Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Noam Chomsky

Copyright Year 2019
Copyright Holder Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Corresponding Author Family Name Mandal
Particle
Given Name Samuel S.
Suffix
Organization/University The University of Auckland
City Auckland
Country New Zealand AU1

Email s.mandal@eversincechomsky.com
 1
N

2 Noam Chomsky Early Life 30 AU3

3 Samuel S. Mandal Avram Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 31

4 The University of Auckland, Auckland, 1928, in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Phil- 32

AU1 5 New Zealand adelphia, Pennsylvania (Lyons 1978). His father 33

was William “Zev” Chomsky, an Ashkenazi Jew 34

originally from Ukraine who had fled to the 35

United States in 1913. Having studied at Johns 36

AU2 6 Introduction
Hopkins University, William went on to become 37

school principal of the Congregation Mikveh 38

7 Professor Noam Chomsky, born December 7,
Israel religious school and in 1924 was appointed 39
8 1928, as Avram Noam Chomsky to middle-class
to the faculty at Gratz College in Philadelphia. 40
9 Jewish working parents in East Oak Lane, Phila-
Chomsky’s mother was the Belarusian-born 41
10 delphia, is an American linguist, cognitive scien-
Elsie Simonofsky (1904–1972), a teacher and 42
11 tist, logician, philosopher, and political activist.
activist whom William had met while working at 43
12 Often referred to as “the father of modern Lin-
Mikveh Israel (Lyons 1978). 44
13 guistics,” “the world’s most important intellec-
Chomsky’s primary education was at Oak 45
14 tual,” etc., Chomsky has made pioneering
Lane Country Day School, an independent 46
15 contributions to multiple fields, including Lin-
Deweyite institution that focused on allowing its 47
16 guistics (a field he is primarily credited with
pupils to pursue their own interests in a non- 48
17 founding in its modern form), Logic, Abstract
competitive atmosphere. It was here, at the age 49
18 Algebra, Artificial Intelligence and Machine
of 10, that he wrote his first article, on the spread 50
19 Learning, Formal Languages, Cognitive Science,
of fascism, following the fall of Barcelona to 51
20 Cognitive Psychology, Philosophies of Mind and
Francisco Franco’s fascist army in the Spanish 52
21 Language, and Anarchist and Syndicalist political
Civil War. At the age of 12, Chomsky moved on 53
22 theories, and is considered to be one of the pillars
to secondary education at Central High School, 54
23 of Analytic Philosophy, particularly in the Ratio-
where he joined various clubs and societies and 55
24 nalist tradition. Ranked as “among the eight most
excelled academically but was troubled by the 56
25 cited scholars, ever,” Chomsky is currently Pro-
hierarchical and regimented method of teaching 57
26 fessor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachu-
used there. During the same time period, Chom- 58
27 setts Institute of Technology, where he has held
sky attended the Hebrew High School at Gratz 59
28 office for over half a century, and Laureate Pro-
College. From the age of 12 or 13, he identified 60
29 fessor of Linguistics at The University of Arizona.
more fully with anarchist politics (Lyons 1978). 61

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_630-1
 2 Noam Chomsky

62 Education which he claimed is the cradle of language, by 106

directly linking it to mainstream biology and argu- 107

63 In 1945, Chomsky, aged 16, embarked on a gen- ing that the adult mind with all its knowledge 108

64 eral program of study at the University of Penn- systems is a biological organ, much like the 109

65 sylvania, where he explored philosophy, logic, human digestive system (Chomsky 1959a). 110

66 and languages and developed a primary interest Indeed, years after Chomsky kickstarted what 111

67 in learning Arabic. Living at home, he funded his came to be known as the cognitive revolution, 112

68 undergraduate degree by teaching Hebrew. How- immunologist Niels Jerne compared the human 113

69 ever, he was frustrated with his experiences at the digestive system to Chomsky’s theory of Gram- 114

70 university and considered dropping out and mov- mar (“Niels K. Jerne – Nobel Lecture,” n.d.). 115

71 ing to a kibbutz in Mandatory Palestine. His intel- Perhaps the best introduction to Chomsky’s 116

72 lectual curiosity was reawakened through thoughts and works in Linguistics is manifest in 117

