Is there a consensus amongst Linguistics profs on the merits of Noam Chomsky's work in the field? Good or bad?

Question

Is it possible that he could be a genius in the field of political writing AND linguistics Or that he could be not so much a genius in linguistics as he is in regards to political writing?

Answer 1

Hi while our upper page friend Jeremy is absolutelly right, Chomsky´s theories have changed the linguistic field for good, and in my modest opinion, or most modest of my opinions ;0), he did not go far enough.

On one hand we owe him the deposition of the behaviourist school from the top of the scientific field, even though they are still trying hard to remain and imposse their extremelly anal retentive theories. On the other hand proving that such complex things as language rules, are genetically trasmitted opened a window, quite unused one by the way, to the possibility that learning can be transmitted, in less than one generation, direcly to one´s offspring.

I think this is absolutelly correct and one good reason for anyone to excell. Today this intergenartional transfer of knowledge is being researched although it is in very early stages.

I know by observing certain facts in my personal life that some things that I learned have been inherited by my son and daughter. I know it and do not doubt it.

Also thanks to Chomsky, the learning systems and methods where softened and this was good for all affected, however there are enough ego´s and agendas in the learning field so that his ideas have a limited effect, at least for now.

Somehow while he helped slightly modifying the scientific paradigma, his intellectual enemies are pushing still very hard, and they are alive and well. Just check out how many shrines have been built latelly, on the pastures of Academia, devoted to Saint Piaget of the "Phils" =0(

Best regards
S

Answer 2

I think linguists are far more divided over Chomsky than other answerers acknowledge. There are many many linguists who don't really buy generative grammar. It's almost tempting to compare his influence on linguistics to Freud's influence on psychology: a very important figure in the early days, and one to whom a great deal is owed, but a figure at the same time from whom many modern linguists are moving away from (one big difference being, of course, that Freud's dead and most psychologists have already moved quite a distance from him).

I agree with Santiago F that he changed the field of linguistics, but I do not agree that he "proved" the genetic transmission of linguistic rules. I just don't know what to make of the claim, Santiago, that "the possibility that learning can be transmitted, in less than one generation, directly to one´s offspring." I don't think you understand what Chomsky was saying. Do you honestly mean that what a person learns in their lifetime can be transmitted genetically? This is far from being the case, and was never proposed by Chomsky. His claim was that human beings have evolved an innate universal grammar that shapes how we learn language. Now, it's certain that the structure of our brains biases how we learn things, but it's very doubtful whether we have had enough time to evolve the structures proposed by generativists.

Answer 3

As a bilingual teacher, I can tell you that Noam Chomsky has made incredible contributions in the field of second-language learning. He is certainly a genius in linguistics. I happen to agree with his political views as well, but the two are not necessarily related. Still, a great analytical mind can easily operate in many different fields.

Answer 4

I went to a Chomsky lecture (political) about 11 years ago, and I remember there was a question from an audience member about whether people will accept his ideas in years to come. He said that it depended whether the guy meant his scientific ideas or his political ideas--his political ideas were just simply FACTS that couldn't be disputed, only accepted or covered up (I think the lecture was about East Timor)--his scientific ideas, Chomsky said it was ridiculous to think that they'd be accepted forever, he made a contribution and it was up to future linguists to decide how much of what he said was worth building on.

Answer 5

I wasn't aware that there was a need for consensus on Chomsky's work. From what I know, he's an indisputable authority and researcher in the field of linguistics. If you're referring to his political beliefs, all those who would question his professional contribution on that ground, do not really count as relevant, and certainly not as his equals.

Answer 6

You would be unlikely to get consensus among professors in any field mate - about anything.