PLAY ACTING AT SCIENCE.

Paul Postal, a former disciple of Noam Chomsky’s who used to go around viciously attacking non-Chomskyites, famously apostasized and now turns his rhetorical guns on the Master in an invigorating style not unlike that with which Trotsky assailed his former comrade in arms Lenin [er, either change "former" to "future" or "Lenin" to "Stalin"]. I give you his “Two Case Studies of Chomsky’s Play Acting at Linguistics“:

In his famous review of Skinner, Chomsky introduced the phrase ‘play acting at science’. This work, focusing on his talk of The A-over-A Principle and Recoverability argues in detail that that term precisely characterizes much of Chomsky’s own work in linguistics.

Even if you don’t care about the ins and outs of theoretical linguistics, it’s worth downloading the pdf available at that link in order to enjoy his vinegary blasts of character assassination. If, of course, you like that sort of thing.

Comments

  1. Postal’s paper from earlier in the year, “Chomsky’s Foundational Admission,” is, if anything, even harsher.

  2. I have great respect for the past linguistic work of both Postal and Chomsky. This criticism of Chomsky’s remark about his A-over-A principle is very odd, though. I suppose it’s fair to hold Chomsky responsible for remembering the refutation of his A-over-A principle in the dissertation of his very own brilliant advisee, Haj Ross, but really, that was a long time ago, and who cares any more?
    But here is something about that affair that is really interesting, to me anyway, and just shows how out of touch Chomsky became. While Chomsky’s account was unprincipled and wrong (I agree with Postal here), Ross’s new account was much more accurate but also unprincipled (so one can understand Chomsky’s lack of enthusiasm for it, if he even remembered what Ross had said, those many years ago). What makes it still interesting is that there is a principled account of part of the phenomenon, discovered back in the 80s by Gerald Gazdar, which, remarkably, Chomsky, Postal, and (so far as I know) Ross all have remained unaware of. For decades.
    The new principle is: there are no transformations. Constituents don’t move around — they were always where they are seen to be.
    Now, to describe the constructions that TG, with such arbitrary additional principles as A-over-A, requires movement transformations for, some adjustments to a phrase structure grammar must be made. The principle adjustment is the addition of special categories (a finite number of them) to describe those phrases from which a TGian thinks something has been extracted.
    An example of A-over-A is the inability to remove a part of one of two coordinated constituents; in Ross’s new theory, this was called the Coordinate Structure Constraint. For instance, from the S = [S and S] structure “Mary took a walk, and John read some book”, one cannot form a question *”What book did Mary take a walk and John read?”
    But if there are no transformations, this has to be done a different way. The “John read” part is assigned the special category S/NP, meaning an S with a NP missing, and the above example comes to have the structure (after “What book did”) S = [S and S/NP]. What is wrong with this structure is obvious: phrases of unlike category are coordinated — S is a different category from S/NP. So, no special arbitrary principle like A-over-A is needed, nor is Ross’s equally arbitrary Coordinate Structure Constraint.
    But wait — there’s more. The non-transformational account of Gazdar makes an interesting prediction. If you can coordinate phrases of like category and this (admittedly weird) S/NP is really a category, why shouldn’t you be able to coordinate two S/NP phrases? Well, let’s try one. In the question “What did Mary buy?”, the “Mary buy” part is an S/NP. In the question “What did John read?”, the “John read” part is also an S/NP. Coordinating them would give “Mary buy and John read”, which should be of the same category as each phrase coordinated, so we’ll have a structure S/NP = [S/NP and S/NP], and we know an S/NP can go after “What did”, so we should get “What did Mary buy and John read?”. Which turns out to be an acceptable English sentence.
    Isn’t that remarkable?
    (In the example, I’ve suppressed details about the missing tense in the phrase after “what did”.)

  3. Call such inadequate proposals failed principles (F-principles).
    What? Why? This is certainly a fun article but I’m glad I’m not paying school fees to any of the places these people teach. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

  4. This paper is a lot of fun, I literally lolled at the remark about Chomsky’s “promisory notes” where Da Big Kahuna says that a principle X is easy to describe/formalize, but never does so and doesn’t cite anyone else who does.
    For sheer entertainment value, Postal’s “Skeptical Linguistic Essays”* is even better. It actually has a section on ‘Junk Linguistics’ which includes chapters on junk refereeing, junk reasoning and junk ethics. ‘Junk Ethics 1′ offers Screwtapeesque advice to a young theoretical linguist. Fun fun fun all around.
    The chapter titled “The Openness of Natural Languages” is a pretty fascinating piece which deals with Chomsky’s formal definition of Natural Language (a set of finite sentences constructed out of a finite set of words) and it’s properties. It basically takes sentences which report direct speech (same language or foreign, thus including stuff like “Alien said ‘klaatu barrada nikto’”) or describe gestures and argues that the formal definition is, suprise suprise, wrong. Postal makes a great case against what I believe are the last vestiges of undisputed contribution of Chomsky to formal linguistics. (Geoff Pullum’s paper on math in “Syntactic Structures” is another fine example). But much as I enjoyed the argumentation (and Postal ripping Chomsky a new one), I couldn’t help but wonder what the fucking point was and what use is this to anyone who is actually interested in studying actual languages. The answer I got so far, is none whatsoever. So yeah, what Korona Úr said.
    *There is a link to it on Postal’s NYU website, but alas, it leads nowhere.