73 conversations with the Russian-born linguist the introductory lines of Syntactic Structures: 118

74 Zellig Harris, whom he first met in a political Syntactical investigation of a given language has as 119
75 circle in 1947. Harris introduced Chomsky to the its goal the construction of a device for producing 120
76 field of theoretical linguistics and convinced him the sentences of the language under 121

77 to major in the subject. Chomsky’s B.A. honors investigation.. . . The ultimate outcome of [such] 122
investigations should be a theory of linguistic struc- 123
78 thesis was titled “Morphophonemics of Modern tures in which the descriptive devices utilized in 124
79 Hebrew” and involved his applying Harris’s particular grammars are presented and studied 125
80 methods to the language (Boeckx and Piattelli- abstractly.. . . One function of this theory is to pro- 126

AU4 81 Palmarini 2005). Chomsky revised this thesis for vide a general method for selecting a grammar for 127
each language, given a corpus of this language. 128
82 his M.A., which he received at Penn in 1951; it (Chomsky 1957/2002) 129
83 would subsequently be published as a book
84 (Boeckx and Grohmann 2013; Boeckx and For Chomsky one of the fundamental issues in 130

85 Piattelli-Palmarini 2005). He also developed his rationalist epistemology concerns the problem of 131

86 interest in philosophy while at university, in par- “creativity” (Aarsleff 1970; Bever 2009; 132

87 ticular under the tutelage of his teacher Nelson Chomsky 2009). Namely, how is it that human 133

88 Goodman. From 1951 to 1955, Chomsky was beings whose contact with nature is so brief and 134

89 named to the Society of Fellows at Harvard transient come nonetheless to learn so much of it? 135

90 University, where he undertook research on what Applying this general observation to linguistic 136

91 would become his doctoral dissertation (Barsky phenomena, Chomsky asks how is it possible for 137

92 1998; Lyons 1978; Otero 1994). a child to instinctively create new utterances to 138

which it has never been exposed specifically, 139

based only on exposure to a fraction of the possi- 140

93 Basic Ideas I. Science ble sentences of a language. Indeed, Chomsky 141

points out that the total number of possible 142

94 Plato’s Problem sentences in a language is infinite and that this 143

95 In linguistics Chomsky holds a position akin to infinity (discrete infinity: infinite number of 144

96 that of Sir Isaac Newton in Physics during and sentences, with discrete whole numbers of words 145

97 after enlightenment (Dawkins 2015). Evolution- in them, but never fractions of words) itself is 146

98 ary Psychologist Steven Pinker remarked, made possible by the fact that users can create 147

99 “Whether or not Chomsky provided all the right completely novel utterances at any given instance 148

100 answers, Linguistics and Cognitive Science will (Chomsky 2007). Thus, Chomsky observes, the 149

101 always be dominated by the questions Noam child placed in its natural environment is exposed 150

102 Chomsky has asked.” In stark contrast to the to a limited amount of experience, and yet what 151

103 behaviorist zeitgeist fashionable in the 1940s the child comes to possess in the form of knowl- 152

104 and early 1950s, Chomsky brought about a Kuhn- edge from this limited environment far exceeds its 153

105 ian paradigm shift in the study of the human mind, experiences. This gap between what the child is 154
 Noam Chomsky 3

155 given, and what it comes to possess, and the on Government and Binding, or The Pisa Lectures 200

156 problems concerning how the child is able to (Chomsky 1981/1993), and later elaborated fur- 201

157 bridge this gap, Chomsky terms Plato’s Problem, ther in Knowledge of Language (Chomsky 1986), 202

158 after the classical philosopher who first observed PnP hypothesizes that the architecture of language 203

159 this tendency of the Sapien mind (Chomsky is constructed through Principles, invariant and 204

160 1959b). constant across languages, and Parameters, also 205

161 This program contrasts, and falsifies, Skinner- universal but adjustable in individual languages, 206

162 ian Behaviorism (Chomsky 1959a) which held thereby yielding linguistic diversity. One set of 207

163 that language is a result of associations between principles, for example, restricts the possible dis- 208

164 words. Because users can create completely novel tribution of pronominals, reflexives, and anaphors 209

165 associations between words in the form of new in sentences of the world’s languages to specific 210

166 sentences, such a theory is automatically rendered predetermined hierarchical spots in phrasal struc- 211

167 untenable. While Chomsky’s devastating criti- tures and is referred to as the binding principles. 212

AU5 168 cism of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Chomsky All languages adhere to binding principles, either 213

169 1959, 1967) is often taken to be the most impor- explicitly or vacuously. Parameters on the other 214

170 tant cause behind the decline of radical behavior- hand, such as the PRO-drop parameter, are 215

171 ism, the idea that prior constraints on learning hypothesized to have individual preferences for 216

172 space and hypotheses impose severe limits on how they are implemented in individual lan- 217

173 what can be inductively learned has since spread guages. For instance, Japanese is a PRO-drop 218

174 beyond psychological nativism as evidenced in language in which certain categories of pronouns 219

175 Wolpert’s No Free Lunch (Wolpert and Macready are overtly omitted because they are inferable 220

176 1997). otherwise from the structure. Other languages 221

may choose to not drop the PRO. While parame- 222

ters themselves are posited to be innate, that is the 223

177 Principles and Parameters total number of possible parameters are finite and 224

limited to an universal set, not all languages must 225

178 Chomsky’s proposed methodology to scientifi- instantiate all parameters, unlike principles. 226

179 cally approach Plato’s problem was first proposed

180 in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Chomsky
181 1965), also known as standard theory, and later Minimalist Program and the 227

182 revised as the standard extended theory which Biolinguistic Link 228

183 was developed and revised throughout the 1970s

184 during the early years of generative grammar. The system of grammars described above is often 229

185 Within this framework it is hypothesized that the referred to as transformational and generative, or 230

186 child is genetically endowed with an innate transformational-generative (Chomsky 1959b, 231

187 hypotheses space, a format for possible grammars 2002), because in this framework, grammar is 232

188 of natural language, and the child in the process of composed of a system of representations in the 233

189 growth and development constructs a number of mind, manipulated computationally by innately 234

190 possibilities to externalize. The selection of the specified syntactic rules, thus deriving structures 235

191 ultimate externalized grammar is hypothesized to from elementary primitives (generative) and then 236

192 be the one that selects the least number of rules, modifying existing structures to derive newer 237

193 that is, one that manifests a minimal implementa- ones (transformation). The system can thus be 238

194 tion of the system to achieve discrete infinity. conceptualized in a twofold fashion with regard 239

195 However, since this approach proved too cum- to how it makes possible and then implements 240

196 bersome, Chomsky and colleagues soon proposed languages in human brains. Traditionally, theories 241

197 a newer alternative in the form of the principles of grammar are computational-representational 242

198 and parameters approach (PnP) (Chomsky 1993, (C-R) (Embick and Poeppel 2015; Poeppel et al. 243

199 1995). First introduced by Chomsky in Lectures 2012) theories which assume that the human mind 244
 4 Noam Chomsky

245 is genetically endowed with a set of innate con- universal grammar embedded in the human brain 292

246 cepts and symbols (representations) which are and more emphasis on a large number of plastic 293

247 used as constituents by algebraic computational cerebral circuits. And along with this plasticity 294

248 rules to create bigger and more complex struc- would come an infinite number of concepts. The 295

249 tures. Thus, the meaning (or semantic content) of brain would then proceed to associate sounds and 296

250 a structures is derived not just from the combined concepts, and the rules of grammar that we 297

251 semantic contents of its constituents but also from observe would in fact be only the consequences, 298

252 (a) how the constituents are combined in a given or side effects, of the way that language works. 299

253 structure to make larger constituent structures and Analogously, we can, for example, use rules to 300

254 (b) how constituents and (c) constituent structures describe the way a muscle operates, but these rules 301

255 in the larger structure relate and refer to each do nothing but explain what happens in the mus- 302

256 other. For instance, in the sentence cle; they do not explain the mechanisms that the 303

257 [[John told Maryi][that [Bill loves heri ]]] brain uses to generate these rules. 304

