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 291 other subscribers

  • October 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
%d bloggers like this: