Chomsky, Noam

In English, the name is spelled Avram Noam Chomsky , where Avram (אברהם [avraham], in the speech, often [avraam] under the influence of elimination ה [h> zero sound] in many dialects of Yiddish ) and Noam (נועם) are Jewish names. The origin of the surname Chomsky is toponymic and comes from the name of the town, and later (from 1793) of the city of Chomsk (currently the village of Chomsk, Drogichinsky district, Brest region, Republic of Belarus). The fallacy in assigning the surname Chomsky to the city of Helm in Poland is proved by the prevalence of the Jewish surnames Helmsky (Chelmsky) and Holmsky (Cholmsky). The English speakers, like himself, pronounce the name as it is read in accordance with the English reading rules: Evram Nome Chomsky ^{( sound )} .

Noam Chomsky was born in 1928 in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , into a Jewish family. His parents: father - a famous Hebraist , professor William Chomsky (1896-1977, born in the town of Kupel, Volyn province ), mother - Elsie Simonovskaya, born in Bobruisk . Yiddish was the mother tongue of his parents, but his family did not speak it ^[3] .

Since 1945, Noam Chomsky studied philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania . One of his teachers was Linguistics Professor Zellig Harris . It was he who advised Chomsky to draw up a systematic structure of a language ^[4] . Harris's political views also had a strong influence on Chomsky.

In 1947, Chomsky began dating Carol Schatz, whom he met as a child, and in 1949 they got married. They had three children; they remained married until her death in 2008 ^[5] . In 1953, he and his wife lived for some time in a kibbutz in Israel. When asked if it was a disappointment, he replied that he liked it, but he could not endure an ideological and nationalistic atmosphere ^[6] .

Chomsky received his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955 , but four years before that he spent most of his research at Harvard University ^[7] . In his doctoral dissertation, he began to develop some of his linguistic ideas, which he then revealed in more detail in the 1957 book Syntactic Structures .

In 1955, Chomsky received an offer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where since 1961 he began to teach linguistics.

It was at this time that he became involved in politics , since about 1964, publicly speaking out against the US participation in the Vietnam War . In 1969, Chomsky published an essay on the Vietnam War, American Power and the New Mandarins. Since that time, Chomsky has become widely known for his political views, speeches and several more books on the topic. His views, most often classified as libertarian socialism , were widely supported by the left and, at the same time, caused a flurry of criticism from all other areas of the political spectrum. Despite being involved in politics, Chomsky continues to engage in linguistics and teaching.

Chomsky's most famous work, Syntactic Structures ( 1957 ), had a tremendous influence on the development of the science of language throughout the world; many speak of the “Chomsky revolution” in linguistics (a change in the scientific paradigm in Kuhn terms). The perception of certain ideas of the theory of generative grammar (generativeism) created by Chomsky is even felt in those areas of linguistics that do not accept its basic principles and sharply criticize this theory.

Over time, Chomsky’s theory has evolved (so his plurals can be spoken about), but its fundamental position, from which, according to the creator, all the others are deduced - about the innate nature of the ability to speak the language - remained unshakable. It was first expressed in Chomsky’s early work, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, 1955 (reprinted in 1975 ), in which he introduced the concept of transformational grammar . The theory considers expressions (sequences of words) corresponding to abstract “surface structures”, which, in turn, correspond to even more abstract “deep structures”. (In modern versions of the theory, the differences between surface and deep structures have largely disappeared.) Transformational rules, together with structural rules and principles, describe both the creation and interpretation of expressions. With the help of a finite set of grammar rules and concepts, people can create an unlimited number of sentences, including creating sentences that have never been expressed by anyone. The ability to structure our expressions in this way is an inherent part of the human genetic program. We are practically not aware of these structural principles, as we are not aware of most of our other biological and cognitive characteristics.

Recent versions of Chomsky’s theory (such as the “ Minimalist Program ”) contain strong statements about universal grammar . According to his views, the grammatical principles underlying the languages ​​are innate and unchanging, and the differences between the languages ​​of the world can be explained in terms of the parametric settings of the brain, which can be compared with switches. Based on this point of view, a child only needs to learn lexical units (that is, words) and morphemes , as well as determine the necessary parameter values, to learn the language, which is based on several key examples.

