Universal language ideas--- not so universal?

[ComradeMan]

Okay, I know this is not really religion but it does sort of impact on ideas about language and perhaps logic that get raised here too.

Could this be the end of ideas of universal grammar and underlying logics to language?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700

[agnixie]

Okay, I know this is not really religion but it does sort of impact on ideas about language and perhaps logic that get raised here too.

Could this be the end of ideas of universal grammar and underlying logics to language?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700

It's incredibly weak; it's about word order, something which isn't even an important, essential or, hell, relevant part of Chomskian linguistics. It's pretty damn well known that word orders vary.

[ChrisK]

Heres a link to a real critique of Chomskian linguistics.

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

[hatzel]

It's incredibly weak; it's about word order, something which isn't even an important, essential or, hell, relevant part of Chomskian linguistics. It's pretty damn well known that word orders vary.


How dare anybody question Chomsky?! :ohmy:

:rolleyes:

Oh, and so you know, just to quote from the abstract of the study:


First, contrary to the generative account of parameter setting, we show that the evolution of only a few word-order features of languages are strongly correlated
As I'm sure you know, 'generative linguistics' is part of what you call 'Chomskyan', but the way you totally dismiss something that disagrees with him makes it seem like you're some Chomsky fanboy who just worships him, and everything he has to say, because he's a leftist. So, generative linguistics, which is based on generative grammar, which is a syntactical system. Syntax, nothing to do with word order? Pull the other one, puh-lease...when it comes to universal grammar, from which generative grammar is supposed to emerge, this study casts legitimate doubt on the suggestion that the similarities between languages of different families are a result of some 'fundamental', hard-wired approach to language. Yes, this study (and only this one; there have been several criticisms of universal grammar, don't pretend it's some universally accepted theory. ChristoferKoch has already linked to one) concentrates on word-order alone; a great deal, if not the majority, of linguistic studies are concerned with word-order, this is hardly strange. And it shows that the 'Chomskyan' claims of word-order (of which there are many; it's not, as you have fallaciously claimed, irrelevant to the system) may not be correct.

Linguistics has developed somewhat over the last half-century, and will develop still further over the next half-century. Deal with it.

[agnixie]

As I'm sure you know, 'generative linguistics' is part of what you call 'Chomskyan', but the way you totally dismiss something that disagrees with him makes it seem like you're some Chomsky fanboy who just worships him, and everything he has to say, because he's a leftist. So, generative linguistics, which is based on generative grammar, which is a syntactical system. Syntax, nothing to do with word order? Pull the other one, puh-lease...when it comes to universal grammar, from which generative grammar is supposed to emerge, this study casts legitimate doubt on the suggestion that the similarities between languages of different families are a result of some 'fundamental', hard-wired approach to language. Yes, this study (and only this one; there have been several criticisms of universal grammar, don't pretend it's some universally accepted theory. ChristoferKoch has already linked to one) concentrates on word-order alone; a great deal, if not the majority, of linguistic studies are concerned with word-order, this is hardly strange. And it shows that the 'Chomskyan' claims of word-order (of which there are many; it's not, as you have fallaciously claimed, irrelevant to the system) may not be correct.

Linguistics has developed somewhat over the last half-century, and will develop still further over the next half-century. Deal with it.

It's fangirl!
More seriously, I've mostly been formed to sociolinguistics, and as such I don't really even care about the issues of generative linguistics, so yes it seems kneejerk (in return they don't care about us and think we only do "peripheral questions" :rolleyes: ). I've pored through the study (which I shouldn't be doing as I have three finals to turn in next week and only one draft ready).

I'm not dismissing the paper, by far, because I haven't even entirely read it. I'm dismissing the media sensationalism about it. It's no more the big thing that destroys generative linguistics than any number of Levi-Strauss' critics, alone, was "the big hole that destroys his theory of kinship" - even if yes, it does touch on something which I assumed was peripheral.

[ComradeMan]

Heres a link to a real critique of Chomskian linguistics.

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

Are you acting as spokesperson for RL? :rolleyes::lol:

I found little in that critique that would validate the claim of being a "real critique of Chomskian linguistics"- a few quotes and a reference and the usual hyperbolic RL-esque method of "demolishing" theories.

The issue around the hypothesised LAD is also a minefield- from observation everything points towards the LAD, just like black holes couldn't be seen yet the theory proved right in the end.;) I read a recent scientific study that suggested newborn babies were within a matter of a day or two displaying linguistic acquisition behaviour.
Even Chomsky would probably acknowledge that the theory is not 100% but it's the best working theory we have got.

The interesting thing here is not so much the LAD but rather the theories of generative grammar and how they may or may not be "hardwired".

[Sadena Meti]

Okay, I know this is not really religion

Sure it's about religion. Haven't you heard of the story of the Tower of Babel