tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post2721037807395963887..comments2024-03-26T03:22:12.899-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: The Tom Bartlett puzzleNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-16886062343616819122016-11-03T17:48:51.892-07:002016-11-03T17:48:51.892-07:00I think you can make an argument that rather than ...I think you can make an argument that rather than being some kind of consenting tool for the military-industrial hegemony, Chomsky has consistent made himself and his work as useless as possible to them:<br /><br />1. Original generative grammar was not formulated in a way to be directly useable as such in parsers. Rather, it was necessary to write 'inverse transformations' to get a workable parser. E.g. a Chomskian research result could not be plucked off the shelf and inserted into a surveillance system, even in plausible science fiction, but would require human crafting. Direct parsing of TGs was obviously a completely crazy thing to try to do, and everybody knew that.<br /><br />2. With the appearance of Conditions, he lost all apparent interest in direct and explicit formalization, in favor of more abstract ideas ("anybody can formalize", I think I recall). So the tools of the hegemony could not have been Chomsky, but rather, only the various 'alternative generative theorists', such as Gazdar, Pullum, Bresnan & Kaplan, Sag, the Categorial Grammarians, etc., some of whom were able to write parsers that ran directly off their grammars in the early 1980s. Meanwhile, the best you could do for GB was 'covering grammars'.<br /><br />3. Shortly after the late 80s, when some of the alternative generative theories could run toy grammars on ordinary PCs (one of the earliest being the Stuttgart LFG system), Chomsky moved even further away from utility to the machine, basing the Minimalist Program on some very abstract considerations of how the One Human Language works, which require, it seems to me, quite a lot of imagination and gap-filling to turn into a concrete analysis of anything at all (although the results are often very interesting, something that the fervent anti-Chomskyans should worry more about that the seem inclined to do).<br /><br />So, my conclusion is that Chomsky's theoretical activities in linguistics have been 100% consistent with his political views.AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-80416454388409504402016-11-01T23:43:30.948-07:002016-11-01T23:43:30.948-07:00Thanks to Kleanthes to alert this blog to my revie...Thanks to Kleanthes to alert this blog to my review of Knight's bizarre Decoding Chomsky. One certainly has to agree with Norbert in his assessment of 'People will ask and you should clearly state how stupid the Wolfe, TB, Knight stuff is. Not wrong, stupid!'. In Knight's case there however another dimension in that a supposedly reputable Yale University Press published his nonsense as an academic treatise. Are there intellectual commissars at work at Yale? WOLFGANG B. SPERLICHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08077249733069665944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-13247142003562773112016-11-01T21:50:21.674-07:002016-11-01T21:50:21.674-07:00On the note of Chris Knight and his misinterpretat...On the note of Chris Knight and his misinterpretation of Chomsky, here is a more critical take from linguist Wolfgang Sperlich, posted today:<br /><br />http://wolfgangsperlich.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/a-review-of-decoding-chomsky-2016-by.htmlKleantheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03156844640062752401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-12621760168382114132016-09-11T12:40:42.025-07:002016-09-11T12:40:42.025-07:00If anyone is interested in a more positive assessm...If anyone is interested in a more positive assessment of Chris Knight's book, 'Decoding Chomsky - Science and Revolutionary Politics' check out this review by the linguist, Bruce Nevin:<br /><br />'Understanding the Labyrinth: Noam Chomsky’s Science and Politics'<br />http://www.brooklynrail.org/2016/09/field-notes/understanding-the-labyrinth-noam-chomskys-science-and-politicsHedghoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09733495494645529724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-23259138118658297342016-09-05T04:09:38.812-07:002016-09-05T04:09:38.812-07:00Thanks for the link. I agree that the unifying thr...Thanks for the link. I agree that the unifying thread in Chomsky's work was already there very early, yet there were (and apparently still are) good reasons why he wouldn't make it very explicit: As you mention, this subtle connection has no bearing on the significance of Chomsky's contributions to either linguistics or politics/history. Hence, the possibility that people might construe Chomsky's continuing influence in both domains as an illicit trafficking of influence is, I think, one of the reasons why he has mostly denied any connection between both domains of inquiry until very recently. It is, after all, true that Chomsky himself is very careful in distinguishing what is amendable to scientific inquiry from what is not, yet it seems to me that this is something that might not be readily apprehended and/or appreciated by non-scientists (as well as people not familiar with his body of work). As it seems has happened in the case(s) discussed in your post, this subtle connection might be easily misconstrued for the sole purpose of "discrediting Chomsky."Patrick T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06765977287655192596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-16733789277323284482016-09-01T07:06:56.471-07:002016-09-01T07:06:56.471-07:00There are at least two Chomsky problems. The one t...There are at least two Chomsky problems. The one that you refer to is related to the one that TB worries about, but not that closely. That one has to do with whether there is a unifying thread through CHomsky's interests, and I believe you are right that there is one. It can be discerned very early actually as it is already detectable in Language and Mind (see here for some discussion: https://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.ca/2016/07/linguistic-creativity-2.html).<br />Your comments are, therefore, right to the point concerning this question. Of course, whether there is a unifying theme has no bearing, I don't think, on his claims made in either domain whereas TB and Wolfe are sure that there is illicit influence trafficking going on, and that is the second Chomsky Problem/puzzle that stems from Robinson, apparently. At any rate, I quite agree that there is a unifying thread though Chomsky is pretty careful to distinguish which aspects of that thread are amenable to scientific inquiry and which not. the L&M discussion is still quite relevant and truly excellent.Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-65626698038869845822016-09-01T04:11:30.307-07:002016-09-01T04:11:30.307-07:00I think there's also the fact that Chomsky has...I think there's also the fact that Chomsky has been professionally active a lot longer than many others who have had such "double" lives (Newton, Einstein, Russell). Einstein's professional life was pretty much over by the 20's, as was Russell's (both wrote quite a bit after that, but more as popularizers of philosophy and science, and in Russell's case, on sociopolitical issues).Utpalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18166651069703369369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-25798929777539134242016-09-01T03:26:18.670-07:002016-09-01T03:26:18.670-07:00Thanks, Norbert. This is truly great. A one-stop b...Thanks, Norbert. This is truly great. A one-stop blog post against the many ills of current science journalism about linguistics and anti-chomsky-mania.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16158719060560621682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-42727300472692761722016-09-01T01:10:59.685-07:002016-09-01T01:10:59.685-07:00It seems to me that part of the "Chomsky prob...It seems to me that part of the "Chomsky problem" might also arise from the fact that Chomsky has always denied any connection between the work of Chomsky the linguist and Chomsky the political commentator and historian (for good reasons, as such a connection could readily be misunderstood [and misused]). For the longest time, grasping the subtle connection between both strains of his work required an understanding of the history of the cognitive sciences and philosophy that most people simply lack. Only very recently has Chomsky himself conceded that there indeed exists a subtle connection between his work in linguistics and his politics, namely in his recent <i>What kind of creatures are we?</i> As the title of the book already gives away, the connection between both strains of inquiry is the joint interest in human nature: In linguistics Chomsky has sought to uncover the workings of the language faculty as a uniquely human property of the mind, whereas his politics are deeply influenced by Enlightenment principles, as well as the ideas and insights about human nature and the mind uncovered by the first cognitive revolution that took place in the seventeenth century. Once one realises this, Chomsky's linguistics and his other work go together rather neatly.Patrick T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06765977287655192596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-73835309038980461812016-08-31T09:58:50.652-07:002016-08-31T09:58:50.652-07:00Preach, Norby!Preach, Norby!Bob Ed Heidbrederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03951243728774340248noreply@blogger.com