (which are extremely complex and often counterintuitive, even to university graduate students in linguistics)? Since no one can see 'universal grammar', 'deep structures', or 'transformations', one can imagine ANYTHING and create a maze of rules to convert ghost forms into what is actually being said and written. The Chomskyan approach to grammar is oddly English-like, even though many languages are UNlike English. This has absurd but dangerous consquences: 1. As a friend of mine pointed out, Chomsky, the enemy of "AmeriKKKa", is actually an ethnocentric advocate of imposing an English-like structure on all of the languages of the world. Imagine if some professor said that there was a 'universal religion' programmed into us at birth. What if this person were, say, Buddhist? How would he explain the diversity of faiths around the world? He would say that all deities are 'transformations' of the 'underlying Buddha', all religious codes (e.g., the Ten Commandments, Sharia) are 'transformations' of the 'underlying dharma (Buddhist law)', etc. But, you then ask, how could a Muslim knowing nothing of Buddhism be an 'underlying Buddhist'? The professor would answer: 'Underlying religion' just IS. Ridiculous? But that's how Chomskyans approach language. 2. This (let's be frank) *junk science* is very convenient for lazy academics who do not want to do real research but want to appear 'profound'. Chomskyans compete to create 'deep structures' that are the furthest from reality and the most complex 'transformations' possible. Never mind that neither of these non-entities can be depicted or tested except in a circular manner: "This transformation Z exists because it is needed to change deep structure X to surface structure Y. Deep structure X exists because if you take surface structure Y and undo transformation Z, you can see X underneath." I know of NO hard science (e.g., neurological) evidence for any of this. But the jargon sure looks impressive. This site parodies Chomskyan obscurantist writing by generating unreadable prose worthy of the master himself: http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl 3. The combination of junk science and junk politics has made Chomsky an attractive - and unstoppable - juggernaut in the academic world. Academics - mostly left-wing to begin with - agree with his politics and assume his linguistics are as 'good'. Linguists who reject the Chomskyan paradigm such as myself are often either marginalized or shut out of the profession entirely. And not a few of Chomsky's linguistic opponents agree with his politics, I'd bet. I am the only linguist I know of who rejects both. The late Nicholas Poppe, a Soviet emigre who was a master of Oriental linguistics, had this to say about Chomskyan linguistics in the US (_Reminiscences_, p. 207): "Unfortunately, _true_ academic freedom, freedom to adhere to a scholarly theory of one's own choice, is often lacking in American universities, and scholars who do not comply with currently fashionable theories have little chance at a university. This makes an American university somewhat like a Soviet university: in the Soviet Union it is Marxism, in the United States it is, say, a currently obligatory method in linguistics." Poppe does not specify what the "current obligatory method" of lingustics was. It was, and is Chomskyanism. Edublogger Joanne Jacobs was forced to learn it - and she hated it: http://www.joannejacobs.com/ ... "Structural linguistics was required for a degree in English at Stanford. I put it off till my last semester; finally I had to take the class. It consisted of uncritical worship of Noam Chomsky. I kept disrupting class by asking questions: Why do we believe this is true? Just because Chomsky says so? How do we know he's right? Why is this class required?" She asks precisely the right questions. Chomsky is not a scientist. He is a prophet who demands that people believe him. I call him 'Noamuhammad'. Since his claims cannot be proved, they have to be taken on faith. And too many place their faith in him. Jacobs took her course in the mid-70s. Little has changed in a quarter of a century. Chomskyanism has been the dominant paradigm in linguistics for nearly forty years, and its major competitors share some of its weaknesses. Even if Chomsky's own version of nonsense dies out, others will continue to pump out 'junk science' that contributes little or nothing to language learning, language teaching, or intercultural understanding. And peer review has done nothing to stop the cult of Noamuhammad. Like James Hudnall said: "Science in this day and age has become one big pimp act for government grants ... 'Peer review' is just another word for log rolling. It's as useful as what David Duke thinks of Mein Kampf." Our tax dollars are funding Chomskyanism. And linguists like me are paying the price in another way. I have been looking for a professorship in linguistics for four years with very little success - a semester here and a year there amidst countless rejections. I don't attack Chomsky in my cover letters, interviews, etc. but I don't pretend to worship him either. Exile from academia is my reward. Is Chomsky a double fraud in both science and politics? I honestly don't know. I have never met him and don't want to - the urge to verbally attack him is too strong. Maybe he really believes what he says in one or both fields. But in any case, Chomsky is a troublemaker on two fronts. He is like Lenin and Lysenko rolled into one. If you liked this editorial, you can read more of Marc's work at Amaravati: Abode Of Amritas.
