Reply to comment
Oh, no. Quoting Chomsky again...
January 26, 2009 by Anonymous, 40 weeks 6 days ago
Comment id: 33954
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
All the above (or is it below?) comments are basically true. Declaring a "purpose" for human language is silly and unprovable. The statement is more-or-less self contradictory. Dividing language use into social/communication is essentially impossible.
The interesting question is why anyone bothers to quote this stuff. It's as if everything Noam Chomsky said is Divine Word. Sheesh! Well, let it be known that he's human, and quite as capable of saying something empty as the rest of us.