---Anisur Rahman
Swedish linguist Sven Ohman (1936-2008) knew differently, and it would be even hard to think as he could point out why Noam Chomsky (b. 1928--) was never a linguist. It is something hard to believe to anyone who is familiar with the name of Chomsky though. Formerly Uppsala University professor of linguistics Sven in his book ‘The Essence of Language a Philosophical Problem’ has successfully established his observations and findings denying Chomsky’s existence as a linguist.
The book is a concise presentation of some linguistic questions, answers to those, writers’ own opinions, reflections and dismissing of previous definition of linguistics already established so far. All these provide something personal accounts that Sven has featured in the book with convincing technique for excusing the readers inside and out side the fort of linguistic and philosophical world. This slim volume includes many things from basic ideas of traditional grammar phonetics, phonology, the concept word, the use of the human voice in spoken language and much more over Chomsky’s disqualification to be a linguist though some of Chomsky’s books are integral part of syllabuses on Linguistics at universities in various countries.
Sven was both a scholar and academics, teaches Linguistics at different universities and studied and conducted researches on the same at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and elsewhere. The more interesting thing is that Sven did enjoy lecturing on Linguistics by Chomsky at the MIT. This book has been installed as a proper object of scholarly scrutiny of unsettled linguistic debate and anatomy of linguistic icon Chomsky.
Sven frankly notes though he took Chomsky’s teachings to his heart, and had several friendly discussions with him in connection with his classes who cannot say as he felt there was a friendship relation between them. Perhaps, his being six years younger, and his deep respect for the man Chomsky were the obstacles, Sven elaborated.
Sven has findings that Chomsky’s language theories cannot replace traditional linguistics by appealing to mathematical constructions that, as is the case, don’t have much to contribute to our general understanding and use of actual languages.
Sven dismisses the saying ‘Linguistics is sometimes described as ‘the Science of Language’ showing us how to deal with ‘language problems’ and thus he establishes his own definition as making ideas in a single word linguistics is the science of words as used in saying things by means of letters in writing.
Sven believes as probably inspired by his own interpretation of the example of theoretical physics he (Chomsky) settled for in depth analysis of linguistic facts that could be observed in language and that shed light on crucial matters of what Chomsky considers to be linguistic theory.
Sven belongs to those who feel that Chomsky’s ambitions completely disqualify his grand project to the appellation as linguistics a term Chomsky has in fact wantonly stolen. However great a linguist Chomsky may be said in the media to be, Sven determines to continue to maintain that linguistics is a study of the actual use of what everyone knows as languages.
The book has exposed it as Chomsky is not a linguist at all but an intellectual soldier of fortune. He firmly makes a note as MIT linguistics is just a media hoax!
Noam Chomsky has never received any formal training in any academic discipline and has not submitted a written a doctoral thesis for examination in any subject. Sven establishes Chomskian suspicion simply pointing out Chomsky’s saying: ‘we try to show…’. Sven justifies that thus Chomsky confirms the suspicion that for him linguistics is, of course, a branch of applied mathematics, in which he makes assumptions from which he mathematically derives conclusions that he may feel rhymes more or less well with what he takes to be linguistic facts.
Sven further elaborated on that Chomsky has been quoted in using the phrase over linguistic theory ‘try to prove’ the correctness of a hunch. Chomsky may have about something linguistic that doesn’t strike him as being in any way odd, since the whole thing is just a game anyway, Sven observed. He further reflected on Chomsky as he is very serious about politics, but linguistics is only interesting play to him. It is mentioned in the book as Linguistics was never a vital project to Chomsky as politics was. Sven believes that’s why Chomsky’s linguistics theories have failed so utterly. How can someone who doesn’t even have a PhD gain the fame and academic stature that Chomsky has won? That was a question in dynamic and daring linguist Sven Ohman to be or not be. But Sven was so adamant.
In connection with the 2002 Chomsky visit to Sweden Sven Ohman wrote a long article in a morning newspaper in Sweden, Svenska Dagbladet, to explain that Chomsky is not a scientist at all, but a political ideologue who started out in the 1950s by seizing power over American linguistics by overthrowing the somewhat provincial behaviorism that had reigned supreme in indigenous American psychology since the early 20th century and to which American linguistics – the Bloomfield school—had pledged its allegiance.
Sven makes some more interesting observations over the Nobel Prize making possible connection with Chomsky as well. He feels that as there is no Nobel Prize in Linguistics, and in so far as Sven was aware no such thing is even being considered, though if it were set up it is not obvious that the MIT conception of Linguistics would be given the status of a definition for the Prize. Sven observes that there is of course the Prize in literature but it is only awarded poets and writers of belle-letters and Chomsky’s writings do not qualify for this distinction, let’s hope.
There is finally Nobel’s Peace Prize, but Sven finds it hard to believe that the committee would consider Chomsky eligible on political grounds. Well, … who knows? If Henry Kissinger and Dr Yunus could get it, why not Chomsky as well?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Essence of Language a Philosophical Problem--- Why Noam Chomsky was never a linguist by Sven Ohman; Published by Nya Doxa in 2007, Nora, Sweden.
Swedish linguist Sven Ohman (1936-2008) knew differently, and it would be even hard to think as he could point out why Noam Chomsky (b. 1928--) was never a linguist. It is something hard to believe to anyone who is familiar with the name of Chomsky though. Formerly Uppsala University professor of linguistics Sven in his book ‘The Essence of Language a Philosophical Problem’ has successfully established his observations and findings denying Chomsky’s existence as a linguist.
The book is a concise presentation of some linguistic questions, answers to those, writers’ own opinions, reflections and dismissing of previous definition of linguistics already established so far. All these provide something personal accounts that Sven has featured in the book with convincing technique for excusing the readers inside and out side the fort of linguistic and philosophical world. This slim volume includes many things from basic ideas of traditional grammar phonetics, phonology, the concept word, the use of the human voice in spoken language and much more over Chomsky’s disqualification to be a linguist though some of Chomsky’s books are integral part of syllabuses on Linguistics at universities in various countries.
Sven was both a scholar and academics, teaches Linguistics at different universities and studied and conducted researches on the same at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and elsewhere. The more interesting thing is that Sven did enjoy lecturing on Linguistics by Chomsky at the MIT. This book has been installed as a proper object of scholarly scrutiny of unsettled linguistic debate and anatomy of linguistic icon Chomsky.
Sven frankly notes though he took Chomsky’s teachings to his heart, and had several friendly discussions with him in connection with his classes who cannot say as he felt there was a friendship relation between them. Perhaps, his being six years younger, and his deep respect for the man Chomsky were the obstacles, Sven elaborated.
Sven has findings that Chomsky’s language theories cannot replace traditional linguistics by appealing to mathematical constructions that, as is the case, don’t have much to contribute to our general understanding and use of actual languages.
Sven dismisses the saying ‘Linguistics is sometimes described as ‘the Science of Language’ showing us how to deal with ‘language problems’ and thus he establishes his own definition as making ideas in a single word linguistics is the science of words as used in saying things by means of letters in writing.
Sven believes as probably inspired by his own interpretation of the example of theoretical physics he (Chomsky) settled for in depth analysis of linguistic facts that could be observed in language and that shed light on crucial matters of what Chomsky considers to be linguistic theory.
Sven belongs to those who feel that Chomsky’s ambitions completely disqualify his grand project to the appellation as linguistics a term Chomsky has in fact wantonly stolen. However great a linguist Chomsky may be said in the media to be, Sven determines to continue to maintain that linguistics is a study of the actual use of what everyone knows as languages.
The book has exposed it as Chomsky is not a linguist at all but an intellectual soldier of fortune. He firmly makes a note as MIT linguistics is just a media hoax!
Noam Chomsky has never received any formal training in any academic discipline and has not submitted a written a doctoral thesis for examination in any subject. Sven establishes Chomskian suspicion simply pointing out Chomsky’s saying: ‘we try to show…’. Sven justifies that thus Chomsky confirms the suspicion that for him linguistics is, of course, a branch of applied mathematics, in which he makes assumptions from which he mathematically derives conclusions that he may feel rhymes more or less well with what he takes to be linguistic facts.
Sven further elaborated on that Chomsky has been quoted in using the phrase over linguistic theory ‘try to prove’ the correctness of a hunch. Chomsky may have about something linguistic that doesn’t strike him as being in any way odd, since the whole thing is just a game anyway, Sven observed. He further reflected on Chomsky as he is very serious about politics, but linguistics is only interesting play to him. It is mentioned in the book as Linguistics was never a vital project to Chomsky as politics was. Sven believes that’s why Chomsky’s linguistics theories have failed so utterly. How can someone who doesn’t even have a PhD gain the fame and academic stature that Chomsky has won? That was a question in dynamic and daring linguist Sven Ohman to be or not be. But Sven was so adamant.
In connection with the 2002 Chomsky visit to Sweden Sven Ohman wrote a long article in a morning newspaper in Sweden, Svenska Dagbladet, to explain that Chomsky is not a scientist at all, but a political ideologue who started out in the 1950s by seizing power over American linguistics by overthrowing the somewhat provincial behaviorism that had reigned supreme in indigenous American psychology since the early 20th century and to which American linguistics – the Bloomfield school—had pledged its allegiance.
Sven makes some more interesting observations over the Nobel Prize making possible connection with Chomsky as well. He feels that as there is no Nobel Prize in Linguistics, and in so far as Sven was aware no such thing is even being considered, though if it were set up it is not obvious that the MIT conception of Linguistics would be given the status of a definition for the Prize. Sven observes that there is of course the Prize in literature but it is only awarded poets and writers of belle-letters and Chomsky’s writings do not qualify for this distinction, let’s hope.
There is finally Nobel’s Peace Prize, but Sven finds it hard to believe that the committee would consider Chomsky eligible on political grounds. Well, … who knows? If Henry Kissinger and Dr Yunus could get it, why not Chomsky as well?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Essence of Language a Philosophical Problem--- Why Noam Chomsky was never a linguist by Sven Ohman; Published by Nya Doxa in 2007, Nora, Sweden.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar