Noam Chosmky

Psychanalysis? lol fuck that

Reddit please

A linguist was telling me that his theories are considered irrelevant bullshit.

OP did not ask that, he is inquiring about the validity of Chomsky's ideas. You are being a little attention seeking shit.

Just read "On Language" and "Language and responsibility" which are probably his most accessible.

No they're not. There's always online news stories going around saying "NEW EVIDENCE PROVES CHOMSKY WAS WRONG," but there are also stories that claim the same about people like Einstein or Darwin. Those news writers don't know what they're talking about.

Honestly don't even bother with this arrogant cuck. The idea that brought him into fame (that language is innate) is ebbing into obscurity with newer theories shitting on it. Read someone with actual balls like Skinner.

>language is not innate
Yes it is. Could you give an example of one of these newer theories, or are you just citing a headline?

>ebbing into obscurity with newer theories
>Skinner
Holy shit

Read Saussure, then Derrida and Lacan.

I strongly recommend Vivian Cook's book Chomsky's Universal Grammar. It is accessible and gives an excellent overview of generative syntax and how the theory has developed

I really wouldn't bother with Syntactic Structures or Aspects. They seem to be his two most commonly cited books, but they are very outdated. His later Principles and Parameters framework is a lot more interesting.

This a thousand times.

Computational linguistics has gone a long way to undermine his assertions.

Lol, what does computational linguistics have to do with linguistic theory? Do you know what they both are?

If you cannot see the blatant connection between the two you may somewhat retarded.

What the superficial common use of the term "lingustic"?

you've got a lot to learn, bud

>Computational linguistics
>Computational biology
>Computational neuroscience
>Computational consciousness
>Computational X

All meme fields. They say nothing new; perhaps algorithmize some of the models and mathematics found in those fields, but not much else.

In this spirit I propose two maximeme fields:
>Computational Evolution
>Evolutionary Computation

What do you think?

>with newer theories shitting on it. Read someone with actual balls like Skinner.

Whether you agree or disagree with Chomsky, you shouldn't dismiss his theories as "irrelevant bullshit". To say that he left an indelible mark on the field is an understatement. Anyone studying linguistics should make an effort to really understand his theories.

I have encountered a lot of Chomsky-haters many of whom were very smart folks. Some of them actually understood generative syntax, but a lot of them simply didn't. They were opposed to the idea of innate universal grammar, but they didn't understand any details of generative grammar.

If you want to trash Chomsky, fine. But make an effort to really understand him first.

I love Chomsky! He is one of the great comedians of his generation.
Here is my advice for getting the most out of Chomsky
1) think about how his work for the Department of Defense to improve soldier training and interrogation techniques made him a millionaire
2) Contemplate how he has arranged his stock portfolio to be heavily invested in pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, and military contractors
3) Ponder how he has a series of trusts and shell firms to shield himself so that he pays less than 1/10th of 1% of his income in taxes each year
4) Understand that he lives in a multi-million dollar mansion in a gated community that is 99.5% White
5) Read how he charges universities first class airfare and accommodations plus a $50,000 speaking fee to lecture
6) Now that you know that all of those facts are matters of the public record, read and listen to his works where he explains to students that pharmaceutical, agribusiness, and defense contracting firms are evil, that shielding yourself from taxes is morally wrong, and that the wealthy should be forced to live in diverse areas.
Pure.
Comedy.
Gold.

Where are you from bro?

In my country this sort of argument usually comes from the silver spooners not realizing that living in capitalist society entails living as a capitalist, and is laughed at. However, I inderstand different places have different ideas of how this all works.

See also 'if you're a communist go live in North Korea!'. American logic is weird sometimes.

So you live in a third-world shithole that was formerly Soviet and don't grasp that when a man who does X charges people to tell them 'don't do X because it is immoral' that man is hilarious?
Or is English not your first language? That would explain why you think that post is an argument (which it isn't) or is critical (which it isn't). Nowhere does it say what Chomsky is doing is wrong, just that it is funny.
Maybe both?

see
I love talking to folks like you, leaping to all sorts of conclusions.
>I am not an American, for example

>Or is English not your first language?
The overcompensating ESL strikes again.

More leaping to unsupportable conclusions and a failure to answer a simple, direct question.
Certainly at lest part of this is a poor attempt to misdirect and avoid admitting that
is so chock-full of idiocy that it demonstrates that the writer lacks basic reading comprehension skills.
Want to actually answer the question? Maybe just make a statement supported by the text?
Or will it be name calling?