The specifics of the biolinguistic program 305

258 [John, Bill, Mary, love, her, that] form a set of (Bever 2003, 2009; Boeckx and Grohmann 306
259 constituents, while [John told Mary] and [Bill 2013; Boeckx and Piattelli-Palmarini 2005; 307
260 loves her] form larger constituent structures capa- Chomsky 2005b, 2007; Medeiros et al. 2016) 308
261 ble of being complete utterances on their own but concern approaching every aspect of language – 309
262 indeed are combined within a larger structure to sound, meaning, and structure – as functions of an 310
263 derive our example sentence. The meaning of this organ of the mind. While Chomsky emphasizes 311
264 final superstructure, while dependent on the that language itself is a function of the biological 312
265 meanings of the constituents, is also contingent organ known as the faculty of language, a module 313
266 on how individual constituents, for instance, of the human cognitive system devoted to lan- 314
267 “Mary” and “her” relate to each other. Since guage specifically, the precise nature and architec- 315
268 “Mary” and “her” carry the same index “i,” we ture of this module remains a hotly debated 316
269 know that the “her” that “Bill” loves is in fact avenue of research. Chomsky himself has contin- 317
270 “Mary.” Chomsky’s main hypotheses is that uously revised his position on this issue, with the 318
271 such constituent structures, the indices (such as latest version of his theory making a distinction 319
272 “i”), and the rules that compute and implement between the faculty of language-Narrow (FLN: 320
273 them are part of the innate mechanisms of our the core architectural component of the faculty 321
274 brains. Thus, “Mary,” the intended listener of not attested anywhere else in the living world) 322
275 our example utterance, can listen to “John” pro- and the faculty of language-Broad (FLB: the 323
276 duce the same and, in spite of the fact that linear aspects of the faculty portions of which may be 324
277 acoustic speech signals contain neither brackets present in other animals) (Hauser et al. 2002, 325
278 nor indices, can mentally recompute the intended 2014; Hauser and Spelke 2004). In these versions 326
279 structure, and therefore the intended meaning, of his work, along with his colleagues like Mark 327
280 reflexively and without ever being explicitly Hauser, Tecumseh Fitch, and Massimo Piatelli- 328
281 aware of the fact that she is doing so (Chomsky Palmarini et al. (Berent 2016; Boeckx and 329
282 1959b, 2007; Hauser et al. 2002; Hauser and Piattelli-Palmarini 2005; Medeiros et al. 2016; 330
283 Spelke 2004). Piattelli-Palmarini 2013), Chomsky has claimed 331
284 In the 1990s, Chomsky’s research focused on that the core component of FLN specific just to 332
285 what he called the “minimalist program” humans is a single operation called MERGE, 333
286 (Chomsky 1995), which attempted to demonstrate which merely takes two constituents and creates 334
287 that the brain’s language faculties are the mini- an unordered set by merging them together. It is 335
288 mum faculties that could be expected, given cer- claimed that MERGE meets computational mini- 336
289 tain external conditions that are imposed on us mality requirements by creating simple unordered 337
290 independently. In other words, Chomsky began sets instead of ordered ones. 338
291 to place less emphasis on something such as a
 Noam Chomsky 5

MERGE x,y

!<x y>ð5<y x>Þ his analytical anger on Washington’s cruel maltreat- 382

ment of third world people, its ruthless foreign 383

339 The details of how a formal operation like policies and disregard for international law, its 384

340 MERGE is to be implemented on a biological abuse of US citizens and residents, and its violations 385

341 substrate, how such hierarchical structures get of democracy and Constitutional Law (Chomsky 386

342 linearized, and what kind of neural structures 1999; Herman and Chomsky 2002). He argues 387

343 and operations are involved in doing so constitute that this pattern of behavior became dominant after 388

344 the core of biolinguistic research carried out World War II left the US state in a position of 389

345 interdisciplinarily by psychologists, linguists, unchallengeable power. It was US aggression 390

346 neurobiologists, and evolutionary biologists. against Vietnam that has usually been identified, 391

including by Chomsky himself (Chomsky 2003, 392

2005a), as the dominating factor that lead Chomsky 393

347 Politics and Activism
to become a critic of US foreign policy. His essays 394
348 Robert Barsky’s biography, called Noam Chom-
on the war are collected in American Power and the 395
349 sky: A Life of Dissent (Barsky 1998), and
New Mandarins (Chomsky 2003) and in At War 396
350 published by MIT Press in 1997, contains a useful
With Asia (Chomsky 2005a); these books remain 397
351 discussion of his early years and the development
relevant today. Chinese readers may have a particu- 398
352 of his politics. Today, Chomsky is distinguished
lar interest in what he has written about the Vietnam 399
353 for his innovative work in the field of linguistics,
War since the US invasion was justified in the USA 400
354 but his wider public renown is due to his author-
and around the world by the need to contain China. 401
355 itative voice as a critic of US foreign and domestic
Chomsky’s logic is to apply universal princi- 402
356 policy (Antony and Hornstein 2003; Otero 1994).
ples when judging the behavior of government. In 403
357 Turning to sociopolitical issues, we mainly
particular, Chomsky argues that unlike relativist 404
358 observe Chomsky working on ideas of free devel-
norms often employed by politicians, an unjust 405
359 opment, not unlike those underpinning his
course of action is wrong irrespective of who it 406
360 approach to language as some have claimed.
benefits. That is, “if its wrong when they do it, 407
361 Chomsky’s main idea is that humans do not need
then its wrong when we do it.” In Hegemony or 408
362 much in the way of external control in order to
Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance 409
363 form wholesome and productive social relation-
(p. 4) he writes, “Those who are seriously inter- 410
364 ships. He has routinely advocated for a society
ested in understanding the world will adopt the 411
365 moving toward voluntary organizations and elim-
same standards whether they are evaluating their 412
366 inating as much as possible the structures of hier-
own political and intellectual elites or those of 413
367 archy and domination (Herman and Chomsky
official enemies. . .. Truth [is] veiled by inten- 414
368 2002; Lyons 1978). Chomsky views rigid hierar-
tional ignorance that makes a crucial contribution 415
369 chical control by structures of authority as anti-
to ongoing crimes”(Chomsky 2004). He regards 416
370 thetical to the nature of human development and
the quest for truth and the struggle against official 417
371 argues that such outside interference has a stifling
evasion and mendacity as the “responsibility of 418
372 effect on intellectual development and social life
intellectuals” (Chomsky 1967). 419
373 in general. While Chomsky maintains that social
374 institutions are a necessity, he rigidly opposes the
375 hierarchical organization of such structure and the
376 privatization of means of production that leads to
References 420 AU6

377 concentration of wealth. Chomsky argues that Aarsleff, H. (1970). The history of linguistics and Profes- 421
378 concentration of wealth leads to concentration of sor Chomsky. Language, 46, 570–585. 422
379 power (Chomsky 2014). Antony, L. M., & Hornstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Chomsky 423

380 Chomsky’s critique of the state is mainly directed and his critics. Malden: Blackwell Pub. 424
Barsky, R. F. (1998). A life of dissent. Cambridge, MA: 425
381 toward his own (For reasons of state 2003). He turns MIT Press. 426
 6 Noam Chomsky

