I think I've missed the point of your response (electrons?).
Just to clarify, Chomsky's theories setup a framework for artificial reduction of language which did nothing to help elucidate the true nature of language (which is obviously a product of the evolution of the brain).
The problem seems to be that Chomsky's influence sent a lot of grad students down a path that didn't really advance linguistics in terms of the human element. I don't even know if his theories really helped with computer analysis of language.
Chomsky and people who study in the generative tradition have a lot to say about language as a biological organ (which obviously evolved from the language organs Chimps possess). In fact, Chimps have very similar systems to us. They can perceive voiced onset time (VOT) just as we do and they can reason about semantic issues. They can also utter and understand sound-meaning pairs however, they have nothing like our syntax for making novel and complex utterances out of the simple ones.
What is the thing with languages anyway. Previous generations were so fetishist about it. I found I've learned deeper things by toying with musical instruments and geometry, although encoding geometry (among other things) as visual symbols was a great foot in the abstraction door. But these intellectual aesthetics are far from human communication IMHO.