Maybe stop being so autistic Deutschbro and realize you are not so good at the ol language game ;^)

Name-calling, then.
Not German, either

It doesn't take a genius to figure out sectors with deep ties to the monopoly state sector have on average higher than average rates of return. If you have any investments you want to maximize your rate of return. Remember a generation of brain dead hippies tried to "drop out" of the system and that didn't work out obviously. Individuals cannot really change anything by just acting differently themselves, only institutional reforms really matter in the end.
Pharmaceutical, agribusiness, and defence contractors are largely morally reprehensible and also highly profitable because of their close ties to the state apparatus (defence contractors) and the favourable legal framework that exists for intellectual property (pharmaceutical/agribusiness). Individuals aren't going to change that without pushing for structural reforms.

Which is why ol' Noam telling kids to avoid these things is funny!

Perfect example of the problems of Veeky Forums
>mistakes statements of fact and opinion for 'an argument'
>projecting vague Liberal economic concepts into unrelated discussions
>incapable of answering a direct question
>prefers to leap to conclusions rather than ask simple questions

Noam criticising these things is not the same as saying to avoid them. One can be a part of the system but also believe that the system is not perfect. I cannot in good faith say that him being a capitalist actor in a capitalist system is some kind of hypocrisy, tho perhaps there is a level of "Eichmann in Jerusalem" type argument in there but I find that hard to find funny on any level, like that requires some serious moral transgressions and isn't really viewable as a matter of opinion or quaint or whatever. An anti capitalist just making money through stocks is not in itself hypocrisy tho.

You do have to spend more time on your English.

> cannot in good faith say that him being a capitalist actor in a capitalist system is some kind of hypocrisy,
Who said that? I certainly didn't. I simply pointed out the fact thhat Chiomsky is a multi-millionaire that avoids virtually 100% of taxes and is heavily invested in certain sectors AND that he tells others than tax avoidance and those same sectors are wrong and that people should not do them.
I don't think he's a hypocrite - I think that the people who listen to him are as stupid as a bag of hammers. That's the funny part. Its like people who spend $80 for a ticket to see Rage Against the Machine to cheer on multi-millionaires with their own private jets as they rant about Capitalism and global warming.
I find it hilarious.

>You do have to spend more time on your English.
I am a native speaker of English with perfect verbal scores on the SAT and the ACT and a 4.0 GPA in English and Literature classes at the Master's level - as I was saying, *you* need to work on *your* English skills.

this is really only relevant to his political theories though. OP was asking about cognitive science and linguistics.

>tfw I introduce chomsky to my class today and fancifully suspect OP might be my student
where are you studying OP?

>dodge questions, make nonsense statements, and accuse others of not knowing English all while lacking basic comprehension skills

lefty Veeky Forums never fails to entertain

Sorry to disappoint, but none of my teachers mentioned him. I've stumbled upon him by reading up critics of behaviorism. I'm brazillian btw

Maybe OT, but can any anons explain how Steven Pinker's work relates to Chomsky's? Does it build on it, take it in a new direction? Or does he aim to refute some of Chomsky's ideas? I've only read Better Angels and Blank Slate by Pinker, which are a little further from his cognitive science work.

Steven Pinker rolls with the constructionalists these days. That means he follows Chomsky through Government and Binding Theory (e.g. he's a proponent of Universal Grammar), but believes the logical continuation of Government and Binding Theory is not Minimalism, instead, I imagine, based on the fact that he's published with Ray Jackendoff, that he's sympathetic to construction grammar. Pinker also disagrees with Chomsky on evolution of language.

If you think this is entertaining, you should check out /pol/. It's like some scientists gave a bunch of 13 year olds codeine and unlimited internet access. Logical fallacies for days, too.

>I don't think he's a hypocrite - I think that the people who listen to him are as stupid as a bag of hammers. That's the funny part. Its like people who spend $80 for a ticket to see Rage Against the Machine to cheer on multi-millionaires with their own private jets as they rant about Capitalism and global warming.
>I find it hilarious.
Sorry, so who do you find hilarious? Because you seem to have changed from Chomsky being funny to people who pay to see him. It still seems like the humour derives from hypocrisy.

>4.0 GPA in English and Literature classes
>and
You're a """"native"""" """"English"""" speaker taking classes in English that aren't English lit?

>Maybe OT
This really is not an issue here new friend.

