Replies

Dear everyone,

It turns out that the blog Lucianne.Com at http://66.216.98.120/threads2.asp?artnum=21198 posted a link to this article on Front Page Magazine's Monday 3/17/03 edition. With the link I provided in this particular post, you should be able to see some comments that that blog's users have made about this same article. Here's a sample (I'm presenting them out of order; in the original version, there's a whole string of praise for this article and then a whole string of criticism):

I was an English major and had to study Chomsky, all of which I promptly forgot because I never use it in my job.
--merrijane

Chomsky is an old, bitter man. Many of his best pupils have deserted him through the years. Pretty much, when he dies, generative grammar will go the way of the dodo--to be replaced by a much more data-friendly approach to linguistics.
--Det. Charles Nichols

One great academic fallacy has been exploded so far since 9/11: the idea that those from the West are not equipped to study the East (the issues around "Orientalism").

Time to explode the second sham: Chomsky is a fraud.

How something as unscientific as this ever made it to the mainstream beats me.

I had no clue that his theories were THIS bogus! Good grief, this is laughable!
--mswest

This is an appallingly argued article. The author IMO deliberately obfuscates two of Chomsky's most prominent theories: universal grammar and X-bar theory. If he really does have a PhD in linguistics, he really should know better. He may not agree with with Chomsky's ideas - Chomsky himself admits that his linguistic thinking is ''still in progress,'' but this nasty, misguided and unsuccessful (IMO) attempt to refute Chomsky's notion of generative grammar is unsound and unfair because it deliberately misrepresents and misinterprets his key ideas. This isn't scholarship, it's propaganda.
--pirippi [Reply #6 at Lucianne.com]

[Reponset to pirippi:]
No, it's right on the money, #6. The I'm-deeper-than-you crowd of leftist academics merely needed to create a new language to "prove" to themselves they're worthy of their positions. And the inevitable listless college groupies dig it.
--6Gun

Reply #6 [pirippi's] may be right. I don't know anything about Chomsky, but I was exposed to transformational grammar or whatever it was called in my 2nd-year NT Greek course via Richard Young's INTERMEDIATE GRAMMAR and my teacher, who had literally outlined nearly his entire Greek New Testament with a razor pen (and stuck-in sheets of paper) along linguistic lines (propositions, etc.). The ideas of surface structure and deep structures made some sense and helped us analyze the text and think about the MEANING of what was being written, and ponder whether the choice of surface structure (i.e., finite verbs vs. participles, etc.) was significant. I don't know Chomsky's role in this -- but the ideas seem valid. And this article is a nasty piece of shouting, and not a reasoned intellectual refutation of Chomsky.
--eweiss

Why all this uproar about an eccentric America hating loudmouth? I make the motion to his becoming a nonperson meaning unworthy of newsprint or media exposure.
--doubting thomas

Chomsky's politics get attention because of his credentials as a linguist -- whatever that is. It would appear that Chomsky's theories are due for some serious review. I liked the analogy of Soviet universities blinded by Marxism and US universities equally clouded by "Chomskyanism".
--Newtsche

I really know nothing about this stuff, but it seems to me the author weakens his case when he says he cannot obtain full employment in his field and blames it on Chomsky.
--dekko

Back in junior high school in the late 70's, I was yanked out of an english class taught by a guy who claimed there was no need to teach 8th graders grammar, they knew it all from birth. Now I see where that stupid idea had its origins.
--tisHimself

Agree # 6 [pirri's criticism of this article]. However, I'm inclined to think the article's author is attempting to make himself a reputation. Like the unknown cowboy in B westerns, he's challanging the fastest gun in linguistic science to a shootout, and will certainly die. I may not agree with some of Chomsky's political stands, but it's evident to me that he has an outstanding intellect, and has pegged the state of American journalism correctly.
--ppater

His [Noam Chomsky's] linguistic ideas are basically this: what I say is too complicated for you to understand, just know that I am right and no one can contradict me. His political ideas follow a similar Soviet indoctrination.
--shermacman

Take a look at the article and click on the link to the Chomskybot. It is hilarious.
--eschakabeebonk

Reading that article and this thread I am now convinced that "linguistics" is a way to rename "con man" in order to get a six-figure salary and a tenured professorship at MIT.
--amereagle

Again, you can see these comments at http://66.216.98.120/threads2.asp?artnum=21198

All of those responses came from Monday.

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?