4 ms·
Well, happily a lot of people are realizing that Chomsky's linguistic theories (transformational generative grammar, universal grammar) are the scientific equiv
by anaphor 13y ago
Well, happily a lot of people are realizing that Chomsky's linguistic theories (transformational generative grammar, universal grammar) are the scientific equivalent of ptolemaic epicycles, i.e. overly complex nonsense used to justify their own preconceptions. However he is still fairly influential in syntax (and to a lesser extent phonology) which are two branches of linguistics. Sadly his theories (and his name) get thrown around a lot more than actual pioneering linguists like Edward Sapir (who only gets brought up when people talk about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).
Edit: see this LL post for an explanation of what I mean http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2622 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2622
- brg 13y agoChomsky was an early visionary, and his intuition was very good. I would compare him more to Freud than to Ptolemaic astronomers. He started from a single notion, and built a theory around it that was justified by anecdote. But many of the tools and constructs that fell out of this theory are important. Consider the work with grammar. CTF is equivalent to PDA, but much easier to use conceptually.
- anaphor 13y agoWell, you can't deny that he contributed some ideas that PLT people make use of, but the question here is whether TGG is any good as a _scientific theory of language_ and I think the answer is no. The reason I compared him to Ptolemaic theorists is because he came up with some interesting mathematical ideas, but he doesn't care about systematically collecting data and attempting to falsify the theory. See: http://norvig.com/chomsky.html http://norvig.com/chomsky.html