  5. I wonder whether Chomsky is ill-served by his popularisers. Every article on his stuff that I’ve read has left me feeling either “What?” or “So what?”.

  6. I’ve always thought that a no-holds-barred attack is a good introduction to any contentious subject. The classic in this genre is Gellner’s ‘Words and Things,’ in which Professor Wittgenstein and his followers get deconstructed. My understanding, fwiw, is that this book did not have a positive effect on Gellner’s career.

  7. I wonder whether Chomsky is ill-served by his popularisers.
    No, not at all. I was forced at gunpoint (OK, at threat of not getting to go on to do my dissertation) to take a class in the Master’s theories from His Own Texts, and trust me, he’s not ill served.
    Thanks for the further Postal blasts, Ben and bulbul!

  8. I think Chomsky was very well served by his early popularizers. Notably, Lees, Postal, Ross, Lakoff. After all, Ross attributed the basic idea of his dissertation about general constraints on transformations to Chomsky and, in particular, Chomsky’s A-over-A condition. Lees, in his effort to apply Chomsky’s theories, worked out the details of English nominalizations much more thoroughly than anyone else had done it.
    Later, after Aspects, both Chomsky and students trying to explain his work seemed to lose their way.

  9. What I find most interesting in reading Postal’s paper (at least the part that I read) is the way that he fights fire with fire. In demolishing Chomsky, Postal uses all the turgid language, ugly conventions, and painfully intricate argumentations of the Chomskyan school itself. Very few people would have to patience to refute Chomsky in the language of Chomskyanism. Most people would prefer to go off and do something more useful.

  10. Trond Engen says:

    He lost me at “F-principle”.

  11. David Eddyshaw says:

    Ha! Noam Chomsky, inventor of Content-Free Grammar.

  12. marie-lucie says:

    Bathrobe: Postal used to be one of the most prominent Chomskyites, so it is not surprising that he is still writing in the same style.

  13. Yes, that’s why I compared him to Trotsky, who enthusiastically (and brilliantly) used the well-honed rhetorical tools of Leninist abuse against his Leninist enemies.

  14. Postal uses all the turgid language, ugly conventions, and painfully intricate argumentations of the Chomskyan school itself.
    Don’t know about turgid language, would possibly agree with ugly conventions on a case-by-case basis, but I’d take issue with painfully intricate. “Two Case Studies” can be summarized in one sentence:

    Chomsky still talks about 2 principles of grammar as if they held whereas it has been proven years ago that they don’t.

    While explaining this, Postal only introduces one new notion (well, more of a shorthand) – the aforementioned ‘F-principle’ and he provides a clear definition. I challenge anyone to similarly summarize the contents of any of Master’s papers of comparable length. Your prize is either a bottle of local pear brandy or a fine Cuban cigar.
    I’m not saying Postal couldn’t use a good editor and possibly a skilled DTP guy, but there won’t be any Postalbots any time soon. This of course applies only to those papers / books where Postal deals with refutations of Chomsky. I cannot vouch for his own theoretical work where I would be quite likely in agreement with Bathrobe.

  15. Ah, memories…Paul Postal is the only Academic who nearly killed me. He nearly did, really.
    It happened a few months after the professor in my (obligatory) doctoral syntax seminar shrugged off my questions in class with the incantation “The facts do not matter, Chomsky must be right” (verbatim quote). The incident subsequently made me wonder whether I was an idiot or whether there really was something dreadfully wrong with academia.
    In the course of seeking an answer I got my hands on a copy of his ADVANCES IN LINGUISTIC RHETORIC, in the journal “Natural Language and linguistic theory” (I believe a slightly modified version is found in his “Skeptical Linguistic Essays”).
    It’s a good thing I read this at the University library late in the evening, when I was the only person within earshot of the reference section: I was laughing SO hard that the noise level would have gotten me expelled had there been people within earshot.
    Indeed oxygen intake was becoming a bit of a health issue by the time I reached the end of the article. Happily, I was in excellent (physical!) health at the time, so I managed to recuperate: but even so an ambulance might have been required had the article been but a few pages longer.
    And that is how Paul Postal nearly killed me.
    However, this article is definitely what “broke the spell” and made me realize that certain kinds of “linguistics” are more akin to a sect than to science. And this realization is what allowed my to soldier on.
    Even when the same syntax professor disparagingly referred to my thesis (historical-comparative in scope) as “nineteenth-century linguistics”, I knew by then that nineteenth-century science is superior to late twentieth-century faddish pseudo-science. However many people might believe or pretend to believe the latter.
    But looking back, it is clear that it took something like Paul Postal’s no-holds-barred, no-nonsense article to make it clear as crystal that there was nothing wrong with me, intellectually: rather, it was this academic establishment which was intellectually bankrupt.
    For hatters who have never been nerdy bookworms for whom scholarship and books were a refuge from an unpleasant life, I cannot emphasize how extraordinarily difficult it is, emotionally and intellectually, to convince yourself of this truth without suspecting that you are either delusional or suffering from extreme egomania. Paul Postal’s article made it clear to me that I was neither, and that this dominant paradigm in fact was utter nonsense.
    Which is why I would like to take this opportunity, on the off chance that he is still alive and might read this thread one day, to offer him my thanks, and wish him (and the other readers, including our esteemed cyberhost himself) a Happy New Year.

  16. Etienne,
    thank you very much for the story.
    The paper you are referring to was indeed reprinted in “Skeptical Linguistic Essays” as chapter “Junk Ethics 1″ and contains gems such as the following:

    Again, suppose you are an advocate of some popular linguistic theory and are working on an exotic NL (one not used by European settlers of the thirteen American colonies) and you uncover a neat analysis of some sentences that is unfortunately inconsistent with some principle of the linguistic theory of which you are a vocal defender. This could, unpleasantly, force you to think about which to give up: (i) the theoretical principle; (ii) the analysis; or, boldly, (iii) logic. Obviously, (i) could annoy the many, often illiberal, defenders of the theory, (ii) would waste a lot of your time, and (iii), although not to be excluded a priori, is going to raise some eyebrows even in linguistics.

    LOL and possibly ROFL, indeed

  17. Trond Engen says:

    bulbul: Chomsky still talks about 2 principles of grammar as if they held whereas it has been proven years ago that they don’t.
    That’s what I sensed after a few lines, and when I met the F-word, I decided the rest would be obscurized banalities. But it seems I was very mistaken, since…
    Étienne: Ah, memories…Paul Postal is the only Academic who nearly killed me. He nearly did, really. etc.
    That’s beautiful. I’ll give him another chance.
    (Slow family party, kids and guests playing puzzle. We’ll soon be going outdoors to watch the neighbours attempting mutual pyrotechnical arsony.)

  18. an exotic NL (one not used by European settlers of the thirteen American colonies)
    Why make such a qualification? Andreas Koutsoudas’ textbook has this example of passivization in German:
    Er sieht mich : Ich werde gesehen.
    Er hilft mir : Ich werde geholfen.
    After class in my first graduate linguistics course at Indiana U 40 years ago, I went up to the instructor and said, “Excuse me, the passive of Er hilft mir isn’t Ich werde geholfen, it’s Mir wird geholfen.
    Instructor, turning pale, a look of horror spreading over his face: “Are you sure?”
    “Absolutely.”
    “But–but–that’s Contrary To Linguistic Science!” [turning on his heel] “I’ve got to go talk to Koutsoudas about this!” [runs down the hall]
    And that’s how my first graduate linguistics course became my last. (Incidentally, the instructor was later head of linguistics at a different Midwestern institution.)

  19. marie-lucie says:

    an exotic NL (one not used by European settlers of the thirteen American colonies)
    I think Postal is recalling a personal experience. I heard quite a few years ago that after being at MIT for a while he was told that he should try the theory not just on English but on a completely different language, such as a Native American one, and he chose Mohawk (on which there had already been a fair amount of descriptive work done – the language is endangered but still spoken). So the predicament he describes was his own.

  20. Etienne: Thanks for the story. Though never a nerdy bookwork or member of academe, I think I can appreciate it in full: a great one for the new year.

  21. Etienne: Thanks for the story.
    Likewise, and to Rodger C as well. It does my heart good to hear these accounts!

  22. marie-lucie says:

    “But–but–that’s Contrary To Linguistic Science!”
    **Some** linguistic theoreticians seem to think that “other” languages exist to justify their theories, and they are very upset when those languages refuse to fit the theories that have been developed starting from a single language. If “Universal Grammar” had been developed by Mohawk, Japanese, Turkish, Haida, or even Italian etc speakers, it would probably look quite different from the theory developed by English speakers.

  23. For what it’s worth, Linguistic Science has since caught up with Mir wird geholfen. Come back, Rodger C!

  24. Well, here I am. But that’s not the only experience that persuaded me that Chomskyism as practiced at that place and time was an authoritarian cult that propagated itself by intellectual bullying and byzantine politics (ethnic reference not intended).

