Religious factor in Noam Chomsky's linguistic paradigm

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

27 December 2009

Anyone who has studied linguistics after 1970 and did not hear about Noam Chomsky, probably did not study. The approach to the grammar in general before Chomsky was one which used the Traditional Grammar as format. This term refers to grammars and works of the Middle Age linguists. These grammarians lived in an era when the Christian religion and church life formed the basis for psychological and philosophical postulates of the grammars. There is a long history to this Western Grammatical Tradition and for that reason most grammars are from Classical Works and Classical Languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin which were all written in this same thought pattern. The term traditional grammar was used by R. H. Robins in 1957 in "Dionysius Thrax and the Western Grammatical Tradition" cited in Diversions of Bloomsberg (Amsterdam and London: North Holland Publishing Co., 1970). Several books were written on the traditional grammar, and one may list L. Kykenheim, Contributions a l histoire de la grammaire grecque, latine et hebraique a l epoque de la renaissance (Leiden, 1951). Representatives of the Traditional Grammar will be in Dutch: C. H. den Hertog (1915); in Classical Hebrew: Gesenius Hebrew Grammar (1813) enlarged by E. Kautzsch (1909) and again by A. Cowley (1910). Also P. Jouon in France kept to the Classical Hebrew Grammar linguistic structure. In Classical Greek there is the Traditional Grammar approaches of W. W. Goodwin (1894); H. W. Smyth (1920); and the Germans Greek grammarians like R. Kunner and B. Gerth (1881); a Frenchman, J. Humbert (1954). For Latin the Traditional Grammar is that of Gildersleeve and Lodge.

Rationalism and the hermeneutics of suspicion

One of the factors that led to the destruction of Pietism and proper fundamental understanding of the Word of God or Bible, was the appearance of Rationalism in theological seminaries over Germany, France, England and other countries. Rejecting the view of the Bible in science they claimed to arrive at a "self-acclaimed enlightenment".

Evolution of Darwin

The evolution concepts of Darwin was directed against the Bible and many of his comments are just that. God was not the Creator in an instant, but things evolve over millions of years by themselves. This was popular in the 1850's.

Evolutionary theory worked revolutionary against the thought patterns of the Middle Ages and Middle Age theology and also on all other levels, linguistics not excluded. If one looks at the works of the pioneer linguistics of the modern era, one can see the influence of evolutionary theory on their works: W. D. Whitney, The Life and Growth of Language (New York: 1875); M. Kruszewski, Uber die Lautabrechlung Kazan (Universitatsbuchdruckeren, 1880); R. Jakobson, Remarques sur l evolution phonoloqique du ruese comparee a celle des autres langues claves (1929).  Alternatives to the Traditional Grammar were sporadically suggested but it was only in the twentieth century that linguists wanted to give these early pioneers their so-called rightful space. These new linguists of the twentieth century, belong to a tendency or stream or paradigm that one may call, the transformational-generative grammarians or linguists.

Transformational-generative grammar

The Classical phase for the Transformational-generative grammar starts with Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures in 1957 (see A. Kraak and W. G. Klooster, Syntaxis [Keulen: Uitgeverij stam-Kemperman, 1968], 14 who called Chomsky the pioneer of the transformational-generative grammar). Initially the reaction against Chomsky was full of skepticism. P. Postal suggested some methods which was endorsed by Chomsky in 1965 and in 1966 A. Koutsoudas suggested that a transformational-generative grammar should be written. South African linguists like P. H. Swanepoel (1980) and J. P. Botha (1985) were also influenced by this approach of Chomsky.