427 Berent, I. (2016). Commentary: “an evaluation of universal Chomsky, N. (2005a). At war with Asia. Edinburgh: AK 478
428 grammar and the phonological mind” – UG is still a Press. 479
429 viable hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1029. Chomsky, N. (2005b). Three factors in language design. 480
430 Bever, T. (2003). Deconstructing functionalist explana- Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 481
431 tions of linguistic universals. In Formal approaches 0024389052993655. 482
432 to function in grammar’ (pp. 333–352). Amsterdam: Chomsky, N. (2007). Biolinguistic explorations: Design, 483
433 John Benjamins. development, evolution. International Journal of Phil- 484
434 Bever, T. G. (2009). Remarks on the individual basis for osophical Studies, 15(1), 1–21. 485
435 linguistic structures. In Of minds and language: Chomsky, N. (2009). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in 486
436 A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country the history of rationalist thought. Cambridge, UK: 487
AU7 437 (pp. 278–299). Cambridge University Press. 488
438 Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (2013). The Cambridge Chomsky, N. (2014). On anarchism. London: Penguin 489
439 handbook of biolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cam- Books. 490
440 bridge University Press. Dawkins, R. (2015). Brief candle in the dark: My life in 491
441 Boeckx, C., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2005). Language as science. Random House. 492
442 a natural object – linguistics as a natural science. Embick, D., & Poeppel, D. (2015). Towards a computa- 493
443 Carnie, A., Medeiros D., & Boeckx, C. (2005). Some tional (ist) neurobiology of language: Correlational, 494
444 consequences of natural law in syntactic structure. integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, 495
445 Ms. University of Arizona, Harvard University. | Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 357–366. 496
446 Request PDF. (n.d.). Retrieved 26 Nov 2018, from For reasons of state. (2003). New Delhi: Penguin Books. 497
447 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269699306_ Hauser, M. D., & Spelke, E. (2004). Evolutionary and 498
448 Carnie_Andrew_Medeiros_D_and_C_Boeckx_2005_ developmental foundations of human knowledge. The 499
449 Some_Consequences_of_Natural_Law_in_Syntactic_ Cognitive Neurosciences, 3, 853–864. 500
450 Structure_Ms_University_of_Arizona_Harvard_Univer Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The 501
451 sity. faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did 502
452 Chomsky, N. (1959a). A review of BF Skinner’s verbal it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. 503
453 behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58. Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., 504
454 Chomsky, N. (1959b). On certain formal properties of Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., et al. (2014). The mystery 505
455 grammars. Information and Control, 2(2), 137–167. of language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 401. 506
456 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing 507
457 Oxford: MIT press. consent: The political economy of the mass media. 508
458 Chomsky, N. (1967). A special supplement: The responsi- New York: Pantheon Books. 509
459 bility of intellectuals. Retrieved from https://www. Lyons, J. (1978). Noam Chomsky (Rev. ed.). 510
460 nybooks.com/articles/1967/02/23/a-special-supplement- Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 511
461 the-responsibility-of-intelle/. Medeiros, D. P., Piattelli-Palmarini, M., & Bever, T. G. 512
462 Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, (2016). Many important language universals are not 513
463 origin, and use. New York: Praeger. reducible to processing or cognition. Behavioral and 514
464 Chomsky, N. (1993). Lectures on government and binding Brain Sciences, 39, e86. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 515
465 the Pisa lectures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Retrieved S0140525X15000722. 516
466 from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10597900. Otero, C. P. (Ed.). (1994). Noam Chomsky: Critical assess- 517
467 Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program (Vol. 28). ments. London: Routledge. 518
AU8 468 Cambridge University Press. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2013). Biolinguistics yesterday, 519
469 Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: Neoliberalism today, and tomorrow. In The Cambridge handbook of 520
470 and global order (Seven Stories Press, 1st ed.). biolinguistics (pp. 12–21). 521
471 New York: Seven Stories Press. Poeppel, D., Emmorey, K., Hickok, G., & Pylkkänen, 522
472 Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic structures. Berlin: Mouton L. (2012). Towards a new neurobiology of language. 523
473 de Gruyter. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(41), 14125–14131. 524
474 Chomsky, N. (2003). American power and the new man- Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997). No free lunch 525
AU9 475 darins. Penguin Books India. theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evo- 526
476 Chomsky, N. (2004). Hegemony or survival: America’s lutionary Computation, 1(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/ 527
477 quest for global dominance. London: Penguin Books. 10.1109/4235.585893. 528
 Author Queries
Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science
Chapter No.: 630-1

___________________________________________________________________
Query Refs. Details Required Author's response
AU1 Please be aware that your name and affiliation and if
applicable those of you co-author(s) will be published as
presented in this proof. If you want to make any
changes, please correct the details now. Note that
corrections after publication will no longer be possible.
AU2 Please check if the section headings are assigned to
appropriate levels.
AU3 Please provide missing sections ‘Synonyms’,
‘Definition’, and ‘Conclusion’ as per the chapter
structure, if applicable.
AU4 Please check captured reference citations if correct.
AU5 Please confirm if the year is “1959a” or “1959b” for
Chomsky (1959).
AU6 Reference “Carnie et al. (2005)” was not cited anywhere
in the text. Please provide in text citation or delete the
reference from the reference list.
AU7 Please provide publisher name, and location for Bever
(2009) and Piattelli-Palmarini (2013).
AU8 Please provide publisher location for Chomsky (1995)
and Dawkins (2015).
AU9 Please provide publisher name for Chomsky (2003).

Note:
If you are using material from other works please make sure that you have obtained the necessary permission from
the copyright holders and that references to the original publications are included.