  25. It seems the Language Wars are alive and well on lingbuzz! Besides the two Postal articles cited above we also have a reply by Ulfsbjorninn, a treply by Behme, and Behme’s own. Great stuff for those of us into soap operas.

  26. J.W. Brewer says:

    I’m gonna give Rodger C. a break just this one time before siccing the Byzantine-American Anti-Defamation League on him. But don’t let it happen again.

  27. David Marjanović says:

    Fun! :-)
    Out of sheer ignorance, I can’t offer an opinion of my own, but I can quote Opinion 04: “Noam Chomsky should stick to politics, Roger Penrose should stick to interior decorating, and Andrew Lloyd Webber should stick to the ceiling if hurled aloft with sufficient force.”
    And yes, lots of fun can be had with German (especially the diversity therein) and any theory of grammar. And yes, it’s mir wird geholfen. I’m not sure exactly what the TV show Hier werden Sie geholfen! was an allusion to, but it was meant as a joke.

  28. marie-lucie says:

    Welcome back, David! und ein fröhliches Neues Jahr!

  29. @J. W. Brewer: well, I was actually referring to the way Andreas Koutsoudas reputedly ran his department. But whatever. Can’t be too careful these days.

  30. Well, now that I’ve read both of Postal’s papers, I see that he is playing Berkeley to Chomsky’s Newton. Berkeley famously knocked Newton’s “fluxions”, on which he founded his differential calculus, thus:

    And what are these Fluxions? The Velocities of evanescent Increments? And what are these same evanescent Increments? They are neither finite Quantities nor Quantities infinitely small, nor yet nothing. May we not call them the ghosts of departed quantities?

    Witty, unkind, and essentially correct: Newton’s infinitesimals were nonsense, and when Dedekind reconstructed calculus on a new and sound basis of epsilon-delta arguments (roughly: “For every number however small that you give me, I will give you an even smaller number that approaches the limit better”), that fact was admitted and those parts of Newton’s ideas dropped forever (at least until nonstandard analysis gave them a new lease on life, for infinitesimals are just the reciprocals of the supernatural numbers).
    Now Chomsky can only hope, and Postal quotes him as hoping, that his nonsense too will be resurrected in this fashion. Rhetorically Postal is perfectly right: nobody is entitled to expect such posthumous redemption. But what can Chomsky do but try to brighten the corner where he is, and hope someday that it will connect in a sound way with the rest of the world? It was more than half a century before anyone could make physical sense of the biologists’ claims for billions of years of evolution on a world that, as far as anyone else could tell, couldn’t have possibly lasted for more than a few million. Yet that fact was not permitted to crush all talk of evolution during the nineteenth century: on the contrary.
    So however delightful it is, I can’t take Postal’s critique as seriously as he seems to insist on. As the wise old man said long, long ago in a Middle-earth far, far away:

    Many [theories] that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, [Postal]? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart [as opposed to my head] tells me that [Chomsky] has some part to play yet, for good or evil, before this is over.”

    All this is Yet Another Fine Example of how things have gone horribly wrong not just in historical linguistics but in the whole subject, because the guys running the show have lost the knowledge of when and how to die. To quote myself:

    This is what happens to a scientific discipline, I fear, when it’s not widely practiced: the old Turks control everything, and the only rewards are for toeing the line. Instead of pursuing new ideas openly as a young scientist, you have to wait till your retirement to publish (as Marie-Lucie has had to do). No one will listen to you then either, but at least they can’t take away your pension.

    But now on to the replies, where I expect to see the whole story in Ph.D format (that is, Piled Higher and Deeper).

  31. David Marjanović says:

    Welcome back, David! und ein fröhliches Neues Jahr!

    :-)

    the biologists’ claims for billions of years of evolution on a world that, as far as anyone else could tell, couldn’t have possibly lasted for more than a few million

    Did the biologists actually claim that?
    What I do know is that biologists accepted continental drift much more readily than physicists/geologists; it was immediately apparent that it made sense of a whole lot of biogeography past and present, but it had nary a hint of a mechanism till the 1960s (when the revolution wasn’t televised and all geologists accepted plate tectonics within just a few years).

  32. Long before continental drift, physicists said that the sun couldn’t have been burning for more than a few million years. Then nuclear reactions were discovered. Till then, biologists just looked at physicists and said, well there you are.

  33. David Marjanović says:

    True. Lord Kelvin famously got to 24 million years because he thought the sun was only heated by gravitational collapse.
    I tried to ask if the biologists of that time actually claimed that billions of years were necessary to explain the observed biodiversity.

  34. Well, not billions–I can actually remember when the earth was supposed to be only a billion years old–but a lot longer than 27 million years.

  35. *24

  36. All right, I’ll say it, since no one else has: is a disciple attacking his former master now to be known as ‘going Postal’?

  37. If it isn’t, it should be!

Speak Your Mind

*