Talk:Noam Chomsky

Normal and 'Ab'-Normal Sentences

Linguists, who were problematizing the boundary between “normal” well-formed language (Chomskian position) and 'abnormal' speaking/writing following Foucauldian path may question, 'How do we know the differences between 'norm'-al way of speaking and 'ab'-normal way of speaking?' Cartesian Linguistics analyzed the algorithm of so-called 'normal' 'well-formed' sentences only. This very construction of 'natural/normal language' (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences) mercilessly marginalizes the language of so-called non-'natural' madness or folly. How do linguist tribe distinguish between error (khyati) and non-error (akhyati), when they are talking about 'normal' and 'natural' language? Well-formed syntagms are used as examples in the Chomskian syntactic analysis. There was no scope for discursive paradigmatic recurrences.

Chomsky and [Artificial Intelligence]

The one of the problems of Chomsky is that he is involuntarily perceiving creative speaking/hearing subjects’ corporeal as machine. The one of the basic tenets in Chomsky’s discourse, due to its Cartesian inheritance, is to consider human body as a machine, thus Chomskian syntactic enterprise had become a part of the [anatomo-bio-political project] a la [Foucault]. It is a case of minimization, approximation, optimization, appropriation of human body, when Chomsky and his fellowmen (like Lasnik, Berwick) deployed technocratic metaphors (e.g., the terms like “Computation", “array” “interface”, “parser" etc. on the other hand, operations like “COMMAND”, “SATISFY”, “SPELL OUT”. All these operations reflect the metonymic transformation of creative speaking subject as all these functions in uppercase letter made the author remember Schank’s [1975] language-free representations [PROPEL, MOVE, INGEST or CONTROL, PART etc.], which combine primitive conceptual roles and categories.) for explaining a part of cognitive domain, that is a “physical organ”: LAD. These were not metaphors or case of displacement only, but was a case of metonymic condensation of human body as these technical [metaphor]s condense the scope of human (linguistic) potentiality. Does human body follow binary mechanical algorithm only at the moment of speaking? Do humans not have extra-/non-algorithmic cognitive ability? (The point is that Cognitive Domain is not algorithmic only.) The discourse that Chomskians are using is fully algocentric (a discourse that is motivated by meta-mathematical formalism or computational algorithmic simulation guided by the technical rationality, ignoring the non-algorithmic constitutive rules) in its 'nature'. Chomsky as if wants to build up a [Turing Machine] for solving each linguistic problem without solving the halting problem of the machine. Chomsky’s parametric approach is “computer-friendly” as language was now perceived as a network of interlocking principles and parsing as linear steps. A parser would supply, in the same manner of [Searle]’s [Chinese Room Puzzle], “yes/no answers” to the question: “Is this sentence grammatical/acceptable?”. One can switch over from one parameter to another to manage a specific language like a machine (This is a Leibnizian Turn in Chomskian Theory; he is switching over from Cartesian Cogito to [Monad] - Universal of all universals - Monad of all monads - Principle of parameters) In fact, the language is not only governed by either procedural or parametric principles, but there are constitutive non-formal principles. COLOPHON: The author of this 'talk' is thankful to Prof. N. Chomsky as he answered all these questions with patience and promised to drop the term “computation” from the technical vocabulary of syntax as he wrote, “On the use of computers as a metaphor, I actually rare do, and I’ve been pretty explicit in warning that the metaphor isn’t to be taken too seriously. Like any metaphor, if it helps clarify thought and stimulates imagination, fine; if it leads to error, as this one constantly has, then drop it.” (personal correspondence, 13/2/1995).

Nick Cohen as a source of criticism

Nick Cohen is a respected, prominent British journalist and author with impeccable full spectrum lefty credentials - as well as being economically left, he's feminist, implacably anti-fascist and almost as anti-religion as Hitchens. Granted, in global terms he's not quite up there with the top tier political commentators. But then the big boys arent going to bother wasting time with someone like Chomsky - as a linguist he's of the first rank, as a political analyst he' not even tenth rate. Granted he gets plenty of popular attention, as ironically over the last 50 years he's been by a large margin the most effective ally of the very sort of folk you'd expect him to be against -the most selfish sorts of conservatives. Cohen covers this rather well, and I'll talk about just one example.

Though still a teenager too young to understand how the world works, as soon as he heard about the bomb being dropped on Japan - Chomsky came up with some half baked theory that it wasn't just a war crime, it was totally unnecessary as Japan was beaten and about to surrender and that the bomb was a ploy to scare Russia into yielding to US pressure. In reality, by the late stages of WWII, the US had chosen Russia as their preferred partner for post WWII global political reform. (Remember US had tried to push an anti-colonial, self determination agenda at Versailles after intervening in WWI, but was frustrated by the tactics of Britain and France.) It may seem hard to believe now, but during WWII the American media used to affectionately refer to Stalin as 'Uncle Joe'. By founding the UN with Russia as the principle partner, America was going to push for once again for self -determination and prosperity for all. As the plan was revealed to the American public in 43 & 44 with speeches, articles & books like One world, it was massively popular. As fighting draw to a close, against the strong advice of Churchill, the US made tactical decisions in the EMEA theatre that helped Russia occupy more territory. Once Japan surrendered, the US exerted next to no pressure against Russia, not taking advantage of their nuclear supremacy at all. Communists were even allowed to keep control to places where they had very little claim (for example, North Korea, even though theyd only declared war on Japan and moved communist troops there a few days before Japan surrendered). It was only when Stalin started his hostile anti western rhetoric and later sanctioned the totally unprovoked invasion of S Korea that the US started to become seriously anti communist. Despite all these events, and despite evidence coming to light that Japan had the morale and resources to fight on for years if it hadnt been bombed, Chomsky refused to retract.

As Cohen records, Chomsky's done this again and again over the decades. Always banging on about some evil conspiracy by the West, not having the wit to realise he's actually helping the selfish elite, by effectively making good faith naive leftie distrust government so much they effectively team up with neoliberals. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

??? 205.250.103.104 (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Chomsky ought to have a criticism section. --121.217.16.162 (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Japan had, in fact, made moves to negotiate a surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. What you say is incorrect; the war there would have ended without the dropping of the bombs and their dropping wasn't the decisive factor in the Japanese surrendering. If I remember correctly, their one condition was that the emperor should retain his position. The Americans demanded absolute surrender, as they had in Europe, but then retained the emperor anyway. What you refer to as Chomsky's half-baked theory is widely held.

What you say about Churchill wanting to prolong the war in Europe is incorrect. The insistence on German absolute surrender, which prolonged the war in Europe, was American and announced without consulting Churchill, who was forced to go along with it publicly despite thinking it wrong.

The significant turning point in ending the naive American policy towards Stalin and the Soviet Union was the death of Roosevelt, whose policy it was.

The US moved away from Wilson's 14-points policies when the Republicans won the 1920 presidential election.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender? "I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.' We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

   Speech in the House of Commons, after taking office as Prime Minister (13 May 1940) This has often been misquoted in the form: "I have nothing to offer but blood, sweat and tears ..."
   The Official Report, House of Commons (5th Series), 13 May 1940, vol. 360, c. 1502. If this isn't unconditional surrender, what is? PS Nick Cohen is many things but respected isn't one of them.Keith-264 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew

The original Hebrew pronunciation of "Noam" should be given. As it is, we only get the English spelling version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.84.63 (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? We don't give the Hebrew pronunciation of David on David Cameron; why should we treat this article any differently?

Other

Typo on page for linguist: I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science", "rationality," "logic," and so on. Wcrlewis (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)wcrlewis, 10/16/2012 10PM CDT

Possibly Lewis could speak more clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.146.232 (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Universal Grammar Debate with Everett

There is no information about the Universal Grammar debate Chomsky had with Daniel Everett, though you find it in the article about Daniel Everett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spadarabdon (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2012

Please remove his brief appearance in a student produced music video from the summary of his life. Thanks. 176.10.223.92 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done per request, as this content is not appropriate for the lead section of the article. If someone sees fit to add the statement to a lower section, I will not object. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2012

Add the following to the list of interviews with Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky on Where Artificial Intelligence Went Wrong. The Atlantic. Interviewed by Yarden Katz http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/?single_page=true

Interview concerning artificial intelligence and neurosciences. 18.4.1.76 (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST 13 December 2012

THERE IS A TYPO IN THE ARTCILE DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN READ THEM BEFORE YOU LOCK THEM?

WHERE HE BECAME FACULTY PRESIDENT

NOT

WHERE HE BEGAN FACULTY PRESIDENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.45.198 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. If you promise to type in sentence case, never post the same thing three times in a row, and check for typos in you own typing ("artcile"?), I'll thank you again ;) . Rivertorch (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Religious views

Chomsky states that he can't call himself an atheist because he doesn't know what he's being asked to deny. Such views are described by the term ignosticism, or igtheism, and are opposed to all the other -isms, so I think the term used on the page should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.19.193.53 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Has Chomsky ever used the term "ignosticism"? This term is rarely used in academic literature and I think that we should stick to more established concepts unless Chomsky self-identifies as an "ignosticist." --David Ludwig (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Father of modern linguistics"

This would only be true for North America (at least among anglophone countries), as he has had little influence in Europe or Australia. The lead greatly exaggerates his impact unless we're restricting ourselves to the US/Canada, which is not appropriate for WP. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite true I think, even though functionalist linguistics is stronger outside of the US, but generativism has been the mirror against which functionalism has developed both in the US and outside of it since the 1960s. I also think it is factually incorrect to call him father of modern linguistics since this is obviously Saussure, but since some people have clearly called him that saying so is not exaggerating.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kwamikagami. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We'd also need a source to say his influence in linguistics is limited to the US.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

His linguistic theories makes absurd predictions.

The nativism called "universal grammar" actually predicts that adaptation to different languages should, by natural selection, have produced groups of humans genetically incapable of learning foreign languages. That racist prediction have been conclusively disproved in lots of studies. Avoiding falsifiability by avoiding extrapolation of theories to their logical extremes is not scientific at all. Furthermore, there is no way to explain why a vast range of redundant linguistic capacities obviously not needed to build a complex language (no language uses the whole worldwide range and some languages only use a very small fraction of it) should have evolved in the first place. This is explained in more detail on the pages "Brain" and "Origin of language" (and to some extent "Piraha"), all on Pure science Wiki, a wiki devoted to the pure scientific method unaffected by academic obsession with status and prestige. 95.209.8.118 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg