 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
Avram Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an Institute Professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and creator of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages. His works in generative linguistics contributed significantly to the decline of behaviorism and led to the advancement of the cognitive sciences. Outside of his linguistic work, Chomsky is also widely known for his radical left-wing political views and his criticism of the foreign policy of U.S. governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism.
| Contents |
Chomsky was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Hebrew scholar William Chomsky. Starting in 1945, he studied philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania, learning from Zellig Harris, a professor of linguistics with whose political views he identified.
Chomsky conducted much of his doctoral research during four years at Harvard University as a Harvard Junior Fellow, and received his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955. In his doctoral thesis, he began to develop some of his linguistic ideas, elaborating on them in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures, perhaps his best-known work in the field of linguistics.
After receiving his doctorate, Chomsky taught at MIT for 19 years, receiving the first award from the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Languages and linguistics. It was during this time that Chomsky became more publicly engaged in politics, arguing against American involvement in the Vietnam War from around 1964. In 1969, Chomsky published American Power and the New Mandarins, a book of essays also on the Vietnam War. Since that time, Chomsky has become well known for his political views, speaking on politics all over the world, and writing several other books on the subject. His beliefs, broadly classified as libertarian socialism, have earned him both a large following among the left, as well as many detractors on all sides of the political spectrum. He continues to write and teach linguistics.
The New York Times Book Review once wrote "Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today." (Although as Chomsky gleefully notes, the article goes on to complain his political work—which frequently accuses the Times of distorting the facts—is "maddeningly simple-minded.")[1] (http://zmag.org/chomsky/mc/index.cfm) According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall.
Syntactic Structures was a distillation of his book Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955,75) in which he introduces transformational grammars. The theory takes utterances (sequences of words) to correspond to abstract "surface structures," which in turn correspond to more abstract "deep structures." (The hard and fast distinction between surface and deep structure is absent in current versions of the theory.) Transformational rules, along with phrase structure rules and other structural principles, govern both the creation and interpretation of utterances. With a limited set of grammar rules and a finite set of terms, humans are able to produce an infinite number of sentences, including sentences nobody has ever said before. The capability to structure our utterances in this way is innate, a part of the genetic endowment of human beings, and is called universal grammar. We are largely unconscious of these structural principles, as we are of most other biological and cognitive properties.
Recent theories of Chomsky's (such as his Minimalist Program) make strong claims regarding universal grammar — that the grammatical principles underlying languages are innate and fixed, and the differences among the world's languages can be characterized in terms of parameter settings in the brain (such as the pro-drop parameter, which indicates whether an explicit subject is always required, as in English, or can be optionally dropped, as in Spanish), which are often likened to switches. (Hence the term principles and parameters, often given to this approach.) In this view, a child learning a language need only acquire the necessary lexical items (words) and morphemes, and determine the appropriate parameter settings, which can be done based on a few key examples.
This approach is motivated by the astonishing pace at which children learn languages, the similar steps followed by children all across the world when learning languages, and the fact that children make certain characteristic errors as they learn their first language, whereas other seemingly logical kinds of errors never occur (and, according to Chomsky, should be attested if a purely general, rather than language-specific, learning mechanism is being employed).
Chomsky's ideas have had a strong influence on researchers investigating the acquisition of language in children, but most researchers who work in this area do not support Chomsky's theories, often preferring emergentist or connectionist theories based around general processing mechanisms in the brain. However, virtually all linguistic theories are controversial, and there is ongoing work on language acquisition from a Chomskyan perspective.
The Chomskyan approach towards syntax, often termed generative grammar, though quite popular, has been challenged by many, especially those working outside the United States. Chomskyan syntactic analyses are often highly abstract, and are based heavily on careful investigation of the border between grammatical and ungrammatical constructs in a language. (Compare this to the so-called pathological cases that play a similarly important role in mathematics.) Such grammaticality judgments can only be made accurately by a native speaker, however, and thus for pragmatic reasons such linguists usually (but by no means exclusively) focus on their own native languages or languages in which they are fluent, usually English, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Japanese or one of the Chinese languages. Sometimes generative grammar analyses break down when applied to languages which have not previously been studied, and many changes in generative grammar have occurred due to an increase in the number of languages analysed. However, the claims made about linguistic universals have become stronger rather than weaker over time; for example Kayne's suggestion in the 1990s that all languages have an underlying Subject-Verb-Object word order would have seemed implausible in the 1960s. One of the prime motivations behind an alternative approach, the functional-typological approach or linguistic typology (often associated with Joseph H. Greenberg), is to base hypotheses of linguistic universals on the study of as wide a variety of the world's languages as possible, to classify the variation seen, and to form theories based on the results of this classification. The Chomskyan approach is too in-depth and reliant on native speaker knowledge to follow this method, though it has over time been applied to a broad range of languages.
