Academic, Language

I’ve been mulling over how to respond to Mark Liberman’s recent jibe at semioticians. This jibe was provoked by my claim that linguistics should be thought of expansively, as a subfield of semiotics (as Saussure initially intended) and not in the more narrow modern sense.

In his post Liberman picks on Roland Barthes, and his euphoric dream of being scientific.” I have to admit that the scientific pretentious of semioticians can be pretty funny. But, I want to ask, just how scientific is Chomsky’s theory of linguistics?

UPDATE: Edited post for greater clarity.

UPDATE: Mark Liberman explores Levi-Strauss’ obsession with linguistics here.

{, , , , }