So that's what's going on in an infant's brain when they are looking at their mother!
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.
Leni
I've been away all day and am a bit surprised to have gotten by with so few flames. I came upon Chomsky from the psychology/learning theory aspect rather than from the computer science or political aspect of his writings. this was about 35 years ago and I have not kept up with the details of his career.
It seemed to me that his assertion that aspects of language were built in to the brain was tautalogical -- of course there must be some underlying structural differences between humans, apes, and other animals -- else we could teach sign language or reading to dogs. The question is whether this assertion adds anything to our knowledge. It seems to me that transformational grammer has been kind of sterile in the realm of human language. I know of no school of psychology that uses any of his ideas in a teaching or therapy setting. I know of no Chomskian school of literary criticism, no transformational grammer of poetry.
The reason, I assume, is that grammer and syntax are rather trivial aspects on language that say nothing about the underlying motivation for talking in the first place. Is there, for example, a Chomskian method for analyzing a statement for its probable truthfulness or sincerity, or humorous intent, or double entendre? Is there a Chomskian analysis of inflection?
I see a parallel in Chomsky's approach to language and his approach to politics. I politics he believes that all human needs can be fulfilled by the application of rigorous logic (from above, of course). Individual will is messy and unnecessary. Emotions are nasty and need to be suppressed.
Chomsky won the battle, and Skinner was roundly chastized for oversimplifying, but Skinner's ideas are firmly embeded in Special education, most forms of therapy, and all the animal training seen in Hollywood movies. Both Chomsky's and Skinner's politics have a strong whiff of Stalinism about them, but both have contributed something to science.
There is some actual experimental support for Chomsky's assertion that Grammer is built in. People with certain kinds of brain injuries exhibit inability to form or understand some grammatical constructions. I believe there are some subtle gentetic "defects" that manifest themselves as inability to learn certain gramatic forms except by rote memorization. OK so far.
My problem is that people seldom use language to convey information. They speak in order to influence other people's behavior. This may involve conveying disinformation. disI am concerned with meaning and motivation. Our view of language has been warped by the invention of written language and printing. It's hard to realize that most verbatim transcripts of conversations are nearly unreadable, except those of highly trained broadcast professionals.
I will also stake my self esteem on the assertion that there no little transformational engines in the brain, and that the structures and processes that produce language are not "logical" or "rational".
You haven't missed anything - careerwise, he hasn't done anything worthwhile in forty years. Actually, I once heard it suggested that his problem was premature success - he came right out of the gate with theories on universal grammars, generative grammmars, transformational grammars, and ever since, has been really struggling to duplicate that sort of early success. And so his politics have gradually become more and more outrageous (stupid, if you ask me) in an attempt to keep himself in the public eye. He's done nothing of note in linguistics since the early Sixties - it's all politics keeping the spotlight on him nowadays.
Does his work tell us anything new about human nature? Probably not, but it does tell us useful things about the nature of languages. Now, if you want flames, try praising his semi-retarded political theories. ;)
Formal languages, perhaps, but human language does not lend itself easily to formal analysis-- and that is the problem confronting AI. Premature success? Probably. A lot of folks in the mid 20th century, including his nemisis Skinner, thought they were closing in on the psychological theory of everything.
Personally, I'd say the problem is a bit more of a meta-problem than that. IMO, it's a mistake to simply try to rebuild the human mind in silicon, as though that were the only sort of intelligence possible. Like I said, I don't think anyone's really adequately framed the problem - they've spent 40 years asking the wrong questions.
A lot of folks in the mid 20th century, including his nemisis Skinner, thought they were closing in on the psychological theory of everything.
A lot of folks still seem to think that, only now it's done under the rubric of "evolutionary psychobiology" and the like. It's fun, it's interesting, and it's almost 100% purely speculative. Actually, it's a lot like linguistics in that respect ;)
Well, then, I'm afraid you're talking to one! I love the musicals of the forties, fifties, and sixties. But please don't let BS talk in public without a scriptwriter.
I'm a bit over my head int the computer science end of this discussion, but I think Chomsky proved that any language comprised of tokens and syntax is equivalent to any other such language.
But applying this to human language requires omitting much of what language is about.
What Skinner tried to do (and apparently failed) is describe how meaning is tokenized. Rather than start with syntax, he tried to describe the function of language, or why it is we talk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.