Talk:Noam Chomsky

Normal and 'Ab'-Normal Sentences

Linguists, who were problematizing the boundary between “normal” well-formed language (Chomskian position) and 'abnormal' speaking/writing following Foucauldian path may question, 'How do we know the differences between 'norm'-al way of speaking and 'ab'-normal way of speaking?' Cartesian Linguistics analyzed the algorithm of so-called 'normal' 'well-formed' sentences only. This very construction of 'natural/normal language' (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences) mercilessly marginalizes the language of so-called non-'natural' madness or folly. How do linguist tribe distinguish between error (khyati) and non-error (akhyati), when they are talking about 'normal' and 'natural' language? Well-formed syntagms are used as examples in the Chomskian syntactic analysis. There was no scope for discursive paradigmatic recurrences.

Chomsky and [Artificial Intelligence]

The one of the problems of Chomsky is that he is involuntarily perceiving creative speaking/hearing subjects’ corporeal as machine. The one of the basic tenets in Chomsky’s discourse, due to its Cartesian inheritance, is to consider human body as a machine, thus Chomskian syntactic enterprise had become a part of the [anatomo-bio-political project] a la [Foucault]. It is a case of minimization, approximation, optimization, appropriation of human body, when Chomsky and his fellowmen (like Lasnik, Berwick) deployed technocratic metaphors (e.g., the terms like “Computation", “array” “interface”, “parser" etc. on the other hand, operations like “COMMAND”, “SATISFY”, “SPELL OUT”. All these operations reflect the metonymic transformation of creative speaking subject as all these functions in uppercase letter made the author remember Schank’s [1975] language-free representations [PROPEL, MOVE, INGEST or CONTROL, PART etc.], which combine primitive conceptual roles and categories.) for explaining a part of cognitive domain, that is a “physical organ”: LAD. These were not metaphors or case of displacement only, but was a case of metonymic condensation of human body as these technical [metaphor]s condense the scope of human (linguistic) potentiality. Does human body follow binary mechanical algorithm only at the moment of speaking? Do humans not have extra-/non-algorithmic cognitive ability? (The point is that Cognitive Domain is not algorithmic only.) The discourse that Chomskians are using is fully algocentric (a discourse that is motivated by meta-mathematical formalism or computational algorithmic simulation guided by the technical rationality, ignoring the non-algorithmic constitutive rules) in its 'nature'. Chomsky as if wants to build up a [Turing Machine] for solving each linguistic problem without solving the halting problem of the machine. Chomsky’s parametric approach is “computer-friendly” as language was now perceived as a network of interlocking principles and parsing as linear steps. A parser would supply, in the same manner of [Searle]’s [Chinese Room Puzzle], “yes/no answers” to the question: “Is this sentence grammatical/acceptable?”. One can switch over from one parameter to another to manage a specific language like a machine (This is a Leibnizian Turn in Chomskian Theory; he is switching over from Cartesian Cogito to [Monad] - Universal of all universals - Monad of all monads - Principle of parameters) In fact, the language is not only governed by either procedural or parametric principles, but there are constitutive non-formal principles. COLOPHON: The author of this 'talk' is thankful to Prof. N. Chomsky as he answered all these questions with patience and promised to drop the term “computation” from the technical vocabulary of syntax as he wrote, “On the use of computers as a metaphor, I actually rare do, and I’ve been pretty explicit in warning that the metaphor isn’t to be taken too seriously. Like any metaphor, if it helps clarify thought and stimulates imagination, fine; if it leads to error, as this one constantly has, then drop it.” (personal correspondence, 13/2/1995).

EDIT REQUEST 13 December 2012

THERE IS A TYPO IN THE ARTCILE DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN READ THEM BEFORE YOU LOCK THEM?

WHERE HE BECAME FACULTY PRESIDENT

NOT

WHERE HE BEGAN FACULTY PRESIDENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.45.198 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. If you promise to type in sentence case, never post the same thing three times in a row, and check for typos in you own typing ("artcile"?), I'll thank you again ;) . Rivertorch (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The timeline for his early years has major problems with some of his achievements occurring four years before his birth and becoming a teacher at age four. I don't know the correct info, but I do know this isn't it.