This approach, according to Chomsky, explains the amazing speed with which children learn languages, the similar stages of learning a language by a child, regardless of the particular language, as well as the types of characteristic mistakes that children who learn their native language make, while others seemingly logical errors do not happen. According to Chomsky, the non-occurrence or occurrence of such errors testifies to the method used: a common (innate) or dependent on a particular language.

Chomsky’s ideas had a great influence on scholars studying the process of language acquisition by children, although some of them do not agree with these ideas, following emergenceist or connectivist theories that are based on attempts to explain the general processes of information processing by the brain. However, almost all theories explaining the process of language acquisition are still controversial, and the verification of Chomsky’s theories (as well as other theories) continues.

The works of Noam Chomsky had a significant impact on modern psychology ^[8] . From the point of view of Chomsky linguistics is a section of cognitive psychology ^[9] . His work “ Syntactic Structures ” helped establish a new connection between linguistics and cognitive psychology ^[10] and formed the basis of psycholinguistics . His theory of universal grammar was perceived by many as a criticism of the then established theories of behaviorism .

In 1959, Chomsky published a critical review of B. F. Skinner's work “Verbal Behavior” ^[11] .

This work paved the way for a cognitive revolution, a change in the basic paradigm of American psychology from behavioral to cognitive ^[12] . Chomsky notes that the infinite number of sentences that a person can build is a good reason to reject the behavioristic concept of language teaching by reinforcing (fixing) the conditioned reflex . Young children may add new sentences that have not been backed up by past behavioral experiences. Understanding of the language is caused not so much by past experience of behavior as by the so-called Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which is the internal structure of the human psyche. The mechanism of language acquisition determines the volume of permissible grammatical constructions and helps the child learn new grammatical constructions from the speech he has heard ^[12] .

Chomsky fundamentally disagrees with the deconstructionist and postmodern criticism of science:

I spent a significant part of my life working on such issues using the only methods I know of; those methods that are condemned here as “science”, “rationalism”, “logic” and so on. Therefore, I read various works, hoping that they would allow me to “cross” these restrictions or, perhaps, offer a completely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Perhaps this is my own limitation. Quite often “my eyes grow dull” when I read polysyllabic discussions on the topics of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is either largely truism or a mistake, but it is only part of the whole text. Indeed, there are many other things that I don’t understand, such as articles on modern mathematics or physics journals. But there is a difference. In the second case, I know how to come to an understanding, and I did it in cases of particular interest to me; and I know that people from these areas can explain the content to me based on my level, so that I can achieve the desired understanding (albeit partial). On the contrary, it seems that no one can explain to me why the modern post-or-this is not (for the most part) a truism, a mistake or gibberish, and I don’t know what to do next ^[13] .

Original text

I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science", "rationality", "logic" and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed.

Chomsky notes that criticism of the “science of white men” has much in common with anti-Semitic , politically motivated attacks by the Nazis against “ Jewish physics ” during the existence of the Deutsche Physik movement, aimed at denigrating the results obtained by Jewish scholars:

In fact, the very idea of ​​the “science of white men”, I am afraid, reminds me of “ Jewish physics ”. Perhaps this is another drawback of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I can’t say whether the author is white and whether he is a man. The same holds true for discussions in the classroom, office, or elsewhere. I strongly doubt that non-white, non-male students, friends and colleagues with whom I worked would be very impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differs from the “science of white men” because of their “culture or gender and race” . I suspect that “surprise” will be too soft a word for their reaction ^[14] .

Original text

In fact, the entire idea of ​​"white male science" reminds me, I'm afraid, of "Jewish physics". Perhaps it is another inadequacy of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I can't tell whether the author is white or is male. The same is true of discussion of work in class, the office, or somewhere else. I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I work would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race . " I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.

Chomsky is one of the most famous figures of the left wing of American politics . He characterizes himself in the traditions of anarchism ( libertarian socialism ), political philosophy , which he briefly explains as a denial of all forms of hierarchy and their eradication, if they are not justified. Chomsky is especially close to anarcho-syndicalism . Unlike many anarchists, Chomsky does not always oppose the electoral system; he even supported some candidates. He defines himself as the “fellow traveler” of the anarchist tradition, in contrast to the “pure” anarchist. By this, he explains his readiness to sometimes cooperate with the state.

Chomsky also considers himself a Zionist , although he notes that his definition of Zionism is nowadays considered by most to be anti-Zionism . He argues that this divergence of opinion is caused by a shift (since the 1940s ) in the meaning of the word "Zionism". In a 2003 interview with C-Span Book TV, he stated: ^[15]

I have always supported the idea of ​​a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. This is not the same as the Jewish state. There are strong arguments in support of the ethnic homeland, but whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state, is a completely different matter.

Original text

I have always supported a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. That is different from a Jewish state. There's a strong case to be made for an ethnic homeland, but as to whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state - that's entirely another matter.

In general, Chomsky is not a supporter of political ranks and categories, and prefers his views to speak for themselves. His political activity consists mainly in writing journal articles and books, as well as in public speaking. Today, he is one of the most famous left figures, especially among scientists and university students. Chomsky often travels to the USA , Europe and other countries.

Chomsky was one of the main speakers at the 2002 World Social Forum .

Chomsky on Terrorism

In response to the US declaration of the “ war on terrorism ” in the 1980s and 2000s , Chomsky argues that the leading sources of international terrorism are leading world powers, such as the United States. He uses the definition of terrorism used in US Army manuals describing terrorism as "the deliberate use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political or religious ideological goals through intimidation or coercion." Therefore, he considers terrorism an objective description of certain actions, without taking into account motives. Chomsky notes:

The gratuitous killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war on terrorism. ("9-11", p. 76)

Original text

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.

Quote about the effectiveness of terrorism:

First, the fact is that terrorism works. He does not fail. He works. Violence usually works. This is a world story. Secondly, it is a serious analytical error to say, as is generally accepted, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, this is primarily a weapon of the powerful, in fact, in the vast majority of cases. It is seen as a weapon of the weak, because the strong also control the doctrine system, and their terror is not considered terror. It is almost universal. I cannot recall a historical counterexample, even the worst mass murderers looked at the world in this way. For example, take the Nazis. They did not pursue a policy of terror in occupied Europe. They protected the local population from guerrilla terrorism. And as in other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis implemented a counter-terrorism policy.

Original text

... One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical exception, even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So pick the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror.

- ^[16]

Criticism of US Politics

Chomsky is a consistent critic of US governments and their policies . He points out two reasons for his special attention to the United States. Firstly, this is his country and his government , so the work of studying and criticizing them will have a greater effect. Secondly, the United States is the only superpower at the moment, and therefore conduct an aggressive policy, like all superpowers. However, Chomsky fluently criticized US rivals, such as the Soviet Union .

One of the key aspirations of the superpowers, according to Chomsky, is the organization and reorganization of the outside world in their own interests using military and economic means. Thus, the United States entered the Vietnam War and the Indochina conflict that included it because Vietnam , or, more precisely, a part of it, emerged from the American economic system. Chomsky also criticized US intervention in the affairs of the Central and South American countries and military support for Israel , Saudi Arabia and Turkey .

Chomsky constantly focuses on his theory, according to which most of American foreign policy is based on the “threat of a good example” (which he considers another name for domino theory ). “The threat of a good example” is that a country could successfully develop outside the sphere of influence of the United States, thus providing another working model for other countries, including those in which the United States is strongly interested economically. This, according to Chomsky, has repeatedly prompted the United States to intervene to suppress "independent development, regardless of ideology," even in regions of the world where the United States does not have significant economic or national security interests. In one of his most famous works, “What Uncle Sam Really Wants,” Chomsky used this very theory to explain US incursions into Guatemala , Laos , Nicaragua, and Grenada .

