zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
I have a degree in linguistics. We were taught Chomsky’s theories of linguistics, but also taught that they were not true. (I don’t want to say what university it was since this was 25 years ago and for all I know that linguistics department no longer teaches against Chomsky). The end result is I don’t take anything Chomsky says seriously. So, it is difficult for me to engage with Chomsky’s ideas.

>>irrati+y71
I'm rather confused by this statement. I've read a number of Chomsky pieces and have listened to him speak a number of times. To say his theories were all "not true" seems, to an extent, almost impossible.

Care to expand on how his theories can be taught in such a binary way?

>>windex+881
Generally what people are talking about are his universal grammar or generative syntax theories/approaches, which are foundational to how you approach many topics. Because you build your academic career based on specialization they are hotly contested (for the material reasons of jobs, funding, tenure, etc.).

This leads to people who agree hiring each other and departments ‘circling the wagon’ on these issues. You’ll see this referred to as east vs west coast, but it’s not actually that clearly geographically delineated.

So anyways, these are open questions that people do seriously discuss and study, but the politics of academia make it difficult and unfortunately this often trickles down to students.