How could Noam Chomsky say that Esperanto is not a language?

By: | Post date: 2016-04-28 | Comments: No Comments
Posted in categories: Artificial Languages

‘Cause he’s a reductionist shmuck.

Longer answer:

What Jens Stengaard Larsen’s answer said. To the Noam (tar his bones!), linguistics is an arm of neuropsychology, and anything that doesn’t reflect the (big sarcastic scare quotes) natural development of language is not of scientific interest.

Lots of evil narrowminded blinkered linguists share the naturalist bias against Esperanto and other conlangs (How do professional linguists react to Esperanto?). Many scholars though don’t share Chomsky’s particular take on language, including:

  • Actual neuropsychologists
  • Almost all historical linguists
  • Pragmaticists
  • Most Typologists
  • Sociolinguists
  • Anthropological linguists
  • Fieldworkers
  • Corpus linguists
  • Linguists on the West Coast of the States and in Australia

Edit: Oh and I forgot to add (especially for Vadim Berman):

  • computational linguists!

Especially after Chomsky took the NATO funding for machine translation in the 1960, and ran…

Answered 2016-04-28 · Upvoted by

Dimitar Berberu, Evangelist at Esperanto

Leave a Reply

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Join 299 other subscribers

  • January 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
%d bloggers like this: