Verified by 
47COMMENTS
My 2c.
I would not make an idol of any thinker, especially one who cautioned against such an approach specifically during an interview with James Peck back in 1987. (The Chomsky Reader, ed. Peck., 30)
Yet it is easy to see why so many have done so with Noam Chomsky. While his insights into linguistics and his welcome deconstruction of odious behaviorism may have introduced Chomsky to the world, the world is truly indebted to Chomsky for his scholarly curiousity, humanistic perspicacity, urgent sense of human rights and visionary advocacy of global social justice. He is also a peerless researcher and nothing short of a human computer in terms of compiling and organizing information (a 2016 book of his with 250+ pages has 34 pages of references). Too, I believe he is the most quoted living person.
In one recorded talk an audience member shouted out before Chomsky spoke, "we love you." How many intellectuals, whom he himself has continually provoked, ie., "Responsibility of Intellectuals", are treated with such authentic warmth? People adore him for many reasons, I suspect, but what is rather telling is his rare and courageous sense of veracity.
Therein lies the shining gift of Prometheus to humans and Chomsky's enduring legacy of hope.
"What matters is (bringing) a measure of peace and justice and hope to the world that is, right now, within the reach of our opportunity and our will." (Chomsky, 2003, p. 237)
Michael Corballis Ph.D.
Who's afraid? Me. But let’s press on anyway.
Noam Chomsky is a polarizing figure in modern intellectual life. Best known in popular discourse for his radical criticism of US foreign policy, he has written countless best-selling books on this and related political topics. It is as a philosopher and linguist, though, that he is likely to be best remembered intellectually, leading some to claim him as the foremost intellectual of our time—on a par with, say, Aristotle or Descartes.
He has had a major influence on psychology. For over half of the 20th century, psychology was dominated by behaviorism, the view that psychology was about what people actually do, rather than what is going on in their minds. In 1957 the behaviorist B.F. Skinner published his monumental book Verbal Behavior, a behavior-based attempt to reach a psychological summit, the explanation of language—that most elusive of human faculties.
In that same year, Chomsky published a slim volume called Syntactic Structures, based on his PhD thesis, which held that language is not a matter of learned behavior, but depends on innate rules. These rules were later called “universal grammar”, common to all humans but denied to all other creatures.
Both books, I think, are more or less unreadable, but they marked 1957 as a watershed year in the history of psychological science, and also set their mark on philosophy and linguistics.
Two years later Chomsky published a review—a demolition, one might say—of Skinner’s book. Behaviorism itself rapidly dwindled, replaced by what came to be called the “cognitive revolution.” Rats (and pigeons) dispersed from psychological laboratories, as though led away by a Pied Piper, and were replaced by undergraduate students. The mind itself was back.
The rise of the digital computer also played a part—a trend that continues with alarming speed. Even humans may disappear from the lab, and perhaps the workplace, replaced by intelligent machines. Chomsky himself, though, has remained aloof from the drift to cognitive science, and has persisted with sometimes opaque attempts to explain how grammar works. In 1982, the linguist James D. McCawley published a book with the jocular title Thirty Million Theories of Grammar. It’s become worse.
Opaque, or simply beyond the understanding of mere mortals? Does Chomsky’s immense intellectual reputation depend on the simple premise that if you can’t understand it, it must be profound? My sense is that if one does try to penetrate the thickets of Chomsky’s writing, it seems increasingly out of line with biological and psychological reality.
For a start, there is the question of the 6,000 or so languages of the world, each more or less impenetrable to the others. How can there be a “universal grammar” underlying all of them? Chomsky buries this issue by supposing that universal grammar, or what he also calls internal language, is not designed for communication at all. It is a uniquely human mode of thought, symbolic, recursive, and infinitely variable. Communicative language—or what some Chomskyans call external language—simply represents the (to Chomsky) uninteresting ways in which people of different cultures externalize their thoughts.
Secondly, Chomsky maintains that this internal language of thought appeared in single momentous step in a single human, whom Chomsky whimsically names Prometheus, within the past 100,000 years—well after our species itself emerged. That sounds miraculous rather than scientific.
