[angkor]

I studied structural linguistics (Chomsky) and other aspects of structuralism in college. Personally, I thought it was very interesting, though I'd certainly agree that structuralism is not "provable," in precisely the way Miyake describes above.

However that doesn't mean that it's not thought provoking or even useful as a way of thinking about the world, in the same manner as philosophy or cultural anthropology.

Yet in the end there is zero relationship between Chomskian linguistics, and the superficial and demented trash he brings to the world of politics.

It's kind of humorous that Miyake is really proposing there's a "deep structure" in the mind of Chomsky. What it is we do not know.

[eno_]

Chomsky is basically theory of computability applied to linguistics. Take a compiler course, or read about typographical number theory, and it's the same thing.

Chomsky contribution was a basis of rigor in an unrigorous field. Even if his theoretical framework is wrong, he can hardly be accused of a soft-headed PC approach to his field.

I took his graduate seminar as an undergrad, and I can confirm that if I didn't know who Chomsky was, I would have had no idea about his politics based on the content of the seminar.

I have also read one of his political books, which was as rambling and self-indulgent as his seminar was focused. If he had been obsessed with, say, vitamin C, he would be just another genius with a cranky streak.