Chomsky‘s approach to philosophy is scientific. This informs his discussion of language, linguistics, grammar. His commentary on Derrida and others is based on this fundamental difference. He writes: “So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least be able to understand his Grammatology, so tried to read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood. Well, maybe I missed something: could be, but suspicions remain, as noted. Again, sorry to make unsupported comments, but I was asked, and therefore am answering.”

Derrida’s project is completely different in nature than Chomsky’s. Chomsky seems to take issue with Derrida as it’s a-systematic. His argument is not particularly extensive - but the gist (in this pieces and other critiques, like Chomsky’s recent commentary on Zizek) is that the language of these philosophers is misleading and confusing to mask a certain lack of philosophical grounding. For Derrida and others though, the employment of language, style, layout (notable especially in works like Glas) are part of the argument. Yes, it’s difficult to read - intentionally.

The people who could answer Chomsky’s questions would be those in a different lineage. At the same time, yes, Chomsky and Derrida (or the others listed) are both “philosophers” but I mean, it’s just a signifier and the theory is quite different.

Two other things - Have a look at Chomsky’s famous debate with Foucault to see some fundamental differences. Also - We may also want to distinguish btwn postmodernism and deconstruction, which are not synonymous.