Pinker was like Chomsky's minime way back up until he started publishing more (mid 90s or so). His original criticism of Chomsky is fairly tame, but Chomsky then p much said Pinker understood nothing about his theory. I think Pinker glosses over quite a lot but that's a bit harsh.

Pinker does come out with sone stupid shit tho.

Most people on Veeky Forums don't care about the linguistic Chomsky. The political Chomsky is popular, because he is the literal epitome of "the West is always wrong/evil/etc."

You can readily dismiss him by bringing up Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge though.

Checked. But you can't /thread your god damn own posts fucking newfag.

Whatever opinions you express are instantly nullified by posting a redditfrog picture.

>

Nice job solidifying yourself as an underage redditard.

Or don't "/thread" posts at all.

that really doesn't answer much

>lacan
lel

>arrogant cuck
stopped reading there

>1) think about how his work for the Department of Defense to improve soldier training and interrogation techniques made him a millionaire
they funded the lab he worked in thinking it could provide something beneficial for their computers
he is open and upfront about this
would you prefer such military research to be conducted in secret?
>stock portfolio
>trusts
>nice home
has he suggested people should not have these things?
his general argument is that the USA oppresses others from developing themselves, and thus acquiring homes and wealth, to benefit itself
>lectures must pay for his airfare and accomodations
standard
>50,000
lolno
>shielding yourself from taxes is morally wrong
ah one of those muh taxes people, its all black and white for or against taxes. The taxes pay for things we use and benefit from? No no no mun taxes!
He has said no such thing I am afraid. He organised tax resistance during the Vietnam War.
>diverse areas
go back to /pol/

Chomsky tells people to not go to college or university?

well we could make shit up like you I suppose

2/3rd of criticism of his professional work is an effort to undermine his political work be association

>Being this buttblasted over your hypocritical idol

>facts shmacks I want my shitposting

His work in biolinguistics is fascinating and gets too little attention in general, IMO

I mean, look at this dumb fuck! A perfect response to a comment about the low nature of Veeky Forums!

No criticism of his professional work is just less wishfully thinking people pointing out that he's just throwing infinite language at the idea that "Gnostics are right tho"

Chomsky, obviously. Maybe sentence diagrams could help you?
I know! I could relate to something you *do* understand! When Moe of the Three Stooges accosts a passerby and convinces them to do something foolish I find the situation hilarious both from the statements of the character of Moe and the credulity of the other character.
>You're a """"native"""" """"English"""" speaker taking classes in English that aren't English lit?
Of course. Creative writing; composition theory; English linguistics and morphology; Middle English.
Let me guess - you're a Communications major at a small land-grant, right?

>Creative writing; composition theory; English linguistics and morphology; Middle English.
Maybe Middle English could be one, but I've only ever seen it as literature courses on Chaucer and such. The rest of those things, maybe when I was like 15 and still covering the 3 r's that got called "English", but not beyond that. The only university courses that were "English classes" covering those things were for international students who had a poor grasp of English.

Also not to say that creative writing, expository writing, language/linguistics courses don't exist but they aren't called "English". Nor that "English" classes don't exist, but in the English speaking world English class is literature class.

I honestly dread to think what you mean by composition theory btw.

>OF COURSE he made millions working for the DoD!
>OF COURSE he shields himself from taxes
>YES, he once wrote that one day tax day will be a day of celebration!
>OF COURSE he enriches himself from industries he calls 'immoral'
>OF COURSE he enjoys being a multi-millionaire as he decries Capitalism!
>Of COURSE he doesn't leave the US, which he describes so negatively, to live in a nation he praises!
>I mean, COME ON! IT IS 2016!

>The only university courses that were "English classes" covering those things were for international students who had a poor grasp of English.
LOL!
So you are completely unaware that Master's programs in English can not only *include* rhetoric, composition, and writing but may focus on that with Literature as electives?
Hilarious!
I did a google search and it took me moments to find dozens of programs like the one I am in.
Here, just look at this outline:
middlebury.edu/blse/academics/m.a.
See?
Classes must include writing, pedagogy, and theatre arts.
Here's another
lasalle.edu/master-english/curriculum-literary/
Included?
Critical and pedagogical theory, composition and rhetoric, creative writing,
Indeed, as I look around I cannot find a Master's program that does NOT require non-Literature courses?
Hmmmm.
It is almost as if you have no idea what you are talking about.

