Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Daniel-- Wow! I appreciate what you've written here, and I also like the close, that Chomsky "doesn't do any harm." I think many people probably aren't all that aware of his academic work in linguistics since he has made his name well-known (at least among the progressive crowd) in the political sphere. As much as he is known for the academic work, it is more than obvious that his true passion lies in people to think more critically about the circumstances of our political life in the U.S. post-9/11, and to help people see how our media functions as a propaganda machine for the powers behind the powers-that-be. I have to disagree with the person who said that his political writings are banal and bland. But maybe I'd think the same about the work of William F. Buckley, Jr.! Kit - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Daniel Ridings Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 12:04 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Chomsky Re: [Leica] XXX of the YYY? WAS (something else) (fwd) > Chomsky's seminal academic work was in the 1950's when he developed what is > now Structural Linguistics as a distinct field. Far from it. Structural Linguistics had existed as a distinct field before Chomsky was born (probably). Bloomfield, Harris (Chomsky's teacher, I think) > And one of the first > paradigms he developed for structural linguistics was that the only perfect > grammar of a language was a compendium of all possible sentences which > could be stated in that language. Sounds like you mean generative linguistics. And it was not a compendium (that would be finite), but a set of rules that would "generate" (thus the name) all the grammatical sentences of a language and _only_ the grammatical sentences (no over generation) > Traditional linguists hated (and continue to hate) structural linguistics > but it does have a place. You must be old, Marc. Traditional linguists _are_ the generative school (Chomskyaner). You must be thinking of the sixties when the structural linguists were thought of as the traditional school. > And, yes, Chomsky, in his field, is a genius. I > find that his commentaries on political, social, and artistic issues range > from bland to banal. Oh, I don't know if he is a genius. He's more like a moving target. He has his disciples, but in the computer age, his theories are of less significance. They have never been implemented. With the wealth of electronic information out there that has to be analyzed (witness the traffic after 9/11) "toy systems" (based on symbols, or generative grammars) just don't cut the mustard. They are intellectually stimulating, but they're just toy systems. According to Chomsky we all speak the same language (the innate human ability to use language as a means of communication). He's not interested in English or French or German ... because such specific instantiations of our innate ability are just haphazard expressions of the language competence we have. It's only the innate "language" he wants to get at ... the phase before Babel. It's about as realistic as alchemy. He doesn't do any harm. Daniel Ridings - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html