Religious views

Chomsky states that he can't call himself an atheist because he doesn't know what he's being asked to deny. Such views are described by the term ignosticism, or igtheism, and are opposed to all the other -isms, so I think the term used on the page should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.19.193.53 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Has Chomsky ever used the term "ignosticism"? This term is rarely used in academic literature and I think that we should stick to more established concepts unless Chomsky self-identifies as an "ignosticist." --David Ludwig (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Father of modern linguistics"

This would only be true for North America (at least among anglophone countries), as he has had little influence in Europe or Australia. The lead greatly exaggerates his impact unless we're restricting ourselves to the US/Canada, which is not appropriate for WP. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite true I think, even though functionalist linguistics is stronger outside of the US, but generativism has been the mirror against which functionalism has developed both in the US and outside of it since the 1960s. I also think it is factually incorrect to call him father of modern linguistics since this is obviously Saussure, but since some people have clearly called him that saying so is not exaggerating.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kwamikagami. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We'd also need a source to say his influence in linguistics is limited to the US.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

he has had little influence in Europe or Australia? Well well. Offhand I don't know about Australia, but try looking at a collection of linguistics books published by Cambridge UP, (British) Oxford University Press, Longman, Benjamins, Mouton De Gruyter, (pre-Wiley) Blackwell, etc. Or choose the linguistics departments of some European universities and look through their lists of profs. I don't think that you'll find "little influence". -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

His linguistic theories makes absurd predictions.

The nativism called "universal grammar" actually predicts that adaptation to different languages should, by natural selection, have produced groups of humans genetically incapable of learning foreign languages. That racist prediction have been conclusively disproved in lots of studies. Avoiding falsifiability by avoiding extrapolation of theories to their logical extremes is not scientific at all. Furthermore, there is no way to explain why a vast range of redundant linguistic capacities obviously not needed to build a complex language (no language uses the whole worldwide range and some languages only use a very small fraction of it) should have evolved in the first place. This is explained in more detail on the pages "Brain" and "Origin of language" (and to some extent "Piraha"), all on Pure science Wiki, a wiki devoted to the pure scientific method unaffected by academic obsession with status and prestige. 95.209.8.118 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

Total worth

Chomsky's total worth has been estimated at anything from $2,000,000 to $10,000,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackWhiteSea-snake (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Critical Commentary

Hello. I came to the Chomsky page because I had hoped to find some discussion or pointers to the many and increasing controversies over his ideas. I was disappointed to find a hagiographic entry, rather than the critical and analytic one I'd expected. Is it that none of Chomsky's critics have contributed to this entry, or is it that his fans purge the page of any negative comments? Whatever the answer, I believe this entry is incomplete to the point of being misleading. Regards. 180.200.187.31 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard for articles in general is WP:NPOV and for living persons in particular WP:BLP. To find criticism and analysis of Chomsky's ideas in Wikipedia there would have to be a criticism page about that specifically. It would not go in this biographical page in any case. JamesPaulWhite (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2013

Hi Nick, this is a minor request but could you add Bill Hicks the comedian to people influenced by Noam Chomsky please? Bill stated many times how his comedy was basically 'Chomsky with knob gags'.

Thanks Matt.

91.125.222.185 (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not Nick, but please provide a reliable source for the claim that Chomsky influenced Hicks. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading and POV Language on "Postmodernism"

"Chomsky sees science as a straightforward search for explanation, and rejects the views of it as a catalog of facts or mechanical explanations. In this light, the majority of his contributions to science have been frameworks and hypotheses, rather than "discoveries". "

" As such, he considers certain so-called post-structuralist or postmodern critiques of logic and reason to be nonsensical "

The second sentence does not logically follow from the first. "As such" seems to imply that postmodernism consists or claims to consist of "discoveries" about science itself as a general category. Nothing in the prior sentence indicates why postmodernism should be related to the natural sciences at all! Most postmodern texts are obviously about literature, history, the humanities and social sciences.

Furthermore, no documentation, logical argumentation, or empirical evidence taken any postmodern texts is provided to back up the claim that postmodernism is a "critique of logic and reason". In order to show this is objectively the case, evidence would have to be provided.

The sentence should indicate that the idea that "postmodernism" and is "opposed" to "logic" and "science" is a highly POV position. There are many scholars in science and analytic philosophy who do not agree (see, for example, Ian Hacking). The article, in order to be neutral and objective, should indicate that the opposition between "science" and "poststructuralism" is not in any way an established fact based on impartial and impersonal evaluation of "postmodern" texts and their relation to the exact science.

What Chomsky is saying is that the complexity and obscurity of postmodern texts AMOUNTS to a rejection or repudiation of scholarly standards of scientific inquiry, verifiability, communicability, clarity, etc.

This is POV.

Although some critiques of postmodernism along these lines (as being "anti-science") might have some validity (see, for example, the work of Bruno Latour, who later apologized for his highly relativist positions about science), the article uncritically and simplistically reproduces the cliché that post-modernism somehow "opposes" science. This is POV. There are many postmodern thinkers. Foucault, for example, totally accepts the rational foundation of the natural sciences, and he is considered one of the major figures of postmodernism.