What exactly did the Transformational linguists suggest?

a. The universal linguistic frame is contained in our genes (inside of us) (see W. Sascha, "Dass Heranreifen der Universalgrammatik im Spracherwerb" Linguistische Berichte 94 [Westdeutscher Verlag, 1984], 1-26, especially page 23) where he stated: "Annahme dass die Prinzipien der Universalgrammatik einem genetisch determineerten Reifenprozess unterliegen" (see also R. W. Langacker 1968: 240; 241; Stephen R. Anderson, "Why Phonology isn't 'Natural'" Linguistic Inquiry 12/4 [Fall 1981]: 493ff.).

b. The role of intuition in linguistics as E. Bach said in 1964: "Such evidence has to do with what is described vaquely enough by such terms as 'linguistic intuition' or 'relations between sentences' and often even 'meaning'". He continues on page 3 "What we must account for includes what is known as the native speaker's 'Sprachgefuhl'". He said "The term 'intuition' is a loaded and ambigious word, therefore it will be avoided wherever possible in this exposition" (E. Bach, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars [New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Inc. 1964], 3, 187). 

c. Language is not identical with reality

Hockett criticized Lamb in 1967 by saying that the morphophonemes are not in the language but from or about the language (Hackett, "The Yawelmani Basic Verb" Language 43 1967: 208-222 at 221). R. Langacker 1968: 114 stated that "the relationship between conceptual and surface structures is very indirect and abstract".

d. The importance of the word "generative" in Generative Grammar

In 1966 A. Koutsoudas said "the basic requirements that a grammar must meet are that it must (1) generate all the grammatical sentences of a language . . . "

W. Sascha said in 1984 about Chomsky's biological generative view for linguistics, that "Annahme dass die Prinzipien der Universalgrammatik einen genetisch determineerten Reifenprozess unterliegen" (translated as: suggests an acceptance that the principles of the Universal grammar has a genetic determined ripening process at base) (W. Sascha, "Dass Heranreifen der Universalgrammatik im Spracherwerb" Linguistische Berichte 94 [1984]: 1-26, especially 1).

e. Universal linguistic principles are not empirical

R. Lass on explaining language change said: "Within the transformational generative approach to language universals, it is clear that the question of language universals has an obvious solution: they are there because they are innate" and then he continued on page 24 "Innateness remains empty because it is not subject to any independent verification" (R. Lass, On Explaining Language Change [Cambridge Univesity Press, 1980], 22, 24).

In this aspect one must make a distinction between apriori and empirical focus. There are two streams in both, an extreme force and a mild force. Thus, some scholars are extreme apriori scientists but others are mild apriori scientists. Then there are extreme empiricists and mild empiricists (see A. A. van Niekerk, Kernaantekeninge oor die Kennisteorie [Stellenbosch: 1986]: 17). We can classify Chomsky as a mild apriorist but that he is definitely more apriori focused than empiricistic. We have here the distinction between faith and reason (Francis Shaefer, Escape from Reason). Faith will be apriori focused while empiricism is reason focused. This distinction is artificial since the building block of apriori statements are many times empiricistic data and vice versa, much of science is actually dependent upon apriori claims. We have the same problem when people says: give me Jesus (Person = apriori = faith) and not doctrines (Things or Ideas = empiricism = reason). This is also a false dichotomy as the Systematic Theologian Edward Heppenstall indicated in his online book, Christ Our High Priest, that doctrines are the building blocks of faith. God chose the Word of God to reveal something and someone of Himself to mankind in order to provide a way of escape from death and sickness in this world. There is a reciprocral relationship that cannot be denied or artificially separated. Thus, the apriori became empirical and the empirical can play a significant role in our apriori axioms, and vice versa.

f. Chomsky's role in socio-linguistics

Chomsky played and is playing a role in socialism (see A. Kirsipu, "Some thoughts on General linguistics and Sociology" Taalfasette 15 [1971]: 27-38).

g. More than one approach

S. Keyser showed in 1975 that "Criticism of the T.G. [transformational-generative] as monolinguists is blatantly false" (S. Keyser, "The Steely times strike again" The New Review II. 14 [1975]: 63-66, especially page 65).

