Why the dichotomy? Can one not be both at the same time?
Is linguistics not politicised?
Are politicians not well-versed in linguistics?
Hmm - very Socratic - answering a question with further questions.
Why the dichotomy? Can one not be both at the same time?
Is linguistics not politicised?
Are politicians not well-versed in linguistics?
Hmm - very Socratic - answering a question with further questions.
Chomsky is a sharp modern rationalist, which clearly affects his work on language and on politics. I think the connection emerges neatly from his Cartesian Linguistics, 1966, new edition 2002 et sq. His theory of language is severely but unjustly criticized by cognitive linguists who don't like his universalism. His not a relativist — which is valid in both fields.
He is a dissident in both, which takes courage.
He speaks against hegemony in politics but never looks beyond English in linguistics.
Zhuo: He is a very American linguist, in this respect; language for this category just means English. There is no philology behind that approach, just philosophy of language, in contrast to European linguistics, for example. Not entirely Chomsky's fault, but it is still a regrettable limitation. Of course it is easier to be a universalist if you only look at one language... :)
También en política es un gramático...y transformacional generativo. Coherencia. Devuelvo el balón. ¿Qué sería de la política sin la lingüística?¿y viceversa?
Yamile: Transformational politics? Political grammar? Change and critical analysis must go together and support each other. Otherwise we get what we have.
Gracias, Brandt. Estupendos debates. Entonces...¡estamos de acuerdo!. A mí me parece lo de "ser lingüista" una condición superior. En Chomsky y en todos.
Chomsky's contributions are at the forefront of research on the evolution of language, and especially grammatical rules (e.g., Berwick, Friederici and Chomsky 2013; Hauser 2017; Fujita 2017, Berwick and Chomsky 2017; Miyagawa 2017; Ding, Melloni et al 2016). See also writings by Progovac on proto-syntax and good hypothesis on evolutionary stages of language evo. I have touched on this in my paper on a revised Weil-Levi-Strauss transformation formula for conceptual-value fields (rCF). Due to length limitations for the paperArticle A post-structuralist revised Weil–Lévi-Strauss transformatio...
I deleted submitting a section or supplementary file synthesizing the papers cited above and showing how the models contained therein relate to the rCF.
One key evo step is from Finite State Grammar processing with node in L pars orbitalis BA47 (Friederici, Bahlman et al 2006) to Syntactic Phrase structure processing with a node in L Opercular IFG BA44 (Fitch and Hauser 2004; Opitz and Friederici 2007). See also neuroscience studies on syntactic movement (filler-gap) computation in language reception, interaction of syntax and working memory with node in IFG BA45 and reflexive binding syntactic dependency in L and R Superior Temporal BA21 (Grodzinsky and Santi 2008; Santi and Grodzinsky 2007). The BA45 node is also activated by interaction of semantic meaning with world knowledge, showing overlap of semantics and pragmatics (Hagoort, Hald et al 2004). This same node is primary in neural network for analogical reasoning (Lou, Perry et al 2003); conventional metaphor (Cardillo, Watson et al 2012); and inner speech monitoring (Shergill, Brammer et al 2002), musical scale and jazz improv (Donnay, Rankin et al 2014), suggesting this BA45 node is domain-general for communication.
In short, the Chomsky approach to universal grammar is more and more supported by neuroscience and evolution of language hypotheses. The only caveat I would add is that most of these neuroscience studies and many others suggest a short chronology for language evolution as restricted to Homo sapiens sapiens circa 100,000 years ago, whereas I suggest based on Oldowan palaeoart evidence language and design principles are evolving/emerging at 2 million years ago.
Como lingüista tiene sus detractores que señalan como muy aventuradas, sobre todo, sus aseveraciones en cuanto a cuestiones de programación neuro-lingüística (hay quienes lo consideran un fraude). Como político tiene, sin duda, una gran trayectoria como crítico de las políticas intervencionistas del gobierno estadounidense, aunque a veces su discurso sea maniqueo. Si bien, Chomsky es bastante político, tal vez sea mejor lingüista que analista social, ¿Recuerdan aquel clásico debate televisivo que tuvo con Foucault?
Enrique, The Chomsky-Foucault debate revealed (to me) a clueless Foucault and a clear and rational Chomsky, both concerned with the problem of criticising power relations, but Foucault being too paranoïc to do political debate. By the way, I feel that my cognitivist colleagues reject Chomsky's linguistics because of his views on Israel's politics. Scientists can be cowardly.
James, Thanks for this bright overview! Could you tell us more about BA45? It seems to be a very busy node. From metaphor to jazz...!
Con Faucoult en el debate, podríamos acalorarnos. Habría que incorporar, necesariamente, y necesariamente desde lo discursivo, las estrategias de poder, dominación y control, pre (pro) vistas no solo desde la politología
Yamile, Como lo muestran sus ultimos textos (como Las confesiones de la carne), Foucault era un espiritualista soñador y — en el fondo — cristiano, papista, antidemocratico, antirracionalista. Pero tuvo muy buenas intuiciones sobre lascarceles y las relaciones entre poder y discurso. Pero : 'discurso' en el sentido de alguien qe no tiene puta idea de la linguistica.
Chomsky dares criticize Israel's (brutal and anti-humanistic) politics. And as a linguist, he dares maintain that the base of language is biological. I like both because I find these stances justified. His grammar is less convincing, technically; but I think he would agree with me on this. Saussure was not satisfied with his own theory either. That is the sign of a real scientist.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics