Idealizations.
April 7, 2008 – 8:45 pmFirst, a disclaimer:
I do not claim this to be a blog of an academic giving academic views on things. When Noam Chomsky is not doing linguistics, he says language and politics are inexorably linked. He does not say that when he is doing real linguistics. I hold views that I would not likely put forth in an academic environment. This is one of those posts.
In Aspects of the Theory Syntax, Chomsky puts forth the claim that linguistics (within his model of methodological naturalism) is the study of the ideal speaker-listener, which I should say is something I criticize, but that’s an entirely different post:
“Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.” Chomsky (1965), Aspects, p3.
Obviously this is a grand claim. Anyone with a brain is affected by memory limitations. People get distracted, and people make errors (slips of the tongue, etc.). So, obviously this is a silly idea, right? I mean, not even Chomsky is the ideal-speaker listener. The ideal speaker-listener doesn’t exist. The ideal-speaker listener is a theoretical construct. The ideal speaker-listener is a scientific idealization
Why the hell am I talking about this? Believe it or not, I am tying it into the noble Craft. The Craft itself is perfect. Flawless. It’s members are blemishes on the facade of the temple. Our members make errors. We become distracted, bogged down in pettiness. Freemasonry still drags on.
At the end of the day, when the Salt Lake City Masonic Temple is in ruins, the jewels and ornaments of the lodge-room are discarded, when the last demit is read on the lodge floor, one thing remains:
Men who strive to achieve the ideal of Freemasonry clothed in plain white Aprons, ready to labor.
3 Responses to “Idealizations.”
Okay - let’s go there. Neither of us will be in NYC to see the Rose Circle presentation of Ritual Pyschology, but let us for the moment, pretend we actually know what we are talking about.
In terms of language, how does the speaker-listen model operate within a system whose primary means of communication is expressed through iconography and experience?
PotS
J.
By J. on Apr 8, 2008
I didn’t really intend for this be explicitly about Chomsky’s I-model, but alright. Let’s go there.
I think your question arises from a misunderstanding of what the I-model is. There is a lot of theory and philosophy behind the construct, and understanding what Chomsky is (a genuine Cartesian, minus dualism), it makes perfect sense. The ideal speaker-listener is more of a set of assumptions to move forward with. That is, there is a universal, generative grammar that each human is born with, knows perfectly, and tacitly. Innate ideas. As Chomsky would say, that communication gets in the way is as obvious as it is irrelevant. He just isn’t interested in it.
To Chomsky, experience doesn’t even enter into this. Really, neither does communication. Experience is an empiricists perspective, not a Cartesian one. Experience gives us words maybe, but the actual core of language (rules, etc) are known innately in propositional form.
Communication, well, that’s really interesting. First, the I-model is only about knowing the propositions and rules. Communication is something entirely different. Steven Pinker and Ray Jackendoff would take the position that language evolved as a means of communication. Chomsky (2005) (if you can’t get the article, I’ll email it to you) goes so far as to say that Phonetic form is an accident. That is, (linguistic) communication is an accident. A convenient accident, but an accident nonetheless.
Really, I have plenty of reasons to criticize everything from the I-model to his more recent views on communication. That’s a different post though. This is just clarifying terms.
By Rob on Apr 8, 2008
That response could have merited its own post.
By Rob on Apr 8, 2008