[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.

[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.