As much as I detest Noam Chomsky, I don’t agree at all with Glenn Reynolds’ claim that Chomsky’s linguistic theories are failing. Reynolds claims,
IT’S NOT JUST NOAM CHOMSKY’S POLITICS THAT ARE DISCREDITED: His linguistic opinions aren’t faring so well either.
But that assessment is based entirely on this story about the role of “uh” and “um.” Chomsky argues that those are not words and are not properly part of language at all. A couple of researchers at Stanford and the University of California at Santa Cruz disagree, arguing that “uh” and “um” tend to be used in ways that send consistent cues to listeners and are therefore part of language.
Frankly, their logic isn’t all that convincing to this non-linguist, but even if theyre are correct, that doesn’t seem to detract from the central point of Chomsky’s linguistic theory that the capacity for language is innate rather than an artifact of culture.
There is a lot of debate over the specifics, and a lot of animosity toward Chomsky within linguistics and he has a habit of saying things about how this capacity for language evolved (i.e., he’s come close to denying that it evolved at all), but he’s certainly right on the big picture.
Now if we could just get him to stop using language to make ridiculous claims like: we should take Osama bin Laden at his word or that tens of thousands of people died from the U.S. attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant or that efforts to hold public schools accountable is a right wing corporate plot against America’s children.