It is often pointed out that Chomsky， in a talk at a teachers' conference in 1965， expressed his own skepticism about the relevance of linguistics for language teaching （and by implication the validity of applied linguistics）， and his remarks are frequently cited， with. some glee， as ifthey settled the question once and for all. But Chomsky， as a linguist， has no authority to pronounce on the matter， and right at the beginning of his talk he makes his position quite plain: "I should like to make it clear from the outset that I am participating in this conference not as an expert on any aspect ofthe teaching of languages， but rather as someone whose primary concern is with the structure of language and， more generally the nature of cognitive processes." （Chomsky， 1966） And later in his talk we find the following disavowal:"It is possible-even likely - that principles of psychology and linguistics， and research in these disciplines， may supply insights useful to the language teacher. But this must be demonstrated， and cannot be presumed.  It is the language teacher himself who must validate or refute any specific proposal. There is very little in psychology or linguistics that he can accept on faith." （Chomsky， 1966）
　　As we have seen， not all linguists would be so cautious and deferential. Some would assume usefulness without further ado and presume to propose precepts for teachers based on linguistic authority. One might， of course， retort that what Chomsky says applies to his linguistics， linguistics only of the possible， an idealized， armchair abstraction， which everybody knows， is useless because it does not describe use. With linguistic description that deals with attested reality， the situation is different. "But how is it different? To begin with， a moment's reflection will reveal  that Chomsky's linguistics was not useless at all. It has an enormous influence on how people are concerned with pedagogic thought about language. His insights effectively led to a fundamental reconceptualization of the nature of the language learning process， and consequently of how language was to be defined as a subject. It was Chomsky who challenged the orthodox pedagogic view of the time that learning was a matter of habit formation to be induced by pattern practice and structural drill whereby learners were constrained into conformity. He made us conceive of learning in a totally different way， as an essentially cognitive and creative process in which there was room for learner initiative. This reorientation， in turn， led to a revision of the concept of error and a radical reappraisal of teacher and learner roles.
　　……