# Objections to Noam Chomsky's Linguistics **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 6, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335 "2005-09-06T14:10:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/1 "2005-09-06T14:10:17Z")
Inspired by the sub-discussion in this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=333451](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=333451). The impression I had of Noam Chomsky was that, while his politics are very controversial, especially given that he has very strong opinions, he was generally recognized as a very important person in the history of linguistics. He was mentioned when I took (part of) a computer science class about formal languages, and one of my colleagues who’s also doing a degree in linguistics told me that, in essence, when you study linguistics, the first thing you learn is that “Chomsky is God”. Now, reading the linked thread, it appears that not only his linguistics are also rather controversial, but also several people think that he’s little more than a pseudo-scientist. **Monty** seems to be the only person in this thread who likes Chomsky’s contributions to linguistics. And obviously, it can’t be just people who disagree with his politics who also think he’s not a good linguist: **Excalibre** and **Monty** ’s professor actually _like_ his politics, all the while thinking that his contribution to linguistics will be pretty minor. So there must be something there. Personally, this is the first time I hear about this. I checked his [Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky) (yes, I know that Wikipedia is not considered a good source around here, but I find that it is a good wat to find information on subjects that are not too controversial), and while it says that some people disagree with his conclusions, it seems to be more like friendly scientific disagreements. It doesn’t mention that he is considered by some to be a kook. So what I ask you is: what about it? What is Chomsky’s current status in the field of linguistics? Is he generally considered a pseudo-scientist, and if so, why? Please note that my linguistic background is not very extensive, I only took one introductory class. I guess I could find material about this on the Web, but given that some people here already brought the subject up, I might as well ask them, especially given that Chomsky’s politics being controversial, it might be harder to find critical material about his linguistics that are not coloured by his politics. Also, this being in GQ, I’m not looking for a debate. If we want to start debating “Noam Chomsky: Linguistic Luminary or Commie Crank”, GD might be the better place. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/2 "2005-09-06T14:27:56Z")
Stephen Pinker has quite a large section devoted to Chomsky in “The Language Instinct”. If I can remember the gist of it, it wen’t something like this: a) He’s a bully. He harrasses people who don’t agree with him without engaging in measured debate. b) He’s changed the actual content of his theories while keeping the same names when the evidence becomes overwhelming that he was wrong. This allows him to claim that he came up with an idea first because the name existed long before the idea. c) His ideas have a number of methodological and logical flaws in them. Keep in mind that Pinker is in the “other” camp so not all that he says is unbiased but, given my knowledge of the personality of those two, I would be inclined to trust Pinker’s judgement over Chomskys. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/3 "2005-09-06T14:28:54Z")
I thought that he was generally considered to be a self-serving fake and didn’t realise that anyone still took him seriously. [Here](http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/keith.htm) is another view of his linguistic “credentials”. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/4 "2005-09-06T14:31:08Z")
Addendum: [This Site](http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/pinker.htm) has a brief overview of the Pinker/Chomsky debate. Section 3.3 contains the meat of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/5 "2005-09-06T15:08:05Z")
Just for the record, Chomsky’s contributions to the theory of formal languages are not controversial at all. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/6 "2005-09-06T16:23:06Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Addendum: [This Site](http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/pinker.htm) has a brief overview of the Pinker/Chomsky debate. Section 3.3 contains the meat of the argument. Very interesting article. It claims that Chomsky and Pinker’s propositions for the evolution of language rely too heavily on “just so” hypotheses and specifically (in Pinker’s case) on notions of African Eve style “grammar mutants” and cascading generational copycats. As a side note I find this alternative explanation below fascinating, and more plausible. > [@](#): > > The motor theory of language evolution and function proposes as a universal principle that the structures of language (phonological, lexical and syntactic)were derived from and modelled on the pre-existing complex neural systems which had evolved for motor control, the control of bodily activity. Motor control at the neural level requires pre-set elementary units of action which can be integrated into more extended patterns of action - neural motor programs. These in turn have to be linked to and integrated with one another by ‘syntactic’ neural processes and structures. On this theory, given that speech is also essentially a motor activity, language made use of the elementary pre-set units of motor action to produce the equivalent phonological units (phonemic categories); the neural programs for individual words were constructed from the elementary units in the same way as motor programs for bodily action are formed from them (in both cases a neural program is formed in direct relation to the perceived structure of the external world); the syntactic processes and structures of language proper were modelled on the ‘syntactic’ rules of motor control. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/7 "2005-09-06T17:06:46Z")
It’s worth bearing in mind that linguistics is a social science and not a physical one, so in evaluating Chomsky’s theories and methods one shouldn’t look for laboratory results or expect the intricate mathematical underpinnings you would find in the work of, say, a physicist. I’m surprised to find that his work is falling into disfavor, but perhaps that is what happens when you become better known for your avocation than your vocation. While I was at UCLA he gave a lecture, and I nearly went, naively thinking I would be absorbing some of the linguistics-related insights of the man who wrote _Syntactic Structures_. I was oblivious of his political activities, and had no idea that if I’d gone, the lecture would have had nothing to do with syntax. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/8 "2005-09-06T17:16:38Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Just for the record, Chomsky’s contributions to the theory of formal languages are not controversial at all. I know little about this area, but my understanding would be that his formal language stuff is quite well-accepted. In more traditional linguistics circles, I wouldn’t call him a kook or a pseudoscientist; my own views of his theories are not terribly favorable because I don’t think they’re all that meaningful - they make few predictions and in my understanding of his work, it seems like most of it is not founded on much in the way of field research. My own personal opinion is that most of what he says about linguistics is vague and, when it comes to human language, irrelevant. His sort of structuralism was immensely popular in linguistics for awhile, but I think it’s slipping out of favor to some extent nowadays. I think a lot of the criticism of him that you’ll see in a lot of academic writings is more out of a backlash than a particular feeling that he’s a fraud or a lunatic. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/9 "2005-09-06T17:19:42Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Just for the record, Chomsky’s contributions to the theory of formal languages are not controversial at all. So to clarify, is the controversy solely about the evolution of language? I am also one who was unaware the Chomsky’s linguistic ideas were so controversial. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/10 "2005-09-06T17:20:54Z")
I did not see **Excalibre’s** post when I posted. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/11 "2005-09-06T19:00:25Z")
Have Chomsky’s ideas about deep structure / deep grammar been independently verified? See [here](http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/05/Testingfortheinvisible.shtml). ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/12 "2005-09-06T19:42:39Z")
(a) I only like some of his linguistics, by no means all. (b) Neither my professor nor I have asserted that the man’s contributions to linguitics was minor. My professor merely said that he liked the man’s politics but not his linguistics. ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/13 "2005-09-06T20:15:29Z")
I’ve got a linguistics degree, but somehow I don’t feel very qualified to answer this. Nevertheless, it seems as though Chomsky still has a certain amount of cachet among linguists even today. That said, is seems like most linguists will be quick to point out places where he was wrong or misguided. ---
**Author:** ![kellner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c2a13f/32.png) [@kellner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kellner)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/14 "2005-09-06T20:42:30Z")
Today few linguists would identify as Chomskyans but that doesn’t mean necessarily mean that he is seen as a crackpot. IMO it’s mostly because he stands for the state of the art of the sixties. There is a certain disproportion between his stardom and the current acceptance of his theories, but he had a tremendous influence at the time. Even if you think that he has been refuted, he is still one of the most influential linguists of all time. ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/15 "2005-09-06T20:47:48Z")
I had a professor who said he disliked both his linguistics and his politics. He said his dislike of his linguistics was not a result of his dislike of his politics (I should hope not), but that the problems he saw with both stemmed from more or less the same problem with his thinking. Some of the criticisms already given here seem to be what my professor was driving at, basically that he was speculative and lazy. This professor was most definitely anti-Chomsky and had a completely different way of doing syntax. ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/16 "2005-09-06T20:56:49Z")
> [@don't ask](#): > > I thought that he was generally considered to be a self-serving fake and didn’t realise that anyone still took him seriously. [Here](http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/keith.htm) is another view of his linguistic “credentials”. I was just reading this link here and was surprised to find the quote > [@Keith Windschuttle](#): > > This, in turn, is evidence for Chomsky’s well-known claim (popularized by his loyal follower Steven Pinker) that grammar is innate and that humans are biologically “hard-wired” for grammar. I don’t think Steven Pinker can be classified as “[Chomsky’s] loyal follower”. Indeed, that makes me think the author of the linked article has a bit of an ax to grind. (I mean beyond saying there are problems with Chomsky’s grammar and methodology.) ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/17 "2005-09-06T21:30:16Z")
Chomsky is like Freud: We thank them for directing us into thinking in a new different paradigm, but ignore the often wrong details. ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/18 "2005-09-06T22:29:39Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > Chomsky is like Freud: We thank them for directing us into thinking in a new different paradigm, but ignore the often wrong details. I had a slighly different comparison in mind when I read the OP. I am _not_ a linguist by a long shot, but I had to take the requisite linguistics courses in grad school for anthropology. My profs seemed to hold Chomsky in awe for creating a new, more robust paradigm, much as a biologist would think of Darwin, who jump-started our biological model. I’ve got no dog in this fight. I just regurgitated what was necessary for the exams. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/19 "2005-09-06T22:50:12Z")
Chomsky’s contribution to the field of linguistics is pretty darn substantial, but, even _coughcoughmumble_ years ago, when I was studying linguistics, there were others making contributions … some of which contradicted Chomsky’s. (Back in my day, it was Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar which was overturning bits of Chomsky’s transformational model. Times have no doubt changed.) It’s only to be expected; linguistics is not as “soft” a science as it’s sometimes made out - models of syntax can be (and are) subjected to rigorous analysis. It is hardly surprising that, in the forty-odd years since Chomsky revolutionized the field, others have done work which challenges some of his conclusions … if linguisticians _did_ believe that “Chomsky is God”, it’d be a poor lookout for the scientific study of language! Of course, Chomsky does have a reputation for having an abrasive personality and strong opinions … debate on his ideas does tend to get, well, heated. But it’s nowhere near as clear-cut as “Chomsky is God” vs “Chomsky is full of \*\*\*\*”. Chomsky proposed a model of how language works, which other linguisticians have examined, have built on … and have, at times, found wanting. This is how science is supposed to work, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335/20 "2005-09-07T00:29:08Z")
> [@kellner](#): > > Today few linguists would identify as Chomskyans but that doesn’t mean necessarily mean that he is seen as a crackpot. IMO it’s mostly because he stands for the state of the art of the sixties. There is a certain disproportion between his stardom and the current acceptance of his theories, but he had a tremendous influence at the time. Even if you think that he has been refuted, he is still one of the most influential linguists of all time. That’s what I was thinking; at one time his theories were extremely popular but I think there’s been a backlash as other theories have become more popular. No, he’s not a crackpot, but he could appear that way when ideas he abandoned years ago like “deep structure” are still touted as relevant linguistic theories. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objections-to-noam-chomskys-linguistics/320335.md?page=2)