Noam Chomsky: Fake Linguist

Right Wing News (blog of conservative John Hawkins) ^ | 2002 | Marc Miyake

[js1138]

Found this here:

The minimal condition the language condition must meet is what we can call the ‘interface condition’. The information it presents must be accessible to the external system. The question is: Is that also a maximal condition? That is, is the language faculty optimally constructed to satisfy that minimal condition? When you pursue this question, you’re pursuing the minimalist programme.

A few years ago it seemed hopelessly crazy, but now there’s already been enough work to indicate to a rather surprising extent that it may be correct that the language faculty is an optimal solution to the minimal conditions. It’s as if an engineer inserted a language faculty into a brain that didn’t have one and did it in an optimal way so that it would be accessible to the other systems.

And here:

Chomsky and Fodor's overt appeals to unlearnability should set off alarm bells for anyone who believes that human cognitive capabilities arose through evolution. If knowledge of sentence structure cannot develop in human beings, how could supposedly innate knowledge of Universal Grammar have come about through evolution? Chomsky openly doubts that it could have:

"It is sometimes argued that though knowledge might in principle be innate, it must nonetheless be grounded in experience through evolutionary history… there is no reason to require...that evolutionary adaptation play some special role. There is no reason to demand and little reason to suppose that genetically-determined properties result from specific selection—consider the case of the capacity to deal with properties of the number system...If there is, as I believe, good reason to construct [a theory of knowledge and belief] in terms of mentally represented cognitive structures...then it becomes a question of fact, not doctrine, to determine the character and origin of these structures. It is an open question what if any role experience or phylogenetic development may play." (Chomsky, 1980, pp. 99-100)

[stripes1776]

Chomsky was and is a brilliant linguist

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.

[AndyJackson]

I know of no Chomskian school of literary criticism, no transformational grammer of poetry

Actually in the late 1970's Leonard Bernstein based many of his ideas regarding the interpretation of music on Chomsky's theories.

[RightWhale]

Chomsky's linguistics is more math [set theory] than language. Of course, math is a language, but not widely spoken.

[lawdude]

"A girl I know said he was a cunning linguist..."

And I told her that it was because he fellouttaya.

[Allan]

Bump

[Mamzelle]

I have no idea of what you mean by "transformation" with those numbers, and probably don't care to figure it out. TG is simply a descriptive theory of grammar, sentence structure, as opposed to a theory of generating structure. It's neither difficult nor obfuscatory--though linguists make academic careers trying to make it so. Applying it helps to understand the sentences of obscure languages. I recall having to apply it to sentences in an African language called "Twi"--an interesting exercise. By using the constructs, I could figure out where the verbs and nouns and other parts of speech were without a dictionary to tell me the actual meaning. I'd say that was fairly brilliant on Chomsky's part.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I took Linguistics, and couldn't make head nor tales of Chomsky. I couldn't understand, either why he was required reading in Poli-Sci. Never put much faith in him in either of his "specialties". Now, I don't feel too badly to learn that his gobblygook, in language and politics, is torture for more than just me!

[js1138]

I'd say that was fairly brilliant on Chomsky's part.

My question is, has there been any real conceptual progress in the field in the last 40 years, or was this just one of those brilliant strokes that doesn't lead anywhere? I mean, what are all those linguists doing with their careers?

[ultimate_robber_baron]

On his website at http://www.amritas.com , Marc Miyake posted a follow-up about this:

"I want to make a couple of points clear to my first-time visitors:

"1. I am not a crank amateur. I have a PhD in linguistics and have taught linguistics at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa and the University of Oregon. I am currently a visiting assistant professor of linguistics at the University of Hawai'i at Hilo, where I teach introductory linguistics, morphology and syntax, and semantics. In the past I have also taught phonology, sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, and several specialized courses on the history and structure of East and Southeast Asian languages. I have presented at international linguistics conferences since 1995 and have been invited to be a member of a elite panel of Japanese language historians which will meet in Copenhagen this August. I have a book on the history of Japanese coming out from Routledge late this summer.

"2. I am not attacking Chomsky merely because of his politics, which have been attacked to death. I wrote the article mainly to dissuade non-Leftists from saying things like "His politics are wrong, but he is a brilliant linguist" (often presumably without ever having examined his theories for themselves). I am really sick of that caveat which I see from time to time in conservative and libertarian critiques of Chomsky.

"A Right-winger or libertarian espousing the same linguistic views would be equally wrong. If Noamuhammad became a Dubya cultist overnight, that still wouldn't change my stance on his theories. Moreover, many of the best arguments I have ever heard against Chomsky come from Leftist friends and colleagues who agree to varying degrees with Chomsky's politics. Although Eugene, Oregon (whose campus David Horowitz called a "disgrace") is hardly Rush Limbaugh-land, none of the linguists I knew there were Chomskyans. Besides, I loathed Chomskyan linguistics long before I ever heard of his political views (which added to my dislike of the man but were not the source of it). And I don't even think he's the worst Leftist alive. He hasn't killed anyone. He is not Stalin or even Pol Pot. Most importantly, rejecting scientific theories because of their advocates' political opinions is wrong. To cite a non-linguistic example, whether punctuated equilibrium is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether Stephen Jay Gould's Marxism was right or wrong.