h. It is subjectively orientated

Lightfoot, like Chomsky and others favored a biological generative process for language whereas other scholars favored a psychological generative process for language. Suzanne Romaine criticized Lightfoot (in a review article on his work of 1982) in 1983 by stating that Lighfoot is after the depth of explanation not data coverage. Romaine felt that Lightfoot did not realize that the same data can be treated differently by different or alternative models of grammar (S. Romaine, "Historical linguistics and language change: Progress or decay?" Language and Society 12[1983]: 223-237 especially 230).

i. Close relationship between speech, understanding [cognitive linguistics] and communication

R. Langacker said in Language and its Structure "To what extent are language universals determined by general psychological constraints . . . and to what extend are they determined by our special inborn linguistic capacity? It should be apparent that these questions can be answered satisfactorily only in the context of an adequate theory of linguistic structure and an adequate theory of general psychological organization neither of which is presently available" (R. Langacker, Language and its Structure. Same Fundamental Linguistic Concepts [Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. 1968]: 248).

j. Search for unchangeable laws

Said A. Koutsoudas in 1966 "The emphasis here is on writing reasonable rules, i.e. rules that are Technically sound and that make reasonable claims about the data given, and not whether a given solution makes reasonable claim regarding the structure of a language" (A. Koutsoudas, Writing Transformational Grammars 1966: 46).

All this sounds fascinating and very fit for language analysis, but there is a bigger picture. Chomsky did not wake up one morning and said: now I am going to be generative in my approach of language. Chomsky had outside influences working on him. The track-jumping action from Traditional Grammars that are socalled based on Greek philosophy to a Grammar that is generative is not that innocent.

Panini and his Sanskrit grammar

(Source: http://www.bolokids.com/2008/0554.htm

http://www.shorthand.eu/pini_en.html)

Panini was born about 520 BCE in Pakistan and died about 460 BCE in India. According to online sources, he went to a mountain, received a vision from his god who gave him a vision and acted some out in ecstasy of dance, and then wrote a grammar with 3595 rules. It was written in a language that is called until today Sanskrit. It is considered a divine language and is the language of the Hindu religion. Although a Jew, Chomsky favored the mystical ideas of Panini, the mystical thinker for his epistemology in the design of a new thinking on grammar. He had predecessors who were carried away by Panini.

Panini Rationalists of the Victorian Age

In the socalled "Enlightenment Period" or heyday of Rationalism, W. D. Whitney wrote in 1875 the book The Life and Growth of Language (New York) and not only influenced by Darwin and his evolutionary theories, but he was working extensively with Hindu Grammar of Panini. It was especially between 1852-1894 that one can find the writings of Whitney (R. Rocher, "The Past up to the introduction of neo-grammarian thought: Whitney and Europe," in H. M. Hoenigswald [ed.] The European Backgrounds of American Linguistics [Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications, 1979]: 19-22). Although Whitney distrusted Indian thought, religious and philosophy (ibid, page 6 footnote 7 and page 7 footnote 10). However, he was influenced by the Hindu observations (ibid, page 7 footnote 9). 

Ferdinand de Saussure became very impressed with the work of Whitney around 1879. Originally, De Saussure talked of the distinction between "static and evolutionary linguistics" but then converted the terms into "synchronic and diachronic linguistics" (see P. J. Smith 1977: 21 footnote 31). Whereas scholars in the mid-nineteenth century concentrated on the diachronic method in comparative linguistics, De Saussure stressed the distinction between the diachronic and synchronic methods.

During this time uniformatism in epistemology in linguistics threatened to replace essentialism (P. J. Smith 1977: 21 footnote 39).

Behaviorism in linguistics were influenced by the work of Leonard Bloomfield who was an admirer of Panini, Whitney and de Saussure (See L. Bloomfield's review of Lieblich in Language 5 1929: 267-275 on page 268 "The descriptive grammar of Sanskrit, which Panini brought to its highest perfection, is one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence and (what concerns us more) an indispensable model for the description of language" quoted in C. F. Hockett, A Leonard Bloofield Anthology [Bloomington and London, Indiana: U.P. 1970], 157-165).

Since Bloomfield the Panini-studies increased with W. Allen (1955), B. Shefts (1961), V. Nisra (1964), J. Staal and C. Cardona (1965).

Comparison of Chomski and Panini Hindu ideas:

Hindu epistemology                   

1. The universal within us.

2. Intuitive discernment.

3. Language is not identical with language.

4. Generative.

5. The universal is non-emperical.

6. Focussed on the social.

7. Diverse approach.

8. Subjectively orientated.

9. Close connection between speech, mind and communication.

10. Search for unchangeable laws.

Transformational-generative epistemology

1. The universal language frame is within our genes (W. Sachs, Dass Heranreifen der Universalgrammatik in Sprachenverb Linguistische Berichte 94 [1984]: 1-26 where one can see Chomsky (1981) and Lightfoot (1982) are listed).

2. Intuitive discernment (E. Bach, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars [New York: Rhinehart and Winston, 1964], 187).

3. Language is not identical with reality (R. Langacker 114).

4. Generative grammar (Koutsoudas, Writing Transformational Gramars: An Introduction [1966: 46]).

5. Universal language principles is non-empirical (R. Lass, 22).

6. Chomsky's role in socio-linguistics (A. Kirsipuu, "Some Thoughts in General linguistics and sociology" Taalfasette 15 [1971]: 27-38).

7. More than one approach (S. Keyser, The Steely times strikes again," The New Review 11 [1975]: 14, 63-66 and page 65).

8. Subjectively orientated (S. Romaine, "Historical linguistics and language change: Progress or decay?" [1983]: 230).

9. Close link between speech, mind and communication (R. Langacker, 248).

10. Search for unchangeable laws (A. Koutsoudas 1966: 46).

These are strong indicators that Chomsky has similarities with Hindu religious thinking as expounded by Panini.

Some may argue that this is not enough evidence that Chomsky's shift was to mysticism of the Hindu religion.

In an online article information is given that Chomsky and his wife visited Kalkata in December 2001. He made some controversial statements and opinions about the USA, Afghanistan, Iraq and other issues. He also pay tribute to the role of Panini in his own views (see Suhrid Sankar Chattopadhyay Kalyan Chaudhuri, "An event in Kolkata" Frontline Volume 18 Issue 25 [Dec. 08 -21, 2001] at http://www.shorthand.eu/pini_en.html).

Chomsky against 'religious fundamentalism'

In the same article supra, Chomsky stated in 2001 that he is against "religious fundamentalism" obviously commenting on Christian fundamentalism as a so-called undercurrent in any war by the USA and on the other hand the fundamentalism of the enemy for igniting problems. But, from a linguistic point of view, Chomsky is not consistent since he has replaced the epistemology of the Traditional Grammar with a mysticism of Panini and Hinduism which is religious fundamentalism [at least for Hindu supporters since the article was published in a Hindu magazine].

What do we learn from this? Just because someone is a world famous professional in an area does not mean that he/she does not carry a baggage that might include "religious fundamentalistic" ideas which is building blocks of his/her epistemology, a situation that this researcher would not discourage, but one has to be aware of it, even the very professional him/herself. While Chomsky is a USA citizen and his brain agnostic or secular, his heart is claimed by religious fundamentalist Hindus based on his link with Panini.

More about Panini

About Panini, we need to make a last note: Panini was born during the last years of the prophet Daniel, the second year of Darius and lived through the time of prophets like Habbakuk, Haggai and Zechariah. Also Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of his. The Sanskrit language do not stand unaffected from semitic influence, Greek influence and even Hamitic influences (if one compares words corresponding to Coptic). Some have done research showing the role of Hebrew in Sanskrit. Jews were everywhere in those days since they were in exile and even after the return, many of them still stayed in the countries where they have fled centuries before. The Sanskrit and the Bible is a topic that will receive attention elsewhere.

End item