On 07 Feb 2005, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Chomsky was right in thinking of language as a biologically based capacity of the human brain, but incredibly he did not accept that this capacity was an evolved one. The other main problem with his theories is that he thinks every detail of grammar, syntax, etc. is a consequence of rules learned by the brain during language acquisition. Steven Pinker's recent book about irregular word forms demonstrates pretty conclusively that irregular forms are stored in the brain as if they were separate words, not as grammatical inflections.
Right, but Pinker is essentially a Chomskian -- he'd be the first to tell you so -- and the theories he lays out in _Words and Rules_ are refinements and elaborations of Chomskian linguistics, not refutations. It's true that Chomsky believes in rules all the way down, which is almost certainly over-reaching, but many of his critics (unlike Pinker) don't believe in any innate grammatical rules at all!
It was in this context that Jerry mentioned that he believes that Chomsky is incorrect about innate universal grammar and that human infants have no "language instinct" and need to be "taught" language -- which is clearly false.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
