When Ideas Sleep Furiously: Universal Grammar, Academic Institutionalism, and Chomsky’s Hubris Syndrome

Abstract

This article re-examines Noam Chomsky’s linguistic revolution through a paradox contained within its most famous sentence: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” Originally constructed to demonstrate that grammatical well-formedness could be distinguished from semantic coherence and could not be adequately explained by elementary statistical probability, the sentence subsequently acquired an extraordinary cultural, literary and academic meaning of its own. Its afterlife exposes a distinction fundamental to this study: meaning does not mean truth, just as apparent nonsense does not necessarily mean the absence of communicative significance. From this starting point, the article asks whether Universal Grammar itself can be reconsidered as an “empty container of paradigmatic power”: a theoretical construction capable of acquiring enormous disciplinary meaning, institutional authority and explanatory prestige while the empirical status of the entity or mechanism it purports to describe remains contested. The argument contrasts the Chomskyan search for an internal architecture of language with Wittgenstein’s understanding of meaning through use, before examining statistical challenges from Pereira to contemporary large language models and the continuing controversy surrounding Daniel Everett and Pirahã. It then moves from linguistic theory to academic institutionalism, drawing on Thomas Kuhn’s account of paradigms and David Owen’s concept of Hubris Syndrome to propose the broader hypothesis of Academic or Paradigmatic Hubris: the possibility that prolonged intellectual authority, overwhelming professional success, institutional deference and diminishing exposure to effective criticism can alter not only the organisation of knowledge but potentially the language through which authority expresses itself. Garrard et al.’s research into linguistic biomarkers of hubris provides an exploratory methodological bridge while explicitly precluding retrospective clinical diagnosis. Finally, the article situates Chomsky within a historical trilemma confronting the intellectual—from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli and the modern academic establishment: whether to defy power, serve power, or become a form of power oneself. Chomsky’s relationship to the military-funded institutional environment of MIT, his later position as a radical critic of concentrated power, and the extraordinary authority of the Chomskyan paradigm consequently form not a simple accusation of hypocrisy but a deeper problem concerning knowledge, institutional success and intellectual self-limitation. The article concludes that the decisive safeguard against paradigmatic hubris is neither personal modesty nor ideological virtue, but the preservation of epistemic checks and balances capable of ensuring that no theory, intellectual or institution becomes more authoritative than the reality it claims to explain.

Keywords:

Noam Chomsky; Universal Grammar; Ludwig Wittgenstein; David Owen; Hubris Syndrome; Academic Hubris; Paradigmatic Hubris; Thomas Kuhn; Daniel Everett; Pirahã; Linguistic Biomarkers; Institutional Power; Meaning and Truth; Statistical Language Models; Large Language Models; Academic Institutionalism

Introduction: When Nonsense Became Meaningful: The Strange Afterlife of Chomsky’s Sleeping Ideas

“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green colorless. The second sentence has no interpretation. The first has an interpretation, although a rather bizarre one.”

— Noam Chomsky (1957), Syntactic Structures

Few sentences in twentieth-century linguistics have enjoyed a stranger destiny than “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” Chomsky constructed it to distinguish grammatical form from ordinary semantic coherence and to challenge elementary statistical accounts of grammaticality. Its inverted companion, “Furiously sleep ideas green colorless,” contained essentially the same lexical material but violated recognisable English syntactic organisation. Yet the experiment did not remain inside Syntactic Structures. The supposedly anomalous sentence escaped its original function and acquired an extraordinary cultural biography. Linguists interpreted it, teachers repeated it, students memorised it and poets appropriated it. Dell Hymes responded to its apparent nonsense through contextual reconstruction; Roman Jakobson demonstrated possibilities of figurative interpretation; Yuen Ren Chao constructed circumstances capable of making the sentence intelligible; John Hollander and Angus McIntosh transformed it poetically; and by 1965 Sister Mary Jonathan’s “You, Noam Chomsky” was already recycling its vocabulary into meaningful literary communication. Later competitions explicitly invited writers to make Chomsky’s sentence meaningful. The paradox is difficult to miss. An expression created partly to demonstrate semantic anomaly became one of the most meaningful sentences in the history of modern linguistics. Its meaning no longer depended solely upon whether green could literally be colourless or ideas could literally sleep. It came to signify Chomsky himself, generative grammar, syntactic autonomy and eventually an entire intellectual revolution. From a later Wittgensteinian perspective, this history is hardly mysterious: meaning emerges within use, language-games and forms of life. A sequence can acquire significance because people learn what to do with it. Even babbling can have deep meaning. Nonsense can communicate, metaphor can violate literal selection, and an artificial sentence can become an intellectual symbol. None of this disproves Chomsky’s narrower original distinction between syntactic well-formedness and semantic anomaly. It does, however, expose a larger philosophical problem. Meaningfulness is not an intrinsic certificate of truth, just as initial semantic strangeness is not permanent proof of meaninglessness. A false proposition can possess enormous meaning; a myth can organise a civilisation; a theoretical concept can generate decades of research. Meaning does not mean truth.

That distinction allows Chomsky’s experiment to be reversed. Universal Grammar became one of the most consequential theoretical constructions of twentieth-century linguistics, generating specialised vocabularies, formal models, research programmes, professional identities and institutional authority. But the historical productivity of a concept cannot by itself establish that the entity or mechanism named by it exists in nature as theorised. This is where the famous sentence becomes an unexpected metaphor for the paradigm that made it famous. Chomsky searched inward, towards an underlying biological architecture capable of explaining the human capacity for language; Wittgenstein had looked outward, towards socially situated practices in which linguistic expressions acquire their lives. The tension raises a question more fundamental than another dispute over a particular version of Universal Grammar: when does a theoretical construction cease to function merely as a hypothesis and begin to organise the reality against which that hypothesis is supposed to be tested? Scientific concepts can acquire what might be called paradigmatic power. Researchers formulate problems through them, students inherit them, institutions reproduce them and criticism can gradually become intelligible only within the vocabulary established by the paradigm itself. The danger is not that theoretical constructs are inherently illegitimate—science could scarcely function without them—but that the accumulated meaning of a successful construct may eventually be mistaken for evidence of its independent reality. Universal Grammar can therefore be approached here as a possible “empty container of paradigmatic power”: not empty in the absurd sense that Chomskyan linguistics produced nothing, but potentially empty in the much more precise sense that enormous intellectual and institutional content may accumulate around a proposed natural object whose empirical status remains disputed. The following analysis consequently does not claim that large language models have simply disproved Chomsky, nor does it require portraying Chomsky as intellectually dishonest. It asks instead how theory becomes paradigm, how paradigm becomes authority, and how authority may eventually affect its relationship with criticism and counter-evidence. The strange career of the sleeping ideas supplies the opening warning. A sentence can become immensely meaningful without thereby becoming literally true. Perhaps a scientific paradigm can do the same.

“Language disguises thought. So much so, that from the outward form of the clothing it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it.”

— Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Part I: The Empty Container: When a Theory Acquires More Reality Than Its Object

“A grammar of a language purports to be a description of the ideal speaker-hearer’s intrinsic competence. If the grammar is perfectly explicit, it may be called a generative grammar. A fully adequate grammar must assign to each of an infinite range of sentences a structural description. The grammar is thus a theory of a language.”

— Noam Chomsky (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

The decisive Chomskyan move was not merely to describe recurring structures in speech but to relocate the explanatory centre of language behind speech, within the speaker. Observable utterances became manifestations of an underlying competence, while the scientific object increasingly became an internal system capable of generating them. This revolution produced extraordinarily powerful formal questions, but it also created an ontological problem: what exactly corresponds in nature to the theoretical nouns generated by the theory? Wittgenstein’s warning about philosophical problems arising when language ceases to perform its ordinary work offers a useful counterpoint. A name encourages the expectation of a named thing; a theoretical noun can subsequently encourage researchers to search for the entity its grammar has already taught them to imagine. “Universal Grammar” therefore risks functioning not simply as a hypothesis but as a container into which successive theoretical revisions can be deposited while the impression of a stable underlying object survives. Calling such a container “empty” does not mean that generative linguistics discovered nothing. Its formal achievements, influence on cognitive science and transformation of linguistic inquiry are historically substantial. The narrower question is whether disciplinary productivity establishes the natural reality of the theoretical entity responsible for that productivity. Daniel Everett’s work on Pirahã made this problem unusually visible because claims concerning the absence of recursion and the influence of culture challenged properties associated with influential versions of linguistic universality. The empirical claims remain disputed, and critics have contested Everett’s analyses; that disagreement is precisely what makes Pirahã significant here. A universal claim has an exceptionally demanding logical structure: one genuine counter-instance can matter more than thousands of confirming cases. The theory must therefore remain answerable to languages rather than languages becoming answerable to the theory. Otherwise the theoretical container performs a subtle reversal. Instead of being modified by reality, it begins deciding beforehand what reality is permitted to contain.

