I disagree with your analysis. You have made the error of merging Chomsky’s analysis of language structure with his political and social views; the two have no relation to each other.
First, Chomsky’s work is not psycholinguistics but cognitive linguistics. It is not focused on words but on the deep structure or grammatical structure of whole sentences. Not words – which depend for their meaning on their function within the grammatical relations.
All languages have grammar, or, hierarchical systems-of-relating sounds/words to each other such that meaning can be generated. So, we can say ‘All mimsy were the borogroves and the mome raths outgrabe’…and despite the words being without meaning, we can get a meaningful sense …because of the grammatical order.
Equally, his focus on grammar has nothing to do with people like Saussure, whose focus is strictly and only on words; it has nothing to do with any focus on words, on sociolinguistics, on psycholinguistics. It’s strictly about the grammatical relations…that enable sounds/words…to generate meaning. period.
And it has, again, nothing to do with his political and social views. To criticize his political and social views, a justifiable criticism in my view, and to somehow link that with his language views is itself unscientific!