Chomsky is famous for investigating various kinds of formal languages and whether or not they might be capable of capturing key properties of human language. His Chomsky hierarchy partitions formal grammars into classes, or groups, with increasing expressive power, i.e., each successive class can generate a broader set of formal languages than the one before. Interestingly, Chomsky argues that modelling some aspects of human language requires a more complex formal grammar (as measured by the Chomsky hierarchy) than modeling others. For example, while a regular language is powerful enough to model English morphology, it is not powerful enough to model English syntax. In addition to being relevant in linguistics, the Chomsky hierarchy has also become important in computer science (especially in compiler construction and automata theory).
His seminal work in phonology was The Sound Pattern of English. He published it together with Morris Halle. This work is considered outdated (though it has recently been reprinted), and he does not publish on phonology anymore.
Although Chomsky's is the best known position in linguistics, his views have been criticised. Perhaps the best known alternative to Chomsky's position is that proposed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Their cognitive linguistics was developed out of Chomskyan linguistics but differs from it in significant ways. Specifically, they argue against the neo-Cartesian aspects of Chomsky's theories, and state that Chomsky fails to take account of the extent to which cognition is embodied. As noted above, connectionist views of learning are not compatible with Chomsky's. Also, newer movements in psychology, such as, for example, situated cognition and discursive psychology are not compatible with Chomsky's views.
In a much more radical way, philosophers in the tradition of Wittgenstein (such as Saul Kripke) argue that Chomskyans are fundamentally wrong about the role of rule following in human cognition. In a similar way philosophers in the phenomenological/existential/hermeneutic traditions oppose the abstract neo-rationalist aspects of Chomsky's thought. The contemporary philosopher who best represents this view is, perhaps, Hubert Dreyfus, also famous (or notorious) for his attacks on artificial intelligence.
One of the main objections to the various incarnations of Chomsky's theories is that they do not follow the scientific method, that is, that they cannot be falsified. For example, Chomskian grammars incorporate deep structure, transformations (see transformational grammar), and empty categories, but there is no empirical evidence for these elements of the theory, and no way to test them. In fact, it is questionable how these elements can possibly be learned by children acquiring a language, since these structures never come to the surface (i.e., are unspoken).
Similarly, data that appear to contradict a Chomskyan analysis usually meet one of two fates. They are either ignored, or a new transformation is invented to "explain" the anomaly. In either case, the theory is saved at the expense of the data.
Another common criticism of Chomskyian analyses of specific languages is that they force all languages into an English-like mold, so that even VSO (verb subject object) languages are underlyingly SVO (subject verb object), just like English.
Chomsky's work in linguistics has had major implications for psychology and its fundamental direction in the 20th century. His theory of a universal grammar was a direct challenge to the established behaviorist theories of the time and had major consequences for understanding how language is learned by children and what, exactly, is the ability to interpret language. The more basic principles of this theory (though not necessarily the stronger claims made by the principles and parameters approach described above) are now generally accepted.
In 1959, Chomsky published a long-circulated critique of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, a book in which the leader of the behaviorist psychologists that had dominated psychology in the first half of the 20th century argued that language was merely a "behavior." Skinner argued that language, like any other behavior — from a dog's salivation in anticipation of dinner, to a master pianist's performance — could be attributed to "training by reward and penalty over time." Language, according to Skinner, was completely learned by cues and conditioning from the world around the language-learner.
Chomsky's critique of Skinner's methodology and basic assumptions paved the way for a revolution against the behaviorist doctrine that had governed psychology. In his 1966 Cartesian Linguistics and subsequent works, Chomsky laid out an explanation of human language faculties that has become the model for investigation in other areas of psychology. Much of the present conception of how the mind works draws directly from ideas that found their first persuasive author of modern times in Chomsky.
There are three key ideas. First is that the mind is "cognitive", or that the mind actually contains mental states, beliefs, doubts, and so on. The former view had denied even this, arguing that there were only "stimulus-response" relationships like "If you ask me if I want X, I will say yes". By contrast, Chomsky showed that the common way of understanding the mind, as having things like beliefs and even unconscious mental states, had to be right. Second, he argued that large parts of what the adult mind can do are "innate". While no child is born automatically able to speak a language, all are born with a powerful language-learning ability which allows them to soak up several languages very quickly in their early years. Subsequent psychologists have extended this thesis far beyond language; the mind is no longer considered a "blank slate" at birth.
Finally, Chomsky made the concept of "modularity" a critical feature of the mind's cognitive architecture. The mind is composed of an array of interacting, specialized subsystems with limited flows of inter-communication. This model contrasts sharply with the old idea that any piece of information in the mind could be accessed by any other cognitive process (optical illusions, for example, cannot be "turned off" even when they are known to be illusions).
Chomsky strongly disagrees with deconstructionist and postmodern criticisms of science:
Chomsky notes that critiques of "white male science" are much like the anti-Semitic and politically motivated attacks against "Jewish physics" used by the Nazis to denigrate research done by Jewish scientists during the Deutsche Physik movement:
Chomskyan models have been used as a theoretical basis in several other fields. The Chomsky hierarchy is often taught in fundamental Computer Science courses as it confers insight into the various types of formal languages. A number of arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research results.
The 1984 Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Niels K. Jerne, used Chomsky's generative model to explain the human immune system, equating "components of a generative grammar ... with various features of protein structures". The title of Jerne's Stockholm Nobel lecture was "The Generative Grammar of the Immune System".
Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who learned 125 signs in ASL, was named after Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky is one of the best known figures of left-wing American politics. He defines himself in the tradition of anarchism, a political philosophy he summarizes as challenging all forms of hierarchy and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified. He especially identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism. Unlike many anarchists, Chomsky does not always object to electoral politics; he has even endorsed candidates for office. He has described himself as a "fellow traveller" to the anarchist tradition as opposed to a pure anarchist to explain why he is sometimes willing to engage with the state.
Chomsky has also stated that he considers himself to be a conservative (Chomsky's Politics, pp. 188) presumably of the classical liberal variety. He has further defined himself as a Zionist; although, he notes that his definition of Zionism is considered by most to be anti-Zionism these days, the result of what he perceives to have been a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of Zionism (Chomsky Reader). In a C-Span Book TV interview, he stated:
Overall, Chomsky is not fond of traditional political titles and categories and prefers to let his views speak for themselves. His main modes of actions include writing magazine articles and books and making speaking engagements. Today he is one of the most globally famous figures of the left, especially among academics and university students, and frequently travels across the United States, Europe, and the Third World.
Chomsky has a very large following of supporters worldwide as well as a dense speaking schedule, drawing large crowds wherever he goes around the world. He is often booked up to two years in advance. He was one of the main speakers at the 2002 World Social Forum.
In response to US declarations of a "war on terrorism" in the 1980s and 2000s, Chomsky has argued that the major sources of international terrorism are the world's major powers, like the United States. He uses the definition of terrorism from a US Army manual which describes it as "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Thus terrorism is an objective description about certain actions and motives are irrelevant. As he notes:
On the efficiency of terrorism:
Chomsky has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the United States government. Chomsky gives two reasons for his focus on the US. First, it is his own government and so his work studying and criticizing it can have a greater effect. Second, the US is the world's current superpower and so it acts in the offensive ways that all superpowers do. (However, Chomsky will criticize official enemies like the former Soviet Union in passing.)
One of the key things superpowers do, Chomsky argues, is try to organize the world around themselves using military and economic means. Thus, the US government bombed Vietnam in the Vietnam War and the larger Indochina conflict for daring to break away from the US economic system. He has also criticized US interference in Central and South American countries and military support of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
Chomsky has repeatedly emphasized his theory that much of the United States' foreign policy is based on the "threat of a good example" (which he says is another name for the domino theory). The "threat of a good example" is that a country could successfully develop independently from the US sphere of influence, thus presenting a model for other countries, including countries in which the United States has strong economic interests. This, Chomsky says, has prompted the United States to repeatedly intervene to quell "independent development, regardless of ideology" in regions of the world where it has no inherent economic or safety interests. In one of his most famous works, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky uses this particular theory as an explanation for the United States' interventions in Guatemala, Laos, Nicaragua, and Grenada.
Chomsky believes the US government's Cold War policies were not entirely shaped by anti-Soviet paranoia, but rather toward preserving the United States' ideological and economic dominance in the world. As he wrote in Uncle Sam: "What the US wants is 'stability,' meaning security for the upper classes and large foreign enterprises."
While he is almost uniformly critical of the United States government's foreign policy, Chomsky expresses his admiration for the freedom of expression enjoyed by US citizens in a number of interviews and books. Even other Western democracies such as France and Canada are less liberal in their defense of controversial speech than the US, and Chomsky is not hesitant to criticize them for it, as shown by the Faurisson affair.This subtlety seems to be lost on many of his critics, who see his criticism of American foreign policy as an attack on all the values held by American society.
Chomsky is deeply opposed to what he calls "corporate state capitalism", practiced by the United States and its allies. He supports Mikhail Bakunin's anarchist (or "libertarian socialist") ideas, requiring economic freedom in addition to the "control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions." He refers to this as "real socialism," and describes Soviet-style socialism as similar in terms of "totalitarian controls" to U.S.-style capitalism, saying that each is a system based in types and levels of control, rather than in organization or efficiency. In defense of this thesis, Chomsky sometimes points out that Frederick Winslow Taylor's philosophy of scientific management was the organizational basis for the Soviet Union's massive industrialization movement as well as the American corporate model.
Chomsky has illuminated Bakunin's comments on the totalitarian state as predictions for the brutal Soviet police state that would come. He echoes Bakunin's statement "...after a year ... the revolutionary will become worse than the czar himself," which expands upon the idea that the tyrannical Soviet state was simply a natural growth from the Bolshevik ideology of state control. He has also termed Soviet communism as "fake socialism," and said that contrary to what many in America claim, the collapse of the Soviet Union should be regarded "a small victory for socialism," not capitalism.
In For Reasons of State Chomsky advocates that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or government institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone.
Another focus of Chomsky's political work has been an analysis of mainstream mass media (especially in the United States), its structures and constraints, and its role in supporting big business and government interests. Unlike totalitarian systems, where physical force can readily be used to coerce the general population, more democratic societies like the US must turn to more non-violent means of control. In an often-quoted remark, Chomsky states that "propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." (Media Control)
Edward S. Herman and Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media explores this topic in depth, presenting their "propaganda model" of the news media with numerous detailed case studies demonstrating it. The model explains systemic bias of the mass media in terms of structural economic causes rather than a conspiracy of people. It argues the bias derives from five "filters" that all published news much "pass through" which combine to systematically distort news coverage.
The model describes how the media form a decentralized and non-conspiratorial but nonetheless very powerful propaganda system that is able to mobilize an elite consensus, frame public debate within elite perspectives and at the same time give the appearance of democratic consent.
Chomsky and Herman test their model empirically by picking "paired examples" -- pairs of events that were objectively similar except for the alignment of domestic elite interests. They use a number of such examples to show that in cases where an "official enemy" does something (like murder of a religious official), the press investigates thoroughly and devotes a great amount of coverage to the matter. But when the domestic government or an ally does the same thing (or worse), the press downplays the story.
Crucially, also they test their model against the case that is often held up as the best example of a free and aggressively independent press, the media coverage of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. Even in this case, they again find that the press was behaving subserviently to elite interests.
Despite all the evidence -- and just as the propaganda model would predict -- the propaganda model (and much of Chomsky's politics in general) has been essentially ignored or distorted by the mainstream media without serious refutation.
Chomsky "grew up...in the Jewish-Zionist cultural tradition" (Peck, p. 11). His father was one of the foremost scholars of the Hebrew language and taught at a religious school. Chomsky has also had a long fascination with and involvement in left-wing Zionist politics. As he described:
He is highly critical of the policies of Israel towards the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours. Among many articles and books, his book The Fateful Triangle is considered one of the premier texts among those who oppose Israeli treatment of Palestinians and American support for Israeli government policies. He has also condemned Israel's role in "guiding state terrorism" for selling weapons to apartheid South Africa and Latin American countries that he characterizes as U.S. puppet states, e.g. Guatemala in the 1980s, as well as US-backed right-wing paramilitaries (or, according to Chomsky, terrorists) such as the Nicaraguan Contras — see Iran-Contra Scandal. (What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chapter 2.4) In addition, he has consistently condemned the United States for its unconditional military, financial and diplomatic support of successive Israeli governments. Chomsky characterises Israel as a "mercenary state" within the US system of hegemony. He has also fiercely criticised sectors of the American Jewish community for their role in obtaining unconditional US support, stating that "they should more properly be called 'supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel'" (Fateful Triangle, p.4). He says of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):
See also: Middle East Politics, a speech given at Columbia University in 1999
Chomsky's outspoken criticism of conventional wisdom about politics and history has made him a controversial figure with many critics. Some accuse him of using out of context quotations and facts to support his arguments or citing sources of dubious legitimacy. However, Chomsky's books rigorously and extensively cite their sources. Many accuse him of overlooking, sympathizing with, or minimizing the actions of states and groups hostile to the United States, thus making his work excessively "anti-US"-centric and one-sided. However, Chomsky often demonstrates that much of the criticism of such groups is exaggerated and distorted which might make more accurate numbers sound like an attempt to be sympathetic.
For example, in After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology, Chomsky and Herman, claim that the American media used unsubstantiated refugee testimonies and distorted sources with regard to the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge to serve US government propaganda purposes in the wake of the Vietnam War.
Some of the people he corrects have largely conceded the point. In the New York Review of Books Jean Lacouture wrote "Noam Chomsky's corrections [to my article on Cambodia] have caused me great distress", conceding "serious errors in citation" including "questionable" sources for "figures on victims" which call into question "the cause I was trying to defend." However, Lacouture added that "if I must plead guilty in handling the details of my review, I would plead innocent concerning its fundamental argument."
But some critics, such as Anthony Lewis, then a New York Times columnist, accused Chomsky of being a Pol Pot apologist. Chomsky argued that he had acknowledged the atrocities (e.g. stating in After the Cataclysm that "there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the testimony of refugees"). In Manufacturing Consent (also cowritten with Ed Herman), Chomsky responds:
Some scholars who reviewed this controversy, such as Milan Rai, consider it to have been part of a propaganda campaign against Chomsky, designed to generate "endless defence" in response to critics in order to distract attention from the substantive issues.
Chomsky was criticized for mentioning in a Salon.com interview that reports from Human Rights Watch and the German Embassy claim that the U.S. attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory "probably led to tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians [4] (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020116.htm). Critics have disputed whether or not either institution actually made such an explicitly bold claim. For example, neoconservative author Christopher Hitchens has said that “It’s a very vulgar, arithmetical, pragmatic way of arguing anyway. If you do that, then get the facts and figures wrong, well then you’re really fucked. You’re fucked twice.” [5] (http://archives.cjr.org/year/02/3/giuffo.asp), while Australian Right wing author Keith Windschuttle has concluded that Chomsky is a liar [6] (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm).
Right wing author David Horowitz is one of Chomsky's more vocal critics. He has described Chomsky as the "Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate" and "the most treacherous intellect in America" claiming Chomsky has "one message alone: America is the Great Satan". However, while Horowitz claims "It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted" he feels "there really is no need" and notably has not done so, leaving few claims to refute.
Chomsky has not responded in detail to Horowitz's allegations, stating in an interview that "I haven't read Horowitz. I didn't read him when he was a Stalinist and I don't read him today." [7] (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20011016.htm) This response has in turn been disputed by Horowitz, who argues he was never in fact a Stalinist and that Chomsky has in fact read and analyzed his writings in the past [8] (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4499). However, in a Guardian article, a Ramparts Magazine writer describes Horowitz as an ex-Stalinist [9] (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,498531,00.html). In a National Review article, Horowitz is mentioned as a former Stalinist [10] (http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george060200.html).
Faurisson affair: Chomsky was also involved in a high-profile controversy over an essay he wrote in defense of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's freedom of speech, which was then used as the introduction to a book by Faurisson. Chomsky's defense of Faurisson was rooted in his support for civil liberties, even for those he feels are guilty of "war crimes," and mirrors the position advocated by civil liberties organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union. On various occasions, usually resulting from the Faurisson affair and his criticism of Israeli politics, Chomsky has also been accused of supporting anti-Semitism, notably in Werner Cohn's book "Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers" (ISBN 0964589702) [11] (http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html). Chomsky has replied once to Werner Cohn's allegations [12] (http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19890601.htm).
In 2002, the president of Harvard University Lawrence Summers drew attention by claiming that the "Noam Chomsky-led campaign" to have universities divest from companies with Israeli holdings is "anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intention". The viewpoints that Chomsky expressed on such matters have occassionally caused his political adversaries, notably Jewish American scholars, to accuse him of supporting fascism. In fact Chomsky is skeptical of the boycott campaign, though he "understand[s] and sympathize[s] with the feelings behind [the] proposal" [13] (http://euroisrael.huji.ac.il/letters.html).
Although he routinely condemns the Israeli government's actions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Chomsky has recently come under fire (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6109) from pro-Palestinian activists for his advocacy (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5240) of the relatively moderate two-state plan, as described by the Geneva Accords. Chomsky responds (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6110) to this by stating that proposals without significant international backing are not realistic goals:
See a full bibliography on Chomsky's MIT homepage [14] (http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/bibliography/noam.html).
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