The statistical question produces an equally revealing reversal. Chomsky’s famous sleeping ideas were introduced partly against simplistic probabilistic conceptions of grammaticalness, yet Fernando Pereira later demonstrated that a comparatively elementary statistical model trained on corpus material could assign the grammatical-looking sequence enormously greater probability than its scrambled counterpart. Pereira did not thereby solve human language acquisition or demonstrate that every grammatical distinction can be reduced to statistics. What he undermined was the stronger rhetorical impression that probabilistic learning must necessarily remain blind to precisely the structural differences illustrated by Chomsky’s example. Twenty-first-century large language models magnify that complication beyond anything available in 1957. Systems trained through large-scale predictive learning can generate syntactically elaborate prose, maintain substantial contextual dependencies, translate, paraphrase and adapt linguistic register without being explicitly supplied with a Chomskyan Universal Grammar. This does not prove that human children acquire language in the same way as artificial neural networks, and an LLM cannot function as a neurological experiment on the human brain. It nevertheless supplies an existence proof of a weaker but consequential proposition: highly organised linguistic behaviour can emerge from learning architectures without an explicitly encoded inventory of the grammatical universals once thought necessary to explain such performance. The philosophical consequence is therefore not the triumphant announcement that a machine has finally killed Universal Grammar. It is the restoration of uncertainty where paradigmatic vocabulary can create an illusion of settled ontology. Chomsky’s inward turn asked what hidden structure must exist for linguistic creativity to be possible; contemporary computational systems reopen the prior question of how much hidden linguistic structure must be stipulated at all. Here Wittgenstein’s outward orientation returns with new force: language may reveal less about a concealed grammatical object than about patterns stabilised through relations, histories and use. The empty container is dangerous only when its label becomes stronger evidence than its contents. Scientific concepts must remain instruments for approaching reality, never verbal fortresses protecting themselves from it.

“Theories are not descriptions of reality. They are instruments for understanding it. When the instrument becomes the object of loyalty, inquiry gives way to doctrine. The task of science is to remain corrigible.”

— Noam Chomskyis, 2016, What Kind of Creatures Are We?

Part II: The Intoxication of the Paradigm: From Scientific Revolution to Academic Hubris

“Language is a process of free creation. Its laws and principles are fixed. Their use is infinitely varied. Interpretation itself involves free creation.”

— Noam Chomsky (1973), Language and Freedom

A scientific revolution changes more than explanations: if sufficiently successful, it changes the conditions under which explanations are recognised as legitimate. Chomsky’s revolution achieved precisely this transformation. Generative linguistics supplied concepts, methods and research problems that reorganised substantial areas of linguistics and cognitive science, but Kuhn’s account of paradigms suggests the accompanying danger: successful frameworks do not merely solve puzzles; they determine which puzzles deserve solving and which vocabulary makes them visible. The question therefore changes from whether Universal Grammar is true to what happens institutionally when generations of researchers are trained within a framework sufficiently prestigious to define the boundaries of normal inquiry. David Owen’s Hubris Syndrome provides an unexpected model for approaching this transformation, provided it is transferred from political leadership without pretending to diagnose Chomsky medically. Owen emphasises that hubris is an “illness of position as much as of the person”: substantial power, prolonged possession of it and weak external constraints can generate environments of deference in which a leader’s judgements are increasingly recycled back, contrary views become easier to dismiss and a “bunker mentality” develops. The analogy with academic power is structural rather than psychiatric. Intellectual authority does not command armies or governments, but it can accumulate citations, disciples, institutional prestige, editorial influence, specialised terminology and the capacity to determine which questions appear scientifically serious. This suggests the concept of Paradigmatic Hubris: a condition not necessarily belonging to one scholar’s personality but potentially emerging within an intellectual ecosystem when extraordinary success progressively weakens the corrective force of disagreement. Owen’s Greek genealogy is crucial here. Hubris begins when success alters the hero’s relationship with limits. For science, those limits are supplied neither by gods nor by reputation but by empirical reality. The moment a paradigm becomes more capable of absorbing anomalies than of being altered by them, theoretical resilience risks becoming epistemic intoxication.

This institutional hypothesis becomes especially interesting when language itself is treated as evidence of changing relations to power. Garrard, Rentoumi, Lambert and Owen’s exploratory study of “linguistic biomarkers” investigated whether prolonged political authority might leave measurable traces in speech, examining such features as lexical choices, informational complexity, first-person reference and expressions of certainty. Their findings were mixed and explicitly insufficient for turning linguistic behaviour into a diagnostic instrument, but their methodological premise opens a question extending far beyond presidents and prime ministers: might accumulated symbolic power also alter the discourse of professors, public intellectuals, journalists and other cultural authorities? Academic Hubris, in this sense, becomes a research hypothesis concerning the language of certainty, dismissal and intellectual invulnerability rather than a retrospective medical label. The Everett controversy provides an appropriate test case because it reveals how empirical disagreement can become inseparable from disciplinary authority. Everett’s claims about Pirahã and recursion provoked severe criticism, while accusations that he was professionally persecuted remain contested; moreover, Ted Gibson’s reported analysis complicated Everett’s own expectations by finding suggestive evidence against part of his interpretation. The case therefore cannot honestly be reduced to heroic dissident versus dogmatic establishment. Its importance lies elsewhere: anomalies entering mature paradigms are never processed by evidence alone. Careers, reputations, methodological commitments and competing definitions of legitimate knowledge enter the dispute with them. Here Owen’s image of intellectual windows being progressively closed becomes more useful than any allegation about individual motives. A healthy paradigm requires windows that cannot be closed by prestige. Its critics must be capable of being wrong without becoming heretics, while its founders must remain capable of being wrong without threatening the identity of an entire discipline. Paradigmatic hubris begins precisely when those two possibilities cease to be symmetrical.

“Truth is dependent upon facts largely outside human control. This dependence inculcates humility.”

— Bertrand Russell (1945), A History of Western Philosophy

Part III: The Historical Trilemma of the Intellectual: Serve Power, Defy Power, or Become Power

“Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world. If this is so, it is quite senseless to raise the problem of explaining the evolution of human language from more primitive systems of communication. There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no reason to suppose that language arose by natural selection.”

— Noam Chomsky (1968), Language and Mind

The history of the intellectual can be read as a history of dangerous proximity to power. Socrates represents its most uncompromising possibility: thought refuses accommodation with political authority and accepts the mortal consequences. Plato survived his teacher and transformed catastrophe into another response, withdrawing from immediate Athenian politics while imagining a polity in which philosophy itself would acquire governing authority. Aristotle occupied a different position, moving close to dynastic power as tutor to Alexander while developing knowledge within networks inseparable from the political world surrounding him. Machiavelli later embodied another variation: the displaced intellectual attempting to return to political relevance by making knowledge useful to those who possessed the state. These figures reveal a historical trilemma that modern intellectual mythology frequently conceals. The thinker can defy power, serve power, or acquire a form of power himself. The modern university made the third possibility achievable without throne, army or ministry. A scholar can command no police and nevertheless acquire paradigmatic authority capable of shaping curricula, terminology, appointments, reputations, research agendas and the boundaries separating legitimate inquiry from intellectual marginality. Chomsky occupies an extraordinary position within this history because his career contains apparently contradictory relationships with authority. He became one of the most recognisable critics of American military and imperial power while his early academic career unfolded within an MIT research environment heavily sustained by American military funding. This institutional fact does not establish that the Pentagon dictated his linguistic conclusions, still less that military sponsorship makes Universal Grammar false. Its significance is subtler. Modern intellectuals need not consciously serve political power in order to inhabit structures made possible by it. The critic of the state may depend institutionally upon the state; opposition and material proximity can coexist. Chomsky’s later political critique of concentrated authority consequently creates an extraordinary historical symmetry: the intellectual who spent decades exposing mechanisms through which institutions manufacture legitimacy also became the symbolic centre of a linguistic paradigm possessing immense legitimacy of its own.

This paradox becomes sharper when intellectual authority escapes the university and becomes cultural celebrity. The public intellectual does not simply possess arguments; reputation creates access, networks and a presumption of exceptional standing unavailable to ordinary citizens. Chomsky’s documented meetings and contacts with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction belong here for this limited reason and no other. They provide no evidence connecting Chomsky to Epstein’s crimes and have no bearing whatsoever on whether generative grammar is scientifically correct. To use them for either purpose would be guilt by association. Their relevance is instead to the problem of elite circulation and accountability: the critic of powerful networks can himself enter social environments created by wealth, prestige and privileged access. The historical trilemma has therefore mutated. Intellectuals no longer merely confront rulers from outside; successful intellectuals can themselves become nodes within transnational systems of symbolic power. This is why Owen’s concept of hubris matters beyond Downing Street and the White House. The decisive question is not whether Chomsky possessed some diagnosable psychological syndrome, but whether extraordinary intellectual success can produce an analogous exemption from ordinary constraints: confidence that one’s judgement requires less correction, that criticism originates primarily in misunderstanding, or that accumulated authority validates the framework through which contrary evidence is interpreted. Socrates possessed no institutional fortress capable of protecting him from Athens. The modern intellectual may possess something historically unprecedented: a paradigm, a professional lineage and a global reputation that can survive individual controversies and reproduce itself through institutions. The third option in the ancient dilemma—becoming power—therefore requires no abandonment of radical politics. One may denounce political domination while accumulating epistemic domination. The contradiction is not necessarily hypocrisy; it is a structural possibility of modern intellectual life. The crucial test of the intellectual is consequently not whether he speaks against power but whether the forms of power generated around his own authority remain open to contradiction. The most dangerous transformation occurs when the dissident who once demanded that institutions justify themselves becomes the centre of an institution whose assumptions no longer appear to require the same justification.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

— Albert Einstein (1901/1940), correspondence and writings

Conclusion: Nemesis of the Paradigm: When Reality Refuses to Speak the Language of Theory

“The general structure of a linguistic theory can be determined, in part, by examining the consequences of adopting certain assumptions concerning the form of grammars. A proposed linguistic theory must be evaluated in terms of its success in explaining the linguistic facts. The theory must provide a method for selecting the descriptively adequate grammar on the basis of primary linguistic data. The ultimate question is whether the assumptions are justified by the phenomena.”

— Noam Chomsky (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

The deepest problem raised by Chomskyan linguistics is ultimately larger than Chomsky and larger than linguistics. Every successful intellectual revolution creates the possibility of becoming imprisoned by its own success. A weak theory can disappear; a powerful theory faces the more interesting danger of acquiring sufficient institutional momentum to survive transformations in the evidence that originally justified it. This is why David Owen’s conclusion to The Hubris Syndrome provides an unexpected model for scientific culture. His final defence against political hubris is not the hope that leaders will somehow remain personally modest but the preservation of checks and balances capable of constraining them when they do not. Scientific communities require an equivalent constitutional architecture. Falsifiability, methodological competition, replication, exposure to counter-evidence, institutional independence and the protection of serious dissent constitute epistemic checks and balances precisely because intellectual virtue cannot be guaranteed. The principle becomes particularly important when an individual theory has generated a professional vocabulary through which generations have learned to perceive their object of study. At that point, abandoning a proposition can become more difficult than correcting an ordinary error because careers, disciplinary identities and inherited research questions have accumulated around it. The history examined here therefore suggests a distinction between intellectual greatness and intellectual sovereignty. Great thinkers transform the available questions; sovereign thinkers begin to determine which answers can count as legitimate. Chomsky unquestionably transformed the questions. Whether the paradigm subsequently acquired excessive sovereignty is the historical problem that must remain open to examination rather than protected by either reverence or hostility. Owen’s analysis also supplies the necessary restraint against converting this argument into the very hubris it criticises. No retrospective medical diagnosis of Chomsky follows from these pages, and neither linguistic biomarkers nor institutional analogies warrant one. Academic Hubris Syndrome is proposed here instead as a hypothesis about environments of intellectual power: prolonged success may create conditions in which prestige insulates propositions from the corrective pressure ordinarily exerted by disagreement.

