Chomsky Speaks

[Ecurb]

I went to a Noam Chomsky lecture at the U. of Oregon last night. I might not have bothered, but I’ve started dating a Russian Literature Professor, who wanted to go.

Chomsky's speech was all about the conspiracy between corporate and political interests. It was nothing new, but he seemed informed, intelligent and mentally agile for an 82-year-old. He claimed to have forgotten his notes in the hotel room, and someone who had heard him talk before said when they heard him talk he claimed to have forgotten his hearing aid -- so we decided that both comments are just part of his schtick.

I was teasing the two people with whom I intended the lecture by claiming that if there was a question and answer period, I was going to ask, “So, Noam, do you think the lack of recursion in the Piraha language completely falsifies your linguistic theories, or simply casts grave doubt on them? Please take your time.” Since Chomsky knows all about this, (and I don’t) he would doubtless have humiliated me – but its was still a fun fantasy.

The question and answer period was funny. Students (and even older people) asked questions that, as far as I could tell, were less questions than short political screeds designed to produce evidence that the student asking the question knew what words like "hegemony" mean. It was as if these kids were hoping to be graded on the knowledge demonstrated by their questions (which several of them had written on note cards). They seemed like the kid at a Major League Baseball game who dreams catching a foul ball in the stands will lead to a major league contract. More than one appeared to hope Noam would say, "You sound very intelligent! Why don't you quit the U. of Oregon, and come and be my personal assistant at MIT!"

It didn't happen.

[YesNo]

“So, Noam, do you think the lack of recursion in the Piraha language completely falsifies your linguistic theories, or simply casts grave doubt on them? Please take your time.”
It occurred to me the closest I get to a university is Lit Net--which is close enough, by the way.

Not to sound totally stupid, but what is "recursion" in a language anyway?

In a programming language it would be a procedure that called itself, but I'm assuming there is something peculiar about the Piraha language.

[JuniperWoolf]

Students (and even older people) asked questions that, as far as I could tell, were less questions than short political screeds designed to produce evidence that the student asking the question knew what words like "hegemony" mean. It was as if these kids were hoping to be graded on the knowledge demonstrated by their questions (which several of them had written on note cards). They seemed like the kid at a Major League Baseball game who dreams catching a foul ball in the stands will lead to a major league contract. More than one appeared to hope Noam would say, "You sound very intelligent! Why don't you quit the U. of Oregon, and come and be my personal assistant at MIT!"

It didn't happen.

Hahahahaha, awww.... That sounds exactly like almost every student comment that I've heard in university. Poor unfunny bastards.

Anyway, I'm kind of envious. I read a lot about Chomsky during the linguistics part of my psych courses, it'd be neat to see him in real life. Like meeting a rockstar, except not as cool.

[Ecurb]

"Recursion" is embedding two ideas in the same sentence. "John's friend went for a walk," woudl be a simple example. The Piraha would say. "John had a friend. He went for a walk." Some people say this falsifies Chomsky's notion of deep grammar. Here's a New Yorker article about it (which is the only reason I know anything about it, and it's a great article): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto

I had a great time - for the reasons Juniper suggests. We were thinking: what American intellectuals alive today are of the stature of Chomsky? Harold Bloom? Who else?

[JBI]

Wait, was he ranting about politics or Linguistics?

Well, it's unfortunate, that little display, from what people say, probably cost the University a pretty penny (he doesn't come cheap), all for his "forgotten notes."

He's smart no doubt, but it is hard to take such a capitalist seriously when he rants too much on social injustices, even if he does dress humbly.

[YesNo]

"Recursion" is embedding two ideas in the same sentence. "John's friend went for a walk," woudl be a simple example. The Piraha would say. "John had a friend. He went for a walk." Some people say this falsifies Chomsky's notion of deep grammar. Here's a New Yorker article about it (which is the only reason I know anything about it, and it's a great article): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto

I had a great time - for the reasons Juniper suggests. We were thinking: what American intellectuals alive today are of the stature of Chomsky? Harold Bloom? Who else?
It is a great article!

It looks like Chomsky's one of those theoretical guys who won't let facts stand in his way. :)

[JBI]

It is a great article!

It looks like Chomsky's one of those theoretical guys who won't let facts stand in his way. :)

Don't kid yourself, he isn't stupid. He knows linguistics, and has clearly been one of the great thinkers of his time, but the question is, what is his time. I don't mean that he doesn't have an input today, my problem is his penchant for churning out book after book with rehashed ideas, and for charging for his lectures as if he was some messiah, meanwhile preaching socialism. The concept of social responsibility that he promotes doesn't seem to stop him from cashing in while criticizing. Likewise, he never seems to agree with anyone, and is rather forthcoming about telling you what he thinks, while telling you you are wrong.

Still, it isn't his fault kids line up with some semi-political nonsense to back his ideas (basically *** kissing questions, and nothing worthy of debate). I don't mean this to be killeraggio on the man, but it is hard to take him seriously anymore outside of the United States - and likewise, he is more limited than he likes to seem (his ideas are pretty mainstream elsewhere anyway, and he never seems to mention Canada, which gestures to him knowing little about us anyway).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Nevertheless he is still relevant and interesting. Also much of his stuff is available free on his website: http://www.chomsky.info/

[YesNo]

I don't know anything about Chomsky except for the article that Ecurb referenced which didn't portray him in a good light.

What are his ideas?

It seems, from the article, which I might have misread, that Chomsky has a view of language (perhaps the better word is "grammar") as being like DNA which determines our physical bodies. It is little influenced by culture.

Since we use language to communicate with others, is this language-DNA outside of ourselves as individuals? Where and what is it?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't know anything about Chomsky except for the article that Ecurb referenced which didn't portray him in a good light.

What are his ideas?

It seems, from the article, which I might have misread, that Chomsky has a view of language (perhaps the better word is "grammar") as being like DNA which determines our physical bodies. It is little influenced by culture.

Since we use language to communicate with others, is this language-DNA outside of ourselves as individuals? Where and what is it?

I only know Chomsky from his political perspectives and commentaries which are readily available via his website as posted. We probably couldn't speak of that anyway. I don't know anything about his work with linguistics, or come to think of it, know very little (if anything) about linguistics at all.

[Ecurb]

Chomsky's notions of the innate "deep structure" of language were opposed to (for example) Skinner's Behaviorism. He was one of the revolutionary thinkers of the 20th century (although, of course, like many other revolutionary thinkers he was probably wrong about some things). I'm no expert, but I think his really seminal lingusistics work was done nearly 50 years ago. In the last 30 years he's been a political activist and a sort of "public intellectual". Obviously, since he's 82, we can't expect him to be on the front lines of linguistics research any more.

[Revolte]

I both love and hate Chomsky, he's a smart man, but his discussions on Anarchism always seem a bit too, liberal. But I do respect the guy, I just think he is way too overplayed, there are other anti-authoritarian intellectuals out there other then him, who are still alive.

Anyhow, I'm sort of ashamed he was part of your psych course Juni. That's what I'm talking about when I say overplayed. Though it did excite me a little to see essays by him and Zinn in Everything You Know is wrong, but I've yet to get through any more then one essay in that book.

[Revolte]

It is a great article!

It looks like Chomsky's one of those theoretical guys who won't let facts stand in his way. :)

We are idealistic creatures, yes yes we are. Besides there are only two facts of life, you are born, and you die, everything in-between is either not a guarantee there for it shouldn't be considered a fact, or is of moral value (remember there is no such thing as moral law, so these can not be facts).