Of reputations proper and misplaced
Anisur Rahman finds a polemical work pretty appealing
Swedish linguist Sven Ohman (1936-2008) knew differently, and it would be even harder to imagine why he believed that Noam Chomsky (b. 1928--) has never been a linguist. It is something hard to believe for anyone who is familiar with the name of Chomsky and the reputation it carries. Formerly an Uppsala University professor of linguistics, Sven Ohman in his book, The Essence of Language: A Philosophical Problem, has successfully established his observations and findings denying Chomsky's position as a linguist. The book is a concise presentation of some linguistic questions as well as answers to those questions, writers' own opinions, reflections and dismissal of definitions of linguistics that have been in vogue to date. All these provide something of a personal account which the writer has featured in the book in a convincing way for readers inside and outside the ramparts of the linguistic and philosophical world. This slim volume includes a whole range of thoughts --- basic ideas of traditional grammar phonetics, phonology, the concept word, the use of the human voice in spoken language and much more. Obviously, they are aimed at shattering the 'myth' of Chomsky's standing as a linguist despite the fact that some of Chomsky's books are an integral part of syllabi on linguistics at universities in various countries. Sven Ohman, a scholar and academic, taught linguistics at different universities and studied and conducted research on the same at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and elsewhere. The more interesting, rather ironic, part of the story is he even enjoyed the lectures on linguistics by Chomsky at MIT. The book under review is a result of detailed scholarly scrutiny, focusing as it does on the unsettled linguistic debate and anatomy of linguistics centreing on Chomsky. Ohman frankly notes that he took Chomsky's teachings to his heart, and had several friendly discussions with him in connection with his classes. It is clear that he feels there was a relation of friendship between them. And yet, perhaps his being six years younger and his deep respect for the man Chomsky were obstacles in the way of a true, fulfilling intellectual friendship. Sven Ohman's findings aim at demonstrating that Chomsky's language theories cannot replace traditional linguistics by appealing to mathematical constructions. For that approach does not have much to contribute to our general understanding and use of actual languages. The writer dismisses the notion that linguistics is sometimes described as the science of language by showing us how to deal with language problems. Thus he establishes his own definition through formulating his own ideas: in a brief form, linguistics is the science of words as used in saying things by means of letters in writing. Ohman believes that, probably inspired by his own interpretation of the example of theoretical physics, Chomsky settled for an in-depth analysis of linguistic facts that could be observed in language and that shed light on crucial matters that Chomsky considers to be linguistic theory. Ohman belongs among those who feel that Chomsky's ambitions completely undermine his grand project regarding linguistics. However great a linguist Chomsky may be projected in the media to be, Sven Ohman continues to maintain that linguistics is a study of the actual use of what everyone knows as language. The book is a clear attempt at showing that Chomsky is not a linguist at all but an intellectual soldier of fortune. Ohman makes a note of MIT linguistics being just a media hoax! The suspicion is that Noam Chomsky has never received any formal training in any academic discipline and has not submitted a doctoral thesis for examination in any subject. Ohman tries to establish this suspicion as fact by simply pointing out Chomsky's saying: 'we try to show…' The writer thus suggests that Chomsky confirms the suspicion that for him linguistics is, of course, a branch of applied mathematics, in which he makes assumptions from which he mathematically derives conclusions which he may feel rhyme more or less well with what he takes to be linguistic facts. In connection with Chomsky's visit to Sweden in 2002, Sven Ohman wrote a long article for Svenska Dagbladet, a morning newspaper in Sweden, to explain that Chomsky is not a scientist at all, but a political ideologue who started out in the 1950s by seizing power over American linguistics through overthrowing the somewhat provincial behaviorism that had reigned supreme in indigenous American psychology since the early 20th century and to which American linguistics the Bloomfield schoolhad pledged its allegiance. Ohman makes some more interesting observations over a Nobel Prize vis-a-vis Chomsky. He notes that that there is of course the prize in literature but it is only awarded to poets and writers of fiction. Chomsky's writings do not qualify for this distinction. There is finally the Nobel Peace Prize, but Sven finds it hard to believe that the committee will consider Chomsky eligible on political grounds. Well, … who knows? If Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama could get it, why not Chomsky as well?
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments