Chomsky's linguistics

Jan said:
There`s?@an article in TIME magazine June 2 2003 that takes on the nature vs. nurture issue., Chomsky is mentioned.
Jan
Click to expand...
Well, he's certainly a divisive and bullying personality, that's for sure, renowned for blowing off dissenters as ignorant and judgmental; ranting at doctoral students' questions, even in public lectures; and generally trying to intimidate the whole establishment through sheer force of his will. Good for uncovering the truth about the Middle East or the CIA, but whatever your take on the issues, the depth and passion of the resentment Chomsky has managed to generate from erstwhile students and faculty is pretty staggering and very disheartening. :auch:
 
I'm not a linguist or anything like it, but, as I've been told by linguists. The easiest way to explain Chomsky's theories is saying two things (as far as I've understood):

1- There is a "brainese" that is the same for everyone.
2- Everyone is born with the capability and necessity of grammar, not with grammar fixed inside.

I've built this "abstract" as an engineer that I am that sometimes talks with linguists. So if you can't get me please ask and if I'm wrong please tell me.
 
Thanks Satori ;)
 
Maciamo said:
@innate abilities
But it is NOT innate, just instinctive, which I suspect these linguists don't understand. It is based on my knowledge and experience, but the thinking process in unconscious. "Innate" means that the knowledge exist at birth and doesn't require more learning or experience.
Click to expand...

Hi,

1) Either I am confused or you are! I always believe that 'innate' and 'instinctive' mean just the same: something already in our genetic makeup.

2) I would say the way a child learns the first language is much different from the way you learn foreign languages. Supposing that you do not speak Arabic, and you go to Iraq to learn it for 4 years. I woud bet that after 4 years of hardwork, you'd be more than happy to find that your Arabic is a third as good as that of a 4-year-old child of any nationality who was born and bred in the Arabic language environement. That is THE difference, and also one of the arguments to support Chomsky.
 
Maciamo said:
Isn't it a counter-argument ? If they had innate grammatical capabilities, they wouldn't need to acquire them in their early childhood. That seems justly to confirm my idea that language need to be learnt (even unconsciously) but human contacts. I don't see the see for... QUOTE]

No, it is NOT a counter-argument. Children are born with an innate ability to naturally acquire language, or with a language faculty, to use Chomsky's term. But (as far as I know)this ability/faculty must be activated (just like a forum account must!). The activation is the exposure to natural language. I think Chomsky calls it 'parameter setting'.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 26854 times.

Back
Top