Noam Chomsky: Fake Linguist

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'?

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.

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:

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:

"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."

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.

Dear people,

On his blog of Amritas.com at http://www.amritas.com/030322.htm#03182325 , this article's author, Marc Miyake, came up with a linguistic argument concerning Noam Chomsky's deep structures. It has a lot of strange symbols on it that pertain to linguistics.

Above that (meaning later in the day), at http://www.amritas.com/030322.htm#03202136 , he also posted the following remarks:

"Toren Smith of The Safety Valve read my 'Carnie-val' entry [the one with the strange symbols --ultimate_robber_baron] and sent me this letter:

" 'Good god almighty.

" 'Haven't these people ever heard of "Occam's Razor"...?

" 'Talk about circumnavigating the globe to see what's behind you.'

"Actually, Toren, the Chomskyans have heard of Occam's Razor (which can be described as the 'keep it simple principle'*). In fact, ironically the appeal of Chomskyanism lies in its 'elegance' (note the quotes). The term has a special meaning for them that makes little sense to lesser mortals like me. Chomsky's pupil Carnie describes his theory of VSO (verb-subject-object) languages as "elegant" (2002: 200). Chomskyans delight in transforming the 'surface' diversity of languages into a simplistic unity that cannot be perceived by the senses. Deep down inside (though none can ever verify this with their eyes or ears), all languages are the same. But are they? Or is this just a lazy way of avoiding the complexity of reality by retreating into an imaginary world?** [See the ** note on the bottom --ultimate_robber_baron]

"At least those who circumnavigate the globe are still on this planet. Chomskyans take a road out of this world and into another realm that only they can see through the blinders of their faith - a realm that has little to do with what is actually behind language. Unfortunately, their journeys to utopia (a place that doesn't exist) are expensive, and we taxpayers are footing the bill. People have based their entire careers on SIEs (silent, invisible entities). They are not about to let anyone deflate their ballooning empires of hot air. Moreover, many outside the field take them seriously. Hence the hostility aimed at me here and elsewhere.

"One commenter, Joyce Milton, author of The Road to Malpsychia, wrote:

" 'I loved this piece [my "Pariah against a Prophet"]. But in fact, some professors have indeed posited the existence of an inborn "universal religion." This is humanistic psychology, a strain of the currently popular evolutionary biology approach. Abe Maslow called this "universal religion" the "religion of human nature." Its content is roughly equivalent to left-wing, 60s-style progressivism, with "inclusivity" being the highest value that trumps all others. Spirituality is relegated to the private sphere (New Age nostrums) while social values are defined by "revolutionary" social science. See my book The Road to Malpsychia. Miyake's critique that this ivory tower parochialism masquerading under the banner of universality is right on the money.'

"I have not read her book and cannot judge its claims. And praise from a non-linguist may not mean much. Still, does it really take a professional to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes? 'Sorry, kid. Come back when you have a degree.' 'But ... but ...!'

" *or as "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". Translation and explanation at Skepdic.com.

" **I am not denying the possibility of universal principles of language. The search for such principles long predates Chomsky. The question is whether Chomskyan methodology helps or hinders the quest for universals. Chomskyans may ask good questions, but their a priori, anti-data approach prevents them from finding answers grounded in reality."

So that's Miyake's latest word on this. What do you think?

Dear everyone,

This debate has spilled over onto a sixth website. (The first five are: this site, Marc Miyake's, Front Page Magazine, "Gene Expression," and Lucianne.com .)

Anyway, a blog titled Insolvent Republic of Blogistan by one Justin Slotman at http://slotman.blogspot.com/ has been following this debate as well. It says:

"I DO SO LOVE THE BLOGS: So I love the Jason Malloy response to a Marc Miyake article [Jason Malloy is the 'Gene Expression' guy I mentioned earlier --ultimate_robber_baron], and when I go to Amritas [Marc Miyake's website] to get a follow-up I don't get one but I do get further criticism of the Scientist-Gnome [nickname for Noam Chomsky]. I'm not informed enough by a long ways to judge how right either guy is; Marc is clearly deep in the Chomsky hate, but he can back up what he says with actual linguistic knowledge -- which impresses me, anyway. But I do think Chomsky is going to wind up being closer to the Freud of his field than the Darwin; you know, paradigm-altering, dead wrong about a lot of things, and ceaselessly entertaining. (Chomsky not so entertaining to me as Freud, but others find him entertaining, I understand.) Not someone they keep going back to years after the fact like biologists still do with Chuck Darwin."

I don't know if Justin Slotman is here right now, but if he is, I'd like to tell him that I like his coverage. =)

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.