From my POV, the work of Deleuze and Foucault is clearly compatible with modern views of science, and does not in any way "oppose" them (whatever that might mean). In the absence of any readings or citations or examples or arguments from postmodern texts, the wording here is clearly POV. The person who wrote this sentence was perhaps biased in favor of Chomsky's position, but 1001 references from scholars who oppose this position could be provided.

Thus, I propose that the sentence should read:

' Chomsky believes that "postmodernism" and "poststructuralism" are distinct groups or movements which oppose "science" "logic" and "reason" '

I also think that the sentence should indicate that--while Chomsky says he has tried to read some of these texts--he is not particularly knowledgeable about postmodernism, and his position is not based on scholarly evaluation of the relevant texts. At best, it is an opinion based on personal experience.

The problem is that, because many people are partial to this characterization of postmodernism as 'anti-truth' or 'anti-science', people tend to discuss postmodernism as if it is a kind of political movement or school. It is not. It is a general label meant to tie together a large group of thinkers. This becomes problematic, because people can make very general, sweeping, misleading statements about postmodernism that are often highly misleading and pejorative. To say that an academic 'opposes' logic is another way of saying that they are wrong, unreasonable, or a charlatan.

Given the influence of postmodernism on queer theory, feminism, critical race theory, gender studies, etc. (all of which are forms of political inquiry), it is not hard to see how people who oppose or are uncomfortable with these movements would try to deprive them of their theoretical support. Thus, people characterize these kinds of inquiry as saying that 'everything is subjective' and all knowledge is a 'social construction' reflective of a particular 'position' based on one's race, class, gender, etc. What people are saying here is that politicized inquiries into identity AMOUNT to a rejection of objectivity and logic, a highly POV claim that has never been proved.

I recognize some people editing this page, being partial to Chomsky's views, might believe that "postmodernism" is a "critique" of logic or reason, and would thus be inclined to keep this sentence intact. I have never been able to find a postmodern text that explicitly "opposes" logic or reason. If someone can provide a reference to any statement or sentence by, for example, Derrida that actually explicitly says that logic and reason are false or illusory, then I would be convinced. I have read a bunch of books by Derrida and have never found anything in them that says anything like this. The same goes for Foucault, Deleuze, and others. Although I have read books that claim this (like Sokal & Bricmont), their arguments are not accepted by the majority of scholars familiar with postmodernism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gss289 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Distortion of history and so called anti-semitism

The article states "Being Jewish, Chomsky faced anti-semitism as a child, particularly from the Irish and German communities living in Philadelphia; he recalls German "beer parties" celebrating the fall of Paris to the Nazis." I realize that most wikipedia writers knowledge of history is woefully inadequate and the propaganda of the 1940's is repeated constantly in the media to this day, but since wikipedia does claim to be an encyclopedia, effort should be made at reporting history truthfully.

In September 1939 Great Britain and France declared war on Germany. Germany had not declared war on either of these countries. Britain was sending troops across the English Channel in their preparations to attack Germany and Germany finally attacked France in May 1940, defeated France in 6 weeks and threw the British invaders into the sea. I think it was natural for Germans to celebrate their victory over the invaders (including Germans in the USA) and I see nothing anti-semitic about it. Furthermore, the fact that many Jews were pushing their governments to attack Germany (the evidence is indisputable), including in France, is evidence of anti-German hatred, not anti-semitism.Pgg804 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement is reliably sourced, and significant in the context of Chomsky's personal and political development. If you want to argue that what Chomsky, like most of the rest od f us, calls antisemitism, was nothing of the kind, but rather an understandable German response to Jewish hostility and agitation, then you should find a blog to do so, not Wikipedia. And even if you do, this would not be an acceptable source for such a POV and tendentious edit. RolandR (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement is meaningless. Germans celebrating a victory over a country that attacked them does not constitute anti-semitism. Also, I don't think what you call "anti-semitism" can be prescribed to "most of the rest od f us." You're taking your opinion and claiming that most people share it. This is the place for such a discussion when its used as part of an article.

I think a good argument could be made that the statement is an example of anti-German hatred when you claim that a country defending itself and then celebrating its victory is somehow an example of anti-semitism. Of course after the Israelis brutally murdered 1,400 Palestinians in the 2007-2008 massacre at Gaza some people of your sort began talking about Arab anti-semitism so Jews could escape criticism.Pgg804 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Who are "people of my sort"? And what do Israel's actions in Gaza have to do with any of this?RolandR (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Lunch with the FT

Lunch with the FT: Noam Chomsky

LudicrousTripe (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)