well.
he's basically anti-behaviorist/anti-b.f. skinner.
i think this is important re: chomsky.
chomsky said that language learners have two components - competence & performance.
competence = what you know. what you know about the rules of language.
performance = what you show. what you actually say while speaking, double negatives, errors, all that.
he also said that performance (what you show) is not necessarily a good measure of competence (what you know.)
another thing: he's anti-corpus linguistics.
Quote:
Corpus linguistics is the study of language as expressed in samples (corpora) or "real world" text. The approach runs counter to Noam Chomsky's view that real language is riddled with performance-related errors, thus requiring careful analysis of small speech samples obtained in a highly controlled laboratory setting. Corpus linguistics does away with Chomsky's competence/performance split; adherents believe that reliable language analysis best occurs on field-collected samples, in natural contexts and with minimal experimental interference.
i think an LIE could come up with stuff like this.
ILE somehow seems more likely, though. i'm glad someone brought this up, though, as he's kind of like trying to type einstein.
noam chomsky wikiquote
george lakoff (cognitive linguist, good guy) said this:
Quote:
What he does in linguistics is exactly what he campaigns against in politics. He feeds off people. He doesn't allow anyone to disagree with him.
maybe this is why everyone is so confused. (;