"However, I should note that some think that Chomsky's politics and linguistics are really two sides of the same coin. I can't read Chomsky's mind, so I don't claim to know, but I did find Cinderella Bloggerfeller's theory intriguing:

" 'From what I've read, I think Chomsky's basic problem is the same whether it's his linguistics or his politics. He creates an a priori theory then he tries to makes the facts fit it

" 'Chomsky's politics and linguistics are similar too in that they are both extremely Anglocentric or "Americanocentric". From what I've read on your blog, Marc, Chomsky's language theory is almost exclusively based on English and ignores languages that are totally different. His political theories boil down to the statement: "The USA is responsible for all the evil in the world today." I can see the appeal of this "one solution fits all" approach. It certainly cuts down on the need for research. Now we need never investigate all those difficult foreign grammars and the complicated histories and politics of other nations. This might be an attractive attitude to those in search of a guru, but it doesn't impress me.'

"Or me. I would add that language is culture is history is politics. (Hence the political-historical-cultural-linguistic slant of this blog.) Chomskyans have not only relegated language into a mystical pseudoscience of invisible 'underlying' forms, but have also robbed language of its context. What is language without its past, without the society that used it, cultivated it, or in some cases, abandoned it? Give me the wealth of Sanskrit philology any day over sterile speculations about phantom pronouns.

"I agree with Cinderella Bloggerfeller's point about the Anglocentric appeal of Chomskyanism. Many Leftists are monoculturalists in multiculti clothing who think they appreciate other cultures but in fact impose their ignorant fantasies onto others (hence the myth of a pure Third World of noble savages contaminated by AmeriKKKa, etc.). Chomskyan linguistics is a junk science version of this, imposing English-like characteristics onto other languages in the name of 'human' language. Many pro-Chomskyans are either native English speakers or people who have mastered English as a second language. Chomskyanism feels 'right' to them since English is native to them and/or a language they value highly. (Anyone who says to me, "It works for English!" will get this answer back from me: "Oh yeah? It doesn't work for ...!") And such people are often wholly unaware of the diversity of human language (which is suppressed in Chomskyan classes that focus on English and, if you're lucky, a handful of European languages with a token non-European language like Japanese - this results in a highly imbalanced picture).

"But even the Chomskyan analysis of English is suspect. How do children learn invisible words and constructions that no one ever pronounces or writes - that never existed until Chomsky and his followers invented them? These invisible entities only 'exist' if you believe they exist.

"An emphasis on belief over empiricism makes Chomskyanism a religion rather than a science. Although I severely doubt this, future hard scientific investigations into the brain may prove Chomsky correct. But until then (= almost certainly never), Chomskyans come off as highly pretentious, thinking they know for a fact what cannot be known for a fact (yet). Their beliefs have become rigid dogmas that few linguistics students can afford to question. The emperor is nude, but if enough people respect him anyway, others who have never seen the emperor for themselves will assume that he is deserving of respect."

[ultimate_robber_baron]

Dear everybody,

this article is now on the Monday, March 17, 2003 edition of David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6689

It looks even more colorful over there.

[Yardstick]

*rebump*

This has been an excellent thread!

[eno_]

Anglocentrism could only be a flaw in Chomsky's theories if it were possible to come up with another, different, theoretical framework. Because Chomsky's theory is, fundamentally, that synthetic language tools are useful for explaining a number of things about human languages, it isn't really possible for there to be an alternative except in the details of the way these tools are applied. The tools themselves are equivalent to tools used to explain computability, and it is proven that there is no way to "step outside" any theoretical framework or notation system and arrive at different results about computability. The same holds true for linguistics.

Similarly, study of any other human languages in the world will lead you to the same place: either you can, or you can't, use the tools of computability theory in linguistics. There is no "third way."

Now Chomsky could be wrong and we may need something in addition to the computational power of the human brain to understand language. So Chomsky is very much in the "We are meat machines." camp. But apart from that fundamental departure point, there really isn't anything political about the way Chomsky changed linguistics.

[Mamzelle]

Since it led to a means of analysis, I'd say it was important enough those many years ago just for the practical tools it provided. Your point that he was a one-trick pony may well be taken. I've been reading some awfully silly polysyllabic natterings, some deliberately obfuscatory, on this thread. I doubt they could even be comprehended with grammar tree. We'd do well to keep in mind the old joke "Piled High and Deep." If something can't be explained without absurd flights of verbosity, likely there's nothing worthwhile to be learned. Maybe some calculus can be so arcane and still be useful, but not what I've seen here.

[js1138]

But apart from that fundamental departure point, there really isn't anything political about the way Chomsky changed linguistics.

Perhaps not political in the sense of left vs right, but Chompskian linguistics ignores most of what language does. It ignores connotation, inflection, double entendre, sarcasm, irony, humor, "poetry", misdirection. It also ignores meaning. There is no rule for how meaning is tokenized.

This would not be a problem if Chomsky had a follow-up research program, or if independent researchers were allowed to pursue these avenues, but Chomsky has destroyed the careers of many who have tried -- starting with Skinner. Perhaps Skinner was wrong in his approach, but after he was shot down, no one had the courage to challenge Chomsky.

That is the politics of linguistics.

[Helms]

I wish Karl Popper were still living so he could theust Wittgensteins Poker" up the butt of this jerk.

[ez]

I still think Chomsky, and I only know what I read here about his "linguistics theory", is searching for a mystical, ethereal explanation for the obvious.

People DO form different languages from the same "deep structures"...neuro-synaptic electrical activity.

It stands to reason that basics like grammar would have a common construction in the same way that the physical structures of our mouthsand throats dictates the common range of sounds that we can produce.

[eno_]

Well I certainly won't defend Chomsky against accusations he is vain or a vicious practictioner of academic politics. But the fact remains: Either you can, or you can't, describe the mechanisms of language using the same tools used in computability.

Before Chomsky, linguistics was groping for various squishy answers that one could argue about indefinitely. He put the basic question on the table: Can you describe what is going on in ways that is rigorous, predictive, and provably universal and equivalent to all other possible notations and system, or not?