AHMED QADOURY ABED CHOMSKY : A SINGLE OR MULTIMINDS IN ONE

1. 1
CHOMSKY: A SINGLE MIND OR MANY MINDS IN ONE?
AHMED QADOURY ABED
Finally, we get it! But is Chomsky a revolution or evolution? „Chomskyan Revolution‟ is a term
used by both his supporters and opponents. But, such use is based on the definition and arguments
for or against such use. To start with „for‟ like Joseph, Newmeyer, Harris and many others, what is
simply presented by Chomsky is a revolution for many reasons: (1)the definition of language ( a
rule-governed system) and then linguistics; (2) the shift from descriptive adequacy towards
explanatory and then evaluative adequacy;(3)introduction a new paradigm really represented by
more algebraic formal syntax; (4) redefining Saussurian dichotomy of langue and parole into
competence and performance, and later focus on regarding language as parole , not langue ,as
Saussure believed; (5) Chomsky made a resurrection to innateness(nature and nurture go
together) ;(6) He has returned the mind to its position of preeminence in the study of
humankind ;(7)The idea that a substantial part of our knowledge is genetically determined came
forward;(8)„„He has shown that there is really only one human language: that the immense
complexity of the innumerable languages we hear around us must be variations on a single theme.
He has revolutionized linguistics, and in so doing has set a cat among the philosophical pigeons.”
(Smith, 2004: 16); (9)Since 1957, syntax and cognition have become the pace-maker in theoretical
linguistics rather than phonology; and (10) Human languages exhibit remarkable similarities or
principles, and these patterns are called universals.
The other advantage acknowledged by generativists like Newmeyer (1982), Smith & Wilson
(1979), Joseph (1995) is the issue of terminology. Majority of his terms are used for the first time
like „deep structure‟, ‟LAD‟, ‟Government-Binding‟,‟ Barriers‟, and „Minimalism‟. Even the used
ones are redefined like “creativity‟, which is used to mean „We can produce and understand an
infinite range of novel grammatical sentences‟, ‟Children do not imitate a fixed repertoire of
sentences, and „creativity is not explicable if language is learnt just from the environment‟. This is
also a tendency followed by Hjelmslev, Lamb, and Halliday.
But the question here: Are all these features originated by Chomsky with no relevant
influence from earlier linguists and psychologists? Or let‟s present the question in another facet:
Does Chomskyan paradigm (some of its concepts are mentioned above) carry points of coincidence
with Hjelmslev, Pike, Firth, Lamb, Halliday, just to mention a few? The simple answer is NO!
Chomsky usually states that his theories and ideas have seeds from many ,starting from those of
Wundt‟s in the 18th
century, Humdolt‟s in the 19th
century, till today. His statement in the Ninth
International Congress at MIT is full of names, if Harris and Jakobson are also included as his own
priests. Newmeyer, Joseph , and Koerner and others don‟t deny this. Newmeyer in CH 2 of his
Generative Linguistics has proved that the origins were earlier than Chomsky, but his own ones are
regarded the “the first modern attempt to promote a generative grammar of a language
encompassing all levels of description”(1996:16). Also, even not mentioned in his works, Saussure
with his dichotomies is there, despite the different realization of some of these. In a similar way,
Chomsky (1959, 1965, 1975) proposed a 'top down' approach on which the linguist is free to
hypothesize systems of formal rules containing category symbols, subject only to appropriate
empirical confirmation. Like post-Bloomfieldians, algebraic, formal syntax is used, and an
advanced version is followed and latter developed. Like other theories, Chomsky is also behind
empiricist principle which was really developed during the 1980s in his PP Program. Similarly,
non-linear representations are used. The relational procedure is existent in Chomskyan paradigm,

2. 2
especially in his treatment of deep structure and surface structure in the 1950s and 1960s, and later
minimized in the 1990s to one strata. His earlier versions focused on the intrinsic and extrinsic
relationships between deep and surface structures. His difference was in the insertion of
transformations. These points prove that is a man of multi-minds, if these minds are metaphorically
the other participants in the linguistic discipline.
Thus, it is an instance of evolution. This is totally correct, but no one can deny that forms of
evolution can eventually lead to a revolution. The term „Chomskyan Revolution‟ and its used by
many „for‟ and „against‟ is a clear evidence. Koerner‟s treatment was/is with such term ,but of
relative validity. His 1983, 2004, and 2007 implied such reference in accepting it as a serial
revolution. And this is the portrait of humanities, unlike solid sciences. Koerner;s implied
acceptance of this relative validity of a Chomskyan Revolution was clear in his treatment of the
actual coincidence of this paradigm with Kuhn‟s , Murray‟s , and Joseph‟s conditions for revolution
standards. The only un-applicable one was Popper‟s falsificationalism. Some of the philosophical
questions defending and justifying Chomskyan paradigm are further examined by Katz‟s “The
Unfinished Chomskyan Revolution” (1996), especially that of abstractness. The initial step towards
a linguistic revolution was Syntactic Structures, and this is justified by two reasons. The first one is
its conception of a grammar as a theory of a language, subject to the same constraints on
construction and evaluation as any theory in the natural sciences, following Kuhn‟ paradigm for the
morphology of scientific revolution. Prior to 1957, it was widely considered, not just in linguistics,
but throughout the humanities and social sciences that a formal, yet non-empiricist, theory of a
human attribute was impossible. Chomsky showed that such a theory was possible. The second
reason: it placed syntactic relations at the centre of langue. By focusing on syntax, Chomsky was
able to lay the groundwork for an explanation of the most distinctive aspect of human language: its
creativity. The revolutionary importance of the centrality of syntax cannot be overstated. Chomsky
himself in his 2000s interviews admitted that the earlier version of his revolution were based on
others‟ contributions, but later moved to formulate it in his own revolutionary framework of GB,
and then Minimalism. Koerner‟s description of the events in the second half of the last century as a
propaganda is acceptable, even biased instances are evidently available. But is it justifiable ?
Chomsky, Harris, Joseph, Koerner, MIT, Department of Defense , and many others have ,of course,
different reasons for “YES” or “NO” answers. Robert F. Barsky‟s Zellig Harris: From American
Linguistics to Socialist Zionism (2011) reveals some further secrets.
Finally, to present a personal perspective, the answer is “YES”; it is a revolution for a
number of justifications, not reasons. If it is a propaganda or an agenda, it is the slogan of all
science and politics institution behind the World War II, as reflected in the introduction of Kuhn‟
(1962), where dominance and control are among these factors. May be some specific applications
were military, but the linguistic domain moved to be very unique , leading in turn to actual shifts in
linguistics and its intra-disciplines like philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, logic, etc.
on the one hand ,and its inter-disciplines like computational linguistics, on the other. These two
opened new departments and increased new projects, like Communicative Approach to language
learning and teaching. In addition to all these and many others not mentioned here, and may be
discovered later in Wikliks, Chomsky is precious coin with faces: a unique mentality and a sum of
multi-working mentalities. The last words to write here are his own description of his career: “It
takes a big ego to withstand the fact that you‟re saying something different from everyone else.”
Chomsky (qt in Smith, 2004).