Michael wrote, "This comment startled me a bit. I don't know how precisely defined the word 'sociobiology' is, but you'd have to understand it pretty broadly to cover Chomsky's view of the language faculty."
Psychology is the study of the mind. "Sociobiology" or "evolutionary psychology" (the latter was just supposed to be a PC term for the former) is the study of how and why the mind evolved--so, you see, it's a pretty broad term. How we came to have such a sophisticated capacity for language is a question of great interest to EPers, most of whom would agree with Chomsky.
Arash:
Sociobiologists/evolutionary pscyhologists are interested in Chomsky's ideas, but I don't think that makes his work sociobiology, it would probably be termed cognitive science or psychology instead. He is primarily interested in mapping out what he sees as the algorithms underlying the language faculty, the specific combinatoric system that generates a practically unlimited number of sentences from a closed set of elements, “the infinite use of finite media.” The ev psych focus of explaining what evolutionary events could have brought about the human capability for language, that really doesn’t pertain to most of the work Chomsky has done. In fact, he is very sceptical of evolutionary explanations of human language, even of the notion that language confers any advantage in evoluionary terms. Many psychologists and linguists disagree with him on this stance, recently there has been a running debate in few academic journals with psychologist Steven Pinker and linguist Ray Jackendoff on one side arguing for language as an adaption and Chomsky and some associates on the other arguing for a spandrel/exapation intrepretation of the human language ability.
Where Chomsky’s views do coincide with evolutionary psychology is on the idea that human behaviors traditionally thought of as cultural products may be better explained as being the results of specific genetic instructions. His readiness to accept genetic explanations for behavior sets him apart from many other left-leaning scientist, and I think that has made him much more open than them to the ev psych approach. Apparently, when Gould and Lewtonin’s Sociobiology Study Group tried to enlist Chomsky for his support he declined because he didn’t share their views on the variability of human nature (and perhaps he was put off G&L’s character assassination attempts by associating E.O. Wilson with eugenics and social darwinism, who knows?). Chomsky does endorse the ev psych approach as Luke's quote makes clear, but still he is generally pretty averse to examining language in the context of evolution.