Noam Chomsky on Language Reassessed

Sunday February 07, 2010 19:08

by John Cornford

Chris Knight examines Noam Chomsky’s ‘scientific’ fairy tales about language and its origins

Prof Chris Knight of the Radical Anthropology Group really sticks the boot into Chomsky. He weighs Chomskys credentials in the balance and finds then wanting. Full text at link.

Chomsky was about to deliver a lecture in Delhi. Setting aside the usual niceties, his host - a certain professor Agnihotri of Delhi University - introduced the visiting speaker with a challenge. He was bewildered that a person “so deeply touched by human suffering” could ignore the roots of both happiness and suffering in his scientific work. Noam Chomsky, continued the professor, insisted on viewing language as a “purely biological cognitive system” unconnected with “sociological power-games”. But isn’t language a key tool used by the powerful to deceive, exploit and oppress? How can Chomsky turn a blind eye to such things in his linguistic research?[8]

Many in that Delhi audience still seemed puzzled. Why was Chomsky so ambivalent? Was he, perhaps, holding something back? His two temptations seemed to pull him in opposite directions. He would invoke Rousseau, Marx and other great revolutionary thinkers as sources of political inspiration. Yet would any of these figures have shared his difficulties in connecting politics with science? Rousseau’s 1762 treatise, The social contract, was both scholarly and incendiary. Marx intended his Capital to change the world. Is science itself not revolutionary? Why should the pursuit of truth - scientific truth about language, for example - require different methods or pull in a different direction from the pursuit of social equality and justice?

save preference

Comments (6 of 6)

what's really impressive about Chomsky

by Pissing contest

Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:50

Is how humble he is and how he doesn't always try to engage in these pissing contests to show how great he is. He's always willing to entertain criticism. Thats special for an academic of his standing. Sorry to see that it's not such a common trait. Not even on indy comments sections.

Celia

by pat c

Mon Feb 08, 2010 19:29

In other writings by Chris Knight he certainly references Engels on Ape to Man. You can find more articles here: http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG_Home.html

Many of Chris Knights articles and books are available online at:
http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/publications/

Engels would have something to say about Chomsky too

by Celia S

Mon Feb 08, 2010 19:03

Great article. Chomsky is an enigma all right. Is his LAD theory not a case of 'biology making the argument for anarchism' i.e., without the imposition of society/the state/institutions etc., the human being would flourish - language is not learned, it is innate and we are all born with the full 'code' for perfect, and 'natural', language production - it is 'society' that imposes upon/restricts overall 'free' human development, and explains 'Orwell's Problem'. An asocial explanation too far methinks.

I am surprised that the article makes no reference to Engels' "The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" by way of explaining the role of social relations in the development/evolution of humankind and (by necessary extension), language.

Language and Freedom

by Mark C - None

Mon Feb 08, 2010 13:44

Let's also not forget Chomsky's great essay/talk on 'Language and Freedom' available in Chomsky on Anarchism or at the link below.

A PDF of the talk (with an introduction to it) is available here:
http://www.chomsky.info/books/state02.pdf

A audio of a related talk is available here:
http://www.almanews.unibo.it/04_05/chomeibl/video/chmsk...1.ram

Both Men of Principle

Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:42

I have not formed an opinion on this article but I admire Chomsky for his political activities. Just as I admire Chris Knight who is also a great class struggle activist. Chris lost his job due to his activities during the G20 Summit in London last year.

More info about Chris at: http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/

Chris in Tophat

so what are you actually saying??

by GrammertonCleric

Mon Feb 08, 2010 07:02

The powers that be use Fallacies, cheap rhetoric and emotive language to persuade. These aspects of particular USES of language are well known. Noam chomsky studied the theory of language itself at a more fundamental level. They are not quite the same thing.

This is just an excuse to have a cheap go at a distinguished but elderly man who in his time has contributed a great amount to science and to furthering our awareness of the misuse of political power. He was and still is a man of principle.

He deserves much better than this. Kudos Noam!

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Noam Chomsky on Language Reassessed

Comments (6 of 6)