It also makes no sense in terms of evolution. Big changes don’t happen in a single step. And one has to wonder how Prometheus would have coped. To whom would he have talked? What could be adaptive about communication, or even thought, when there is only one individual capable of it?
The question of how human language and thought evolved is one of the biological challenges of our time. Chomsky did have important early insights on the nature of language, but we have moved on.
Chomsky is a hopeful beacon of humanism
Chomsky and peace
I reserve judgment on his contributions toward a better world. There is no doubt he once made a significant contribution to our understanding of language, but I think we now have much a better understanding, especially in terms of biological advances.
Language is peace
Linguistics by definition, seeks to transcend the individual and, yes, affective communication cannot take place in a vacuum, nor can any human action, they are all profoundly connected with environment.
So, it follows then that acknowledging that our work must pursue peace as an end goal (which ironically will actually facilitate further study) is self-evident. Peace relies on honesty.
Chomsky said that one of the most significant experiences in his life was when, while growing up in NY, he would visit his uncle's (?) newspaper stand and listen to the adults talk about current events. He learned that respectful communication facilitated intellectual understanding but I'm not sure if even he was conscious of the emotional, empathic growth that was also occurring during those visits. His body was stimulated not only by the content of the topics but by the very fact that human beings were sharing ideas in a peaceful way and so connecting to each other. Brilliant!
So the impact of language works on an emotional level as well as intellectual. They are all tied together holistically, as we all are, and that's why our constant goal in any discipline should be to facilitate non-oppression. Otherwise, what exactly are we saying?
Chomsky - Dear Nate - It sounds like you live in a violent illog
- Dear Nate - It sounds like you live in a violent, illogical world where intelligent, respectful conversations are rare. I'm sorry to hear that. But I am glad to hear you found, trough Chomsky, that such conversation is possible, even on street corners at newspaper stands in New York city. Good luck! But, liberal democrats do not have a corner on such harmonies. Keep an open mind.
Criticizing Chomsky
I must say, for someone who describes Syntactical Structures as unreadable - that is for someone who can't understand that work - it's hardly credible for such a person to assert that "biological advances" (or whatever he called them, now makes Chomsky's work in error or outdated. I assure you, that Mr. Chomsky would be well aware of all developments pertaining to his field. In fact, his Commencement address at the University of Connecticut where he covers ALL this ground with the typical unsurpassed excellence. Here's the clip:v [they would not permit a post of the youtube linke but jus t google chomksy uconn commencment.
Pehaps, the disparagement Chomsky in this magazine has more to do with its connection with what one might call the "therapy industry." The critic of Chomsky is paid , in effect, by those with an interest not in actual behavioral science but in collecting cash from those seeking need - the most vulnerable. A really suspect category . As Chomsky remarked when asked if he would use therapy himself (as a "Consumer" of this product sold for private profit say), he replied: "We don't even understand why a cockroach turns left or right! So the answer would be no." CHomsky is a bad man for the snake oil, therapy, call it what you will, that funds Psychology Today and pays the "constributers'" salaries. He's very good, however, outside of such venal contexts - at least for those interested in real science and, I dare say. actually making people's lives better (that requires more than just collecting profit from those in need - one has to explain these things before certain types of audiences).
Noam Chomsky will forever
Noam Chomsky will forever remain one of the most important thinkers and figures in human history. His work, his thoughts, his lectures, his humanism - his humanness, have no equal.
Chomsky, it may be observed,
Chomsky, it may be observed, is also one of the hunkiest male intellectuals in history, and remains so, even after turning 90.
Chomsky the artist
Chomsky demanded ever-higher taxes on the wealthy, but when it was time for him to pay up, he shielded his millions in a tax-free trust.
Another bullshit artist.
Chomsky's millions?
I'd like to see a good reference for this claim -- even a popular academic such as Chomsky rarely has that kind of wealth.
Here Ya Go
From Hoover Digest Article, "Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist"
"But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
"Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning."
Beyond ad hominem attacks
Chomsky's scholarship speaks for itself, as does the wikipedia article on the Hoover Institute.
Greedy Chomsky
If Hoover was lying, Chomsky could sue for libel. But they're not lying. Chomsky is the very thing he protests. Sad!
Right Wing Ideologue Attacks Straw Man
Has nothing to do with lying, it's just a straw man argument.
What right wing ideologues seem unable to grasp with their small minds is that the position of a socialist (broadly speaking) is that THE GOVERNMENT is supposed to regulate the economy/taxes etc. for the interests of society, not that individuals should take it upon themselves to play by different rules that no one else plays by and thereby offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs just so some right wing A hole doesn't call them a hypocrite.
Chomsky is quite right: there is nothing inherently wrong with putting aside some of your assets for the benefit of your children. It is for the government to come up with appropriate controls to reign in inequality and provide opportunity for the less well off and I assume Chomsky is not against higher taxes for the rich generally.
Moreover, Chomsky doesn't hold a single belief: he holds many. One of them, as mentioned, is his strong opposition to US foreign policy. It appears Uncle Sam doesn't come collecting taxes so much as to benefit the poor as it does to drop bombs on foreign brown folk. So there too is another argument why Chomsky, consistent with his beliefs, might want to actively limit taxes paid to the US government. I'm not saying those are his motives, just that it's plausible.
Of course what I provide here is a nuanced consideration of the issue, but what you get from Hoover is simple minded character assassination. It's a right-wing ideological cesspit and nothing more.
Chomsky
Well stated. But it
will remain hopeless and a wasted effort to try to explain to warped minds what should be obvious
Socialism isn't about the govornment
This isn't what socialists want. Even ML's have a stateless society as their end goal. There is a misconception about socialism that it is about equality or redistribution of resources.
So what is socialism? Socialism is where the means of production are prominently owned by the workers. One way of this is (debatable) having the government own the means of production, and have the workers control it through democracy. Many socialists think this is a terrible way of doing socialism, but rather have it be like Catalonia (which was libertarian socialist till it was taken over by fascists). Neither of these socialists want taxes as a way of trying to stop equality - but they do advocate for it to be used temporarily before moving to socialism.
Chomsky is the latter kind - a libertarian socialist. Libertarian socialists are against the state (central planning, nationalization of property), and are the most popular type of socialism (this site won't let me post urls, so sorry for there being no evidence).
I think this misconception may have come about because of social democracy (not to be confused with democratic socialism). It isn't necessarily socialist, but some socialists think that social democracy can be used to revise capitalism slowly into socialism.
Essentially, you seem to have confused socialism with social democracy.
Sorry to be late replying --
Sorry to be late replying -- I just saw your response.
First, any claim that Chomsky is worth $2,000,000 is speculation; you offer no documentation of this, just a line in an article that misunderstands what an irrevocable trust is.
Second, you also don't seem to understand what an irrevocable trust is -- it's not "tax free"; the grantor (in this case, Chomsky) is not liable for taxes on the trust, but any beneficiary may be liable for estate tax rather than inheritance tax, and it's not a way to protect assets from Uncle Sam. Most often an irrevocable trust is set up to protect assets held by an elderly person from possible abuse, and to avoid probate at their death. The estate can still be subject to taxes if it is large enough -- as I note, it avoids inheritance taxes, but still is subject to estate tax. So it's still taxed.
Chomsky
Oh Please, related to Chomsky shielding some money. He is solidly middle class. There is no reason Chomsky or people like him should be expected to fork over so much when the very wealthy skirt all or most taxes. I applaud Chomsky for protecting what is peanuts compared to what wealthy people shield. Being an intellectual does not feed you.
Noam Chomsky's wealth
Very presumptive. No rich thinkers? Really?
No longer relevant.
No serious Linguist nor Biologist references Chomsky anymore. His theories are a thing of the past. Roughly equivalent to the theories the earth is flat. He has turned out to be wrong about nearly everything he has presented.
Chomsky's citation rates
According to Web of Science, Chomsky's citations reached a peak of 644 in 2017, so no sign of decline--at least within science. Google Scholar records 15,550 citations in 2017, with an h-index of 170. Not bad, eh?
Roughly equivalent
You probably also think FOX is a credible news source !
Chomsky
Oh , and another ridiculous claim : calling Chomsky a " liberal" is hilarious. He has nothing to do with liberals. Liberals are people like Pinker and Dennett, et al.
Not "relevant.? "Wrong"?
Prove the errors. But Chomsky, as I understand him, would never state that he is omnipotent and without error. The thing is, even as you choose to discredit him, (without credibility), to deny Chomsky's intellect and body of work as anything less than world class...
I did say serious.
Neither of which shows context. The credibility problem is real but feel free to hold on to your fantasy.
Not taken seriously anymore?
I don't know what your background is. It can't be (theoretical) linguistics. In that field, like it or not, Chomsky-style theories very much dominate. And they have since the 60s.
Even those in phonology, morphology and syntax who reject Chomsky's most recent theorizing often do so because they prefer earlier views associated within his tradition. No "serious" scholar would ignore those theories.
People outside linguistics narrowly construed (eg sociolinguists), and people in other disciplines entirely, do indeed look at things very differently (eg in computer science, cellular-level neuroscience, literary studies). But a) that's been the case for decades, b) longstanding or not, it isn't very telling because their topics and aims are radically different.
For instance, if you want to build a car that responds to vocal prompts, or teach ESL, you'd be crazy to use the grammar rules native speakers follow. That would be like building a robot with all of our muscle and bone structure.
So, you're partly right. But you're mostly wrong.
Chomsky
Thank you. It's good to know there are still Chomskyans out there.
Missing the point
I think you missed the point of my original blog. It's just that there is still a lot of support out there, serious or not.
Chomsky
Good article. I've felt the same way about Chomsky. He constructs his own world of thought, belittling anyone who can't understand(typical liberal), and then founds it on eccentric notions few if any agree with, I for one. But I do agree that humans tend to conceptualize world impressions in certain predictable ways. Is it innate brain patterns or learned habits of thought? Who knows. Perhaps habits can also become innate, fostering legs to become fins, and then who is to say?
Plato's Forms
It sounds like Chomsky is just rehashing Plato's forms. This "universal grammar" is something that we are all born with that contains some pure and perfect abstract knowledge that varies independently of time and space.
Plato
I think Chomsky would be pleased with the comparison with Plato, but probably not with the "rehashing."
This article is scandalous
The capacity for Human language is innate and biological. That the author of this article disputes that should be taken as a warning that he is wrong.
Place a newborn baby anywhere in the world and he will grow up to be a fluent native speaker of whatever language is spoken there. It is the capacity for language that is internal.
This author has clearly not read enough Chomsky and / or is not very bright.
Mental block
[quote=Anonymous]The capacity for Human language is innate and biological. That the author of this article disputes that should be taken as a warning that he is wrong.
Place a newborn baby anywhere in the world and he will grow up to be a fluent native speaker of whatever language is spoken there. It is the capacity for language that is internal.
This author has clearly not read enough Chomsky and / or is not very bright.[/quote
Exactly. . And that certainly goes for the other clueless or misinformed comments as well.
Chomsky
Very well put. But as the years go by these clowns never stop. So I hardly ever bother to waste any more time and effort on them.
Michael Corballis Ph.D.'s article on Chomsky
"Behaviorism itself rapidly dwindled, replaced by what came to be called the “cognitive revolution.”"
Ahhh...no. Dr. Corballis' description of history is misinformed, at best. Behaviorism is alive and well. Many people view cognition as controlled by behavioral principles (a la Staats). While I've come to view chomsky's arguments as very compelling, there is little support for the idea that behaviorism was a quickly passing fad, which is what Dr. Corballis suggest-at least what his article strongly implies.
And about this, " Chomsky did
And about this, " Chomsky did have important early insights on the nature of language, but we have moved on." either learn to support your contentions or stop writing. This is just lazy, poorly referenced and poorly supported click bait. Obviously this topic is above your intellect grade.
About time
It's about time that someone seriously called out Chomsky. His ideas were not compelling when they were proposed, and they've become even less so with time. His rejection of solid science in favor of miracles should have disqualified him from being seriously considered anything other than a crackpot.
He is, I'm sure, an interesting philosopher. But that's where his expertise ends. No one holds up a mechanic as an authority on baking. Why do we give weight to a philosopher's opinions on psychology and linguistics?
About time
I'm not sure miracles have a place in philosophy! And is Chomsky really a philosopher? His reputation is mainly in linguistics.
"Give weight "
Yes, why do we pay attention at all anymore to highly intelligent people who fully understand what they are talking about?
Classic non i"ntellectual" nonsense
Oh dear oh dear, the so-called "Intellectual" world has no idea, as shown yet again by yet more massive ignorance and lack of humanity. Chomsky has more moral fibre in his little finger than 90% of you so called "Intellectuals" who dare to criticise him, with your virtual ad hominem nonsense. As you can't understand his UG then it must be out of date!!!! What a load of cobblers.
This man has fought for the most basic aspects of humanity and you shills continue to stab him in the back. You have NO morals, decency, courage and certainly NO brains. You know nothing about history or the human condition, as evinced in your bitter nonsensical attack.
I never went to university (thank some God or other) but I know far more about humanity and nature than any of the nonsense I see/hear/read in the media, who you protect so voraciously. Just look at the lunatics in power, around the world. They're there because of your crowd, with all their internalising of reality so as to seek rewards of esteem and cash.
Shame on the so called "Intellectual" community. The most evil dotrine ever devised by you people is that life is a "Competition". What a farce- think about it for 5 seconds and comprehend the damage this vile notion has done and is continuing. Yeh thanks for such a vile Smithian notion. Just wait til climate change has you lot asphyxiated too.
Chomsky's brilliant UG is here to stay. You stick with your ridiculous notions about how apes scratched each others backs and ended up talking.
Idiots.
Chomsky
Don't waste your time on these pretentious, pompous cunts who can't handle the obvious truth
Dr. Corballis is ill-informed
Noam Chomsky was one of my doctoral advisers at MIT. I know his views very well. Dr. Corballis clearly does not.
In particular, Chomsky has never held: that all language rules are innate; that all universals are innate; that Universal grammar is the internal language, let alone the one which serves as the “uniquely human mode of thought”. (Oh, and the book based directly on Chomsky’s PhD thesis was The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory.)
Beyond getting the facts badly wrong, Dr. Corballis complains that Chomsky’s theories are opaque. Well, yes. But how human grammar works is opaque. A tiny example. Corballis has likely never noticed that ‘Who do you want to meet?’ is ambiguous, while its colloquial sister ‘Who do you wanna meet?’ is not [“I want to met Juan” and “I want Juan and Marie to meet” are both possible answers to the first. Only "I want to meet Juan" can answer the informal, contracted version.] He certainly has no idea why such a difference exists. I could try to explain it, but I concede that the explanation will not be simple. Like linguists’ thousands of findings, it is surprising and profound.
Two final points about the currency of his views. Chomsky has remained “tuned in to the drift of cognitive science”, though critical of parts of it. Rejecting a new trend doesn't entail being ignorant of it. Second, there are indeed disagreements among biologists and psychologists about Chomsky’s recent views, in particular about whether saltations (“evolutionary leaps”) happen. But his positions were developed in collaboration with world renowned biologists and psychologists – it’s beyond insulting, and bordering on silly, to say that they “make no sense in terms of evolution”.
Here is a quote from Chomsky,
Here is a quote from Chomsky, published in 2010: "Within some small group from which we are all descended, a rewiring of the brain took place in some individual, call him Prometheus, yielding the operation of unbounded Merge, applying to concepts with intricate (and little understood) properties." Since this event supposedly created the rules of language, and was presumably passed on to the rest of the human species, it sounds pretty saltational (and indeed implausible) to me. I don't think there are many "world famous" psychologists or biologists who would agree with this statement.
Chomsky
It does not matter if " it sounds pretty saltational (and indeed implausible" , nor that you "don't think " because you are a know-nothing nobody.
Agreements and Disagreements
Let’s clarify some issues. My apologies for the length.
Here are two things Dr. Corballis and I agree about. Chomsky does indeed take seriously that there are evolutionary saltations. Furthermore, doing so genuinely does put him in the minority.
