I find it hard to see how Chomsky has a leg to stand on.

> I understand how Chomsky might arrive at the conclusion that probabilistic models are unnecessary, from his study of the generation of language.

I think the point turns here for me. We have probabilistic models now that generate unbelievably convincing language. Norvig's following argument on the value of interpreting language statistically becomes secondary.

In order to stay moored in reality, our models must follow from evidence. I think it would take a peculiar obstinance to deny that the latest models show evidence of generating language.