>I did a google search and it took me moments to find dozens of programs like the one I am in.
I am glad you are happy to be doing an English Lit masters like the one at La Salle bud.

>making his point for him
So while one user tells another that US MAs in English **ONLY* teach Literature classes unless you don't speak English, you gladly admit that even English Lit MA programs demand non literature classes.
Hell, you do need help with your reading comprehension. Otherwise you'd know you just proved him right.

>the USA oppresses others from developing themselves

Other countries oppress themselves from developing themselves. You're obviously ignorant of the roles IQ, population genetics, and cousin marriage play into national success and GDP. Protip: it's nonzero.

National sovereignty is largly an illusion. Your position in the globe will have a lot to do with forces of geo-strategy outside of domestic control, you can't overlook the role that foreign direct investments and foreign "aid" plays in underdeveloping nations.
China was one of the most impoverished nations on earth 40 years ago until it integrated itself into global capital markets, its population didn't change but its role in the world system did.

>National sovereignty is largly an illusion

I don't necessarily, disagree, but perhaps not for the same reasons. There are national sovereigns but there is anarchy between sovereigns.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make bro. You are apparently on a masters at a liberal arts college without knowing what liberal arts is, studying a dual field without being aware of it (so you know English is in there but not something like literature and culture studies), and also are not able to appreciate there isn't an English class within the syllabus either. I don't think it's possible to make sense of you without also accepting that you're lying.

Sorry, I mean he, that other user, is lying (lololol).

You're both correct imo but who is more correct largely depends on what we happen to be looking at as well as the general context. The international political economy has an influence on the domestic for sure. I think for most things to say there is anarchy is not correct tho. In some respects I guess you could say we want anarchy on the global stage but without the whole Bretton Woods shebang we end up with pretty boring actors that become insular very quickly at the first sign of any danger. (Pic related).

I also suspect that as (if) we move towards fairtrade we'll see a change in the relative state of anarchy. What this will be who can know.

You've lost the thread of the conversation and don't realize that you are totally lost.
I pointed out that you mistook a statement as a question and assumed a native English speak must be American.
I replied with
>I am a native speaker of English with perfect verbal scores on the SAT and the ACT and a 4.0 GPA in English and Literature classes at the Master's level
[This leads to the fun part - where did I mention my actual Major]
your reply was hilarious and revealing
>You're a """"native"""" """"English"""" speaker taking classes in English that aren't English lit?
This was funny enough by itself, but you keep escalating with this rather badly written sentence
> The only university courses that were "English classes" covering those things were for international students who had a poor grasp of English.
and
>lso not to say that creative writing, expository writing, language/linguistics courses don't exist but they aren't called "English". Nor that "English" classes don't exist, but in the English speaking world English class is literature class.
the response was, of course, pointing out that even English and English Lit majors take classes in the English department that aren't literature.
Your reply?
incoherent, actually.
You forget this is the internet age - anyone can see how retarded you are in 1 minutes.
Here are examples from various English Literature Master's programs from around the Anglosphere
>ENG 575. STUDIES IN CRITICISM (4).
Particular critics, critical movements, issues, and histories of criticism. PREREQS: Graduate standing
Grad English course, called English, in the English department - not literature
>ENG 590. HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4).
A study of the origins, changes, and reasons for changes in the grammar, sounds, and vocabulary of English from its earliest stages through its modern forms. PREREQS: Graduate standing.
Grad English course, called English, in the English department - not literature
>English 5313.251: Principles of Technical Communication and Editing
Grad English course, called English, in the English department - not literature
>English 53/7316.251: Foundations in Rhetoric and Composition
Grad English course, called English, in the English department - not literature
I am sure that any other person here with access to google or bing can also find you hundreds of examples of just how wrong you are.
Protip: your own personal experience != how everything in the world is.

I appreciate this post, user

>the response was, of course, pointing out that even English and English Lit majors take classes in the English department that aren't literature.
>Your reply?
>incoherent, actually.
>You forget this is the internet age - anyone can see how retarded you are in 1 minutes.
>Here are examples from various English Literature Master's programs from around the Anglosphere
Can you rewrite this so I can start to work out your point bruh?

Who are you quoting?

>Can you rewrite this so I can start to work out your point bruh?
Considering your spelling, grammar, and proven inability to understand basic English, almost certainly not.

That's a good way to say something about nothing!

Buzz off, shit pisser!

>Ruins quads by threading his own post.