Chomsky cannot speak, but the argument goes on: a Monist special issue in October

The best measure of whether a thinker is still alive is not that he is still speaking.

It is that other people are still arguing with him.

Noam Chomsky suffered a severe brain haemorrhage in June 2024. After a long spell in hospital he is being treated at home in Brazil, his wife's country. He has difficulty speaking, and he has in effect withdrawn from public debate. He is ninety-seven.

And it is precisely now that one of the oldest journals in philosophy is preparing an issue given over entirely to his thought.

The Monist publishes its Chomsky special issue in October 2026. The guest editor is John Collins of the University of East Anglia.

Why this counts as news#

Because the scope of the issue shows that Chomsky is being handled not as a figure in the history of linguistics but as a philosopher still under argument.

The call for papers invites work on his dispute with Quine, on behaviourism, naturalism, linguistic internalism, meaning, consciousness and representation — and on the positions he developed against Putnam, Kripke, Davidson, Dummett, Searle and Dennett.

This is not a commemoration. It is a reckoning.

The papers the journal has already released bear that out. Ryan M. Nefdt's “Chomsky, Naturalism, and Conceptual Engineering” rereads more than seventy years of Chomsky's work through conceptual engineering, one of the liveliest areas in recent philosophy.

Another is more direct still: “Large Language Models and the Rationalist-Empiricist Debate.”

The real quarrel was never about linguistics#

That second title gives the key to Chomsky.

Most readers now remember his exchanges with Skinner and Quine as “a technical disagreement internal to linguistics”.

They were not.

They were the twentieth-century version of the seventeenth-century quarrel between rationalism and empiricism.

The empiricist position: the mind begins empty; knowledge comes from experience; learning can be explained by general-purpose mechanisms of association.

Chomsky's objection was empirical, and it rested on a single observation: the data a child is exposed to are not enough to explain the grammar the child acquires.

A child produces sentences it has never heard. It knows that constructions of which it has been given no example are wrong. And it manages this in three or four years, with nobody correcting it.

Chomsky's conclusion: the human mind must possess a species-specific endowment that makes the discovery of linguistic structure possible.

This is the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. It translates a line running from Descartes to Humboldt into the language of twentieth-century science.

What universal grammar never meant#

No concept of his has been distorted more.

The popular version: “there is a grammar in the brain, and we are born with it.”

That is not what he meant. His question was which principles of computation and representation are shared beneath languages that differ from one another enormously.

The programme itself changed repeatedly: transformational-generative grammar, principles and parameters, the minimalist programme. Nobody demolished Chomsky's theories as often as Chomsky.

As we explained this week in our file on Michael Devitt, Chomsky's insistence that linguistics is an empirical natural science is one of the sources feeding the naturalist wing of the philosophy of language — even though the two are diametrically opposed on meaning.

Have large language models refuted Chomsky?#

It is the most argued-over question of 2026, and the answer is less clear than it is taken to be.

The side that says yes puts it like this. Chomsky held that general-purpose statistical learning could never produce anything resembling human linguistic competence. Today systems given no innate grammatical module produce text that is very nearly perfect grammatically. Empiricism has passed a test.

The other side makes two objections.

The first is the scale of the data. A child acquires a language in a few years, from an input of some millions of words. A language model is trained on many times more text than a human being could hear in a lifetime. The two systems are not solving the same problem.

The second is Chomsky's oldest distinction: competence and performance. That a system produces well-formed sentences does not show that it has any knowledge of the language. What interested Chomsky was never observed behaviour but the structure beneath it.

The distinction is a cousin of the Chinese Room argument in our file on John Searle this week — a cousin, not a twin. Searle says that meaning is missing; Chomsky says that the explanation is being sought in the wrong place.

A caution should be added. Chomsky's public pronouncements about language models must be read separately from his technical theory. What a philosopher thinks of a technology and how his theory fares against that technology are two different matters.

The politics is not a second Chomsky#

Chomsky's political writing is often presented as a second career.

The reading is mistaken, and it is mistaken because it severs two questions that belong together.

The linguist's question: how is the human mind able to produce an unlimited number of new structures?

The political writer's question: on what ground are the institutions that restrict that productivity counted legitimate?

For Chomsky human nature is not a blank slate but a creative capacity. And every arrangement that obstructs that capacity has to justify itself.

Curiously, this has the same shape as the central claim in our file on Robert Alexy, published today: an authority that cannot justify itself is not legitimate.

The two men stand far apart; the demand they make is the same.

Closing#

Chomsky now lives in a house in Brazil, struggling to speak.

According to what his wife told a Brazilian newspaper, he still follows the news, and when he sees the pictures coming out of Gaza he raises his left arm in anger.

There is no need to sentimentalise the scene.

But it is worth recording that in October philosophers from around the world will be answering what he wrote thirty and forty years ago.

That is the best thing that can happen to a thinker.

---

Noam Chomsky was born in Philadelphia on 7 December 1928. He is professor emeritus at MIT; in his later years he also taught at the University of Arizona.