Here are several things we disagree about.
First, Dr. Corballis does more misrepresenting of other people’s views in his brief reply. I never suggested that Chomsky rejected saltations in language-genesis. Quite the contrary. Yet Corballis copies a much-cited quotation as if to correct me. Second, and much more importantly, Chomsky does not suppose that one single evolutionary event “created the rules of language”. What Chomsky takes to be initially plausible – to be decided not by ideological commitment to classical Darwinism but by demanding, surprising, complex empirical investigation – is that *one crucial element* needed for the emergence of our languages might have arisen via saltation. Specifically, as the quotation implies, Chomsky takes seriously that “unbounded Merge” involved a such genetic leap.
Very roughly, the (admittedly controversial) hypothesis is: that the cognitive ability not only to take two representations and conjoin them, but of doing this repeatedly and in a special way, didn’t come about in the familiar gradual manner. Here is a simplified example of the sort of ability Chomsky has in mind. Humans can take the symbols ‘tall’ and ‘man’ and combine them to form [tall man]. That’s no big deal because many, many creatures can conjoin symbols: setting them side-by-side and making a complex. But we can then take ‘the’ plus the first compound and form [the [tall man]]. We can also take ‘from’ and ‘Spain’ to create [from Spain]. Humans, unlike other creatures, are then able to put the two resulting compounds together to form [[[The [tall man]] [from Spain]]. Finally, we can keep “merging” (fusing together) compounds in this Russian Doll fashion to create ever more complex symbols – so, this capacity is “unbounded”. In sum, it’s not English or Urdu that is proposed to have arisen from a saltation, but rather this limited, albeit essential, aspect of our language(s).
Second disagreement. Dr. Corballis again gets the facts wrong. Despite his gut feeling that it sounds implausible, respected evolutionary theorists would disagree with him that leaps “make no sense in evolution”. This isn’t the place to hash out those issues, but interested readers might Google ‘macromutation’ and ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to learn more about views which, while outside the gradualist mainstream, are well worked out, and seem to best explain certain cases of evolution. As I said originally, to discard such traditions out of hand is both insulting and bordering on silly.
Finally, now laying out my own stance rather than correcting the author’s interpretive distortions and errors of fact, I am suspicious of the enterprise of refuting/supporting descriptive claims about our present language(s) based on speculations about distant evolutionary history – whether the speculations be from Chomsky or from his “haters”. Linguists are only beginning to understand the sound, structure and meaning of our thousands of languages. We equally know far too little about the psychology of language: that is, not just about the nature of the languages themselves, but of our mental representation of English, Swahili, East Cree, etc. Nor do we well understand how language is neurologically stored – even with respect to broad brain regions, let alone at the cellular level. We don’t know either how neural development, postpartum, is driven by one’s genes, as they interact with one’s environment. Finally, to repeat, there isn’t nearly as much consensus about the details of early human evolution as Dr. Corballis suggests. So, the chain of reasoning from “this is how evolution worked” to “this is how English/Swahili/etc. build sentences” is both extremely long and extremely rocky. Hence, on methodological grounds, I disagree with Dr. Corballis that current evolutionary biology is in any position to refute Chomsky’s “important early insights on the nature of language”, or to force linguists to “move on”.
I've said more than enough. The main lesson for non-specialists is that, however well-informed about the neuroscience of memory and vision, the author of this piece is not a reliable source on Chomsky or on current linguistics.
I think Corballis was hoping
I think Corballis was hoping Chomsky would respond, and wrote this tripe as bait.
Chomsky
No, I was not expecting a response from Chomsky. I was simply trying to articulate what I see as a growing reaction to some of his claims, especially with respect to the evolution of language and its apparent singularity. In other respects, Chomsky's contribution has been immense.
an engineer's opinion of intellectuals and Chomsky
At the ripe old age of 74, this left-handed mechanical engineer, like Chomsky, has been around the block many times. Yes, our planet certainly needs gifted people to separate what is truth from what is not. But, have any of you ever met a psychologist, intellectual or a government employee who could change a flat tire if their life depended on it? - Here is a hint. - Reality testing.