The Greek conception of hubris offers a final metaphor for what that corrective pressure means. The tragic hero does not fall merely because he possesses confidence, ambition or exceptional ability; he falls when success persuades him that the limits applying to ordinary mortals no longer apply to him. Nemesis restores the boundary. Scientific inquiry has no need of Olympian gods to perform this function because it possesses something less theatrical and more unforgiving: reality. Reality does not recognise citation counts, professorial rank, intellectual celebrity, political virtue or the historical importance of a paradigm. It does not become Chomskyan because generations are trained in generative grammar, Wittgensteinian because meaning is described as use, Skinnerian because prediction succeeds, or connectionist because an LLM produces elegant prose. This is where the distinction with which this article began reaches its consequence without requiring the opening argument to be repeated: meaningfulness and truth answer to different tribunals. Ideas acquire meaning within human communities; claims acquire truth only insofar as the world permits them to survive confrontation with what is not controlled by those communities. The “empty container” therefore becomes dangerous not when scholars create abstractions but when institutional success makes it progressively harder to ask whether anything corresponding to the abstraction remains necessary. Universal Grammar may survive future empirical scrutiny, be radically reformulated, fragment into more modest biological hypotheses, or eventually become an episode in the history of scientific explanation. None of these outcomes can legitimately be decided by Chomsky’s authority, his opponents’ hostility, the political morality of either side, or the spectacular linguistic competence of contemporary machines. They must be decided, provisionally and corrigibly, by evidence. That is also the escape from the historical trilemma of the intellectual. The thinker need not choose only between kneeling before power, dying in opposition to it, or constructing another fortress of authority. There is a fourth possibility: to possess intellectual power while preserving the mechanisms capable of defeating one’s own ideas. A paradigm proves its strength not by making itself invulnerable but by keeping open the conditions of its own possible refutation. Nemesis, in science, should not destroy the thinker. It should merely be allowed to destroy the theory when reality demands it.

“The moral is that we should beware of allowing power and success to go to our heads. Hubris is almost an occupational hazard for leading politicians, as it is for leaders in other fields.”

— David Owen (2008), The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power

References

Bartlett, T. (2012) ‘Angry Words: Will One Scholar’s Discovery Deep in the Amazon Destroy the Foundation of Modern Linguistics?’, The Chronicle Review, 6 April.

Chomsky, N. (1956) ‘Three Models for the Description of Language’, IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), pp. 113–124.

Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1966) Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper & Row.

Chomsky, N. (1968) Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Chomsky, N. (1971) ‘Language and Freedom’, in For Reasons of State. New York: Pantheon Books.

Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2000) New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Everett, D.L. (2005) ‘Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language’, Current Anthropology, 46(4), pp. 621–646.

Everett, D.L. (2009) ‘Pirahã Culture and Grammar: A Response to Some Criticisms’, Language, 85(2), pp. 405–442.

Everett, D.L. (2012) Language: The Cultural Tool. New York: Pantheon Books.

Garrard, P., Rentoumi, V., Lambert, C. and Owen, D. (2014) ‘Linguistic Biomarkers of Hubris Syndrome’, Cortex, 55, pp. 167–181.

Gelman, A. (2010) ‘Colorless Green, and Clueless’, Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, 28 July.

Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W.T. (2002) ‘The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?’, Science, 298(5598), pp. 1569–1579.

Herman, E.S. and Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Hollander, J. (1971) ‘Coiled Alizarine’, in The Night Mirror. New York: Atheneum.

Jakobson, R. (1959) ‘Boas’ View of Grammatical Meaning’, in Goldschmidt, W. (ed.) The Anthropology of Franz Boas: Essays on the Centennial of His Birth. San Francisco: American Anthropological Association, pp. 139–145.

Jonathan, Sister Mary, O.P. (1965) ‘You, Noam Chomsky’, College English, 26(5), p. 395.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D. and Rodrigues, C. (2009) ‘Pirahã Exceptionality: A Reassessment’, Language, 85(2), pp. 355–404.

Owen, D. (2008) ‘Hubris Syndrome’, Clinical Medicine, 8(4), pp. 428–432.

Owen, D. (2008) The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power. London: Politico’s.

Owen, D. and Davidson, J. (2009) ‘Hubris Syndrome: An Acquired Personality Disorder? A Study of US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers over the Last 100 Years’, Brain, 132(5), pp. 1396–1406.

Pereira, F. (2000) ‘Formal Grammar and Information Theory: Together Again?’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 358(1769), pp. 1239–1253.

Russell, B. (1946) History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Wittgenstein, L. (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.