Chomsky believes that US policy during the Cold War was explained not only by anti-Soviet paranoia ^[17] , but to a greater extent by the desire to maintain ideological and economic dominance in the world. As he wrote in Uncle Sam: "What the United States really wants is stability , which means security for the top of society and large foreign enterprises."

Although Chomsky criticizes US foreign policy in almost all its manifestations, in many of his books and interviews he expressed admiration for the freedom of speech that Americans enjoy. Even other Western democracies, such as France or Canada , are not so liberal in this matter, and Chomsky does not miss the opportunity to criticize them for this, as, for example, in the Forisson case . Nevertheless, many critics of Chomsky see his attitude to US foreign policy as an attack on the values ​​on which American society is based.

Views on Socialism

Chomsky is an implacable opposition to (in his words) "corporate-state capitalism " ^[18] , practiced by the United States and its allies. Он — сторонник анархических (либертарно-социалистических) идей Михаила Бакунина , требующих экономической свободы, а также «контроля за производством самими трудящимися, а не владельцами и управляющими, которые стоят над ними и контролируют все решения». Хомский называет это «настоящим социализмом» и считает социализм в духе СССР похожим (в терминах « тоталитарного контроля») на капитализм в духе США, утверждая, что обе системы базируются на различных типах и уровнях контроля, а не на организации и эффективности. В защиту этого тезиса он иногда отмечает, что философия научного управления Ф. У. Тейлора явилась организационным базисом как для советской индустриализации, так и для корпоративной Америки.

Хомский отмечает, что замечания Бакунина о тоталитарном государстве явились предсказанием грядущего советского « казарменного социализма ». Он повторяет слова Бакунина: «…через год … революция станет хуже, чем сам царь», апеллируя к той идее, что тираническое советское государство явилось естественным следствием большевистской идеологии государственного контроля. Хомский определяет советский коммунизм как «ложный социализм» и утверждает, что, вопреки общему мнению, распад СССР следует рассматривать как «маленькую победу социализма», а не капитализма.

В книге «For Reasons of State» Хомский отстаивает идею о том, что вместо капиталистической системы, в которой люди — «рабы зарплаты», и вместо авторитарной системы, в которой решения принимаются централизованно, общество может функционировать без оплачиваемого труда. Он говорит, что люди должны быть свободны выполнять ту работу, которую сами выбрали. Тогда они смогут поступать в соответствии со своими желаниями, а свободно выбранная работа будет и «наградой самой по себе» и «социально полезной». Общество существовало бы в состоянии мирной анархии , без государства или других управленческих институтов. Работа, которая принципиально неприятна всем, если такая найдётся, распределялась бы между всеми членами общества.

• Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award от Американской психологической ассоциации
• Стипендия Гуггенхайма (1971) ^[19]
• Мессенджеровские лекции (1976)
• Премия Киото (1988)
• Медаль Гельмгольца (1996)
• Медаль Бенджамина Франклина (1999)
• Премия Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker
• за достижения в области истории и политики (2004)
• Thomas Merton Award (2010)
• Премия Эриха Фромма (2010)
• Сиднейская премия мира (2011)

other. ^[20] Он двукратный призёр премии Orwell Award , вручаемой Национальным советом учителей английского языка за работу «Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language» (в 1987 и 1989). ^[21]

• Почётный доктор (DLitt) Сент-Эндрюсского университета (2012)

Полная библиография работ по лингвистике (на сайте MIT ).

• «Морфонология современного иврита» ( Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew ) (1951)
• « Синтаксические структуры » ( Syntactic Structures ) (1957)
• «Аспекты теории синтаксиса» ( Aspects of the Theory of Syntax ) (1965)
• «Лингвистика Декарта» (1966)
• «Американская мощь и новые мандарины» ( American Power and the New Mandarins ) (1969)
• «Проблема знания и свободы» (1971)
• «Правила и репрезентации» (1980)
• «Знание и язык» (1986)
• «Язык и политика» (1988)
• «Необходимые иллюзии: контроль над мыслью в демократических обществах» ( Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in a Democratic Society ) (1989)
• «Сдерживающая демократия» ( Deterring Democracy ) (1992)
• «Язык и мысль» (1994)
• «Минималистская программа» ( The Minimalist Program ) (1995)
• «Классовая война: интервью с Дэвидом Барзамяном» ( Class Warfare: Inteгviews with David Baгsamian ) (1996)
• «Новый военный гуманизм: уроки Косова» ( The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo ) (1999)
• « Прибыль на людях. Неолиберализм и мировой порядок » ( Profit over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order ) (1999)
• «Гегемония или борьба за выживание: стремление США к мировому господству» ( Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance ) (2003)
• Ноам Хомский. Создавая будущее: Оккупации, вторжения, имперское мышление и стабильность = Making The Future. Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance. — М. : Альпина нон-фикшн , 2015. — 316 с. — ISBN 978-5-91671-361-9 .
• « Производство согласия. Политическая экономия массмедиа » (1988)

• « Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media » (1992)
• «Last Party 2000» (2001)
• «Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times» (2002)
• «Distorted Morality—America's War On Terror?» (2003)
• «Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause» (2003)
• « Корпорация » (2003)
• « Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land » (2004)
• «On Power, Dissent and Racism: A discussion with Noam Chomsky» (2004) ^[22]
• « Lake of Fire » (2006)
• « American Feud: A History of Conservatives and Liberals » (2008)
• «Chomsky & Cie» (2008)
• « An Inconvenient Tax » (2009)
• «The Money Fix» (2009)
• « Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space » (2010)
• «Article 12: Waking up in a surveillance society» (2010)
• « Счастлив ли человек высокого роста?: Анимированная беседа с Ноамом Чомски » (2013)

• Хомски: Признать «недочеловеками» («4th Media»), 8.01.2012
• Имперский путь. Часть I. Гегемония и её Альтернативы («Tom Dispatch»), 14.02.2012
• Имперский Путь. Part II В перспективе — упадок Америки («Tom Dispatch»), 15.02.2012
• Ноам Хомский: Кому принадлежит Земля? («Noam Chomsky: Who Owns the Earth?», « The New York Times »), 2013
• Ноам Хомски на рабкор.ru

• Гросс М., Лантен А. Теория формальных грамматик/ Пер. с фр. — М.: Мир, 1971. — 296 с.
• Литвинов В. П. Мышление Ноама Хомского: Курс лекций / Международная академия бизнеса и банковского дела. — Тольятти, 1999.
• Гурьянова Н. В. Понятие языка, знания языка и овладения этим знанием в концепции языка и мышления Н. Хомского // Учён. зап. Ульянов. state un-that. — (Серия: Образование). — Ульяновск, 1999. — Вып. 2. — С. 182—191.
• Капишин А. Е. «Генеративная лингвистика» Н. Хомского // Иностранный язык в школе. — 2002. — № 2. — С. 81—86.
• Гурьянова Н. В. Современная лингвистическая концепция Н. Хомского : Автореф. dis. ... cand. filol. наук: 10.02.19 / [Московский гос. лингвистический ун-т]. - M. , 1998.

• Официальный сайт Хомского
• 10 способов манипулирования людьми с помощью СМИ — разработка Н. Хомского
• Комплекс Хомского
• Ноам Хомский в библиотеке сайта журнала «Скепсис»
• Тарасов А. Н. «Хомскианская революция» в России // Скепсис , 23 сентября 2003 — 15 февраля 2004 ( В сокращенном виде опубликован в « Политическом журнале », 2004, № 9)
• Jeffrey Blankfort о Хомском. part#1 part#2 part#3
• Ноам Хомский. Секулярное священство и опасности, которые таит демократия
• Преодоление Хомского left.ru
• Дискуссия в МГУ: Помогает ли Хомский понять сознание?
• Галерея мерзавцев Хомского left.ru
• Ноам Хомский и его борьба против нового мирового порядка
• Константин Гусов: Неолиберализм как нелиберализм или Ноам Хомский — лингвист-политолог
• Ольга Митренина. Бесцветные зелёные идеи живут и побеждают
• Великий бунтарь-языковед Хомский о языке, школе и детях
• Гегемония и её Альтернативы