bricolage
26th March 2012, 11:36
So I'll start by admitting that linguists is something I know very little about but I recently read this interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/25/daniel-everett-human-language-piraha) with Daniel Everett who makes the argument that 'there is no such thing as universal grammar'. From what I can gather this is most important because it's a direct challenge to the dominant views of everyone's favourite left liberal Chomsky. There seem to be a lot of issues with Everett's work namely that he has only really studied one tribe so has a small sample base as well as the fact that noone else (apart from the members of the tribe) know how to speak the language so his results can't really be challenged or verified. Additionally this is from another Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/10/daniel-everett-amazon) in which he is accused of perpetuating old racism of the 19th Century (it's interesting to note that Everett first went to the Pirahã as a missionary translating the bible but has since abandoned his faith and subsequently lost his family):
Everett's claims created a furore. Chomskyites rushed to defend universal grammar and academics cast doubt on Everett's view of the Pirahã. Nineteenth-century anthropologists had judged exotic peoples similarly, saying they had no creation myths and apparently crude languages that could not count or convey abstract thought, before it was proved it was our erroneous understanding of these "primitive" societies that was primitive. "By framing his observations as an anti-Chomsky discovery rather than as un-PC Eurocentric condescension, Everett was able to get away with claims that would have aroused the fury of anthropologists in any other context," wrote the increasingly sceptical Pinker, who argued that even if there was "a grain of truth" in the Pirahã's preoccupation with the here-and-now, it was by no means unique to their society. In other words, Everett was an almost racist throwback to the days of, well, missionaries.
Perhaps why I am most interested in this is that it seems Chomsky's ideas of Universal Grammar are heavily linked to his politics which, despite being nominally radical, is strongly rooted in ideas of human nature. I'm very sceptical of any such view but as I said know very little about linguistics. As such while I am interested by the way Everett is looking at things the criticisms of his work seem very convincing.
So if there's anyone on revleft who knows much about this please interject now.
Everett's claims created a furore. Chomskyites rushed to defend universal grammar and academics cast doubt on Everett's view of the Pirahã. Nineteenth-century anthropologists had judged exotic peoples similarly, saying they had no creation myths and apparently crude languages that could not count or convey abstract thought, before it was proved it was our erroneous understanding of these "primitive" societies that was primitive. "By framing his observations as an anti-Chomsky discovery rather than as un-PC Eurocentric condescension, Everett was able to get away with claims that would have aroused the fury of anthropologists in any other context," wrote the increasingly sceptical Pinker, who argued that even if there was "a grain of truth" in the Pirahã's preoccupation with the here-and-now, it was by no means unique to their society. In other words, Everett was an almost racist throwback to the days of, well, missionaries.
Perhaps why I am most interested in this is that it seems Chomsky's ideas of Universal Grammar are heavily linked to his politics which, despite being nominally radical, is strongly rooted in ideas of human nature. I'm very sceptical of any such view but as I said know very little about linguistics. As such while I am interested by the way Everett is looking at things the criticisms of his work seem very convincing.
So if there's anyone on revleft who knows much about this please interject now.