7 ms·

This is factually wrong in a number of ways. Modern linguists don't throw out "every aspect of language but syntax" (as you yourself indicate later in your own

by jfm3 15y ago

This is factually wrong in a number of ways. Modern linguists don't throw out "every aspect of language but syntax" (as you yourself indicate later in your own post). There are falsifiability problems ("all books are the same universal book too, so long as each character is a parameter") with some theories, but you have to start with a theory at some point. I can relate to your sentiment that he's favored because he's such a lefty, but it's not really an argument. He revamps his "program" every few years because he recognizes it as wrong. I'm not sure why you cite that as a bad thing?

michaelcampbell 15y ago
I can't say I understand nearly enough to make any sort of decision about it, but this bit... > He revamps his "program" every few years because he recognizes it as wrong. ... if true, I believe is what we call 'science'.
SiVal 15y ago
"He revamps his "program" every few years because he recognizes it as wrong. I'm not sure why you cite that as a bad thing?" The "bad thing" is not the person who decides that he was wrong; the bad thing is the theory that was wrong and the "modern linguists" who still promote it. The notion of "universal grammar" came from the original version(s) of the theory: Everyone knows a fantastically complex rule system perfectly by some very young age, which can't possibly be learned from noisy, real-world experience in so short a time, so language must be innate, like teeth, and since humans are all the same species, the language must be a universal language, which must have some parameters to explain the illusion that they aren't the same. By 2002, there were not enough legs of that original theory still standing (still believed by even Chomsky himself) to support the notion of a "universal grammar." Yet despite the fact that nobody starting fresh with what we know today would ever propose a theory of innate, universal grammar, we still have most people calling themselves "modern linguists" claiming to believe it. Universal grammar is nonsense, and modern linguists' failure to drop it is the "bad thing." "...you have to start with a theory at some point." Yes, and you have to drop it at some point when new evidence keeps making it less and less plausible. That point was years ago.
- hasenj 15y ago
  The alternative to Universal Grammar is Skinner style behaviorism; which is clearly wrong. Think of Universal Grammar is a rule for building grammar rules. It's pretty clear that humans have a distinct innate ability to learn language: no monkey can learn English no matter how much you try to teach it. You can teach animals all kinds of interesting behavior but you can't teach them language. > Yet despite the fact that nobody starting fresh with what we know today would ever propose a theory of innate, universal grammar, we still have most people calling themselves "modern linguists" claiming to believe it. Quite the contrary. Anyone starting fresh would probably start with an assumption about some innate ability to learn language.
  - SiVal 15y ago
    The alternative to UG is not behaviorism; there are countless alternatives. There are all sorts of learning algorithms that are more plausible than UG or behaviorism. Yes, it IS clear that humans have an innate ability to LEARN languages, as you insist. Unfortunately, UG denies this, claiming that we CAN'T possibly learn anything as rich and complex as a human language in so short a time with so little, and such messy, input, and since humans have NO innate ability to LEARN human (first) languages, they must instead GROW them "like you grow teeth." "The alternative to UG" isn't behaviorism, it's that languages are LEARNED. >"Quite the contrary. Anyone starting fresh would probably start with an assumption about some innate ability to learn language." You're so right, except that your claim is not contrary to me, it's contrary to UG. Now try to convince the modern linguists of your theory that humans have the innate ability to LEARN first languages and see how that goes.
    - hasenj 15y ago
      I'm not contradicting UG. From what I took out of the linguistics course I took at university, the idea is that part of this innate ability is an innate understanding of grammar, or rather we expect to learn grammar and so when we receive all the "input" our mind tries to make sense of it.
    - Afton 15y ago

by jfm3 15y ago

michaelcampbell 15y ago

I can't say I understand nearly enough to make any sort of decision about it, but this bit... > He revamps his "program" every few years because he recognizes it as wrong. ... if true, I believe is what we call 'science'.

SiVal 15y ago

"He revamps his "program" every few years because he recognizes it as wrong. I'm not sure why you cite that as a bad thing?" The "bad thing" is not the person who decides that he was wrong; the bad thing is the theory that was wrong and the "modern linguists" who still promote it. The notion of "universal grammar" came from the original version(s) of the theory: Everyone knows a fantastically complex rule system perfectly by some very young age, which can't possibly be learned from noisy, real-world experience in so short a time, so language must be innate, like teeth, and since humans are all the same species, the language must be a universal language, which must have some parameters to explain the illusion that they aren't the same. By 2002, there were not enough legs of that original theory still standing (still believed by even Chomsky himself) to support the notion of a "universal grammar." Yet despite the fact that nobody starting fresh with what we know today would ever propose a theory of innate, universal grammar, we still have most people calling themselves "modern linguists" claiming to believe it. Universal grammar is nonsense, and modern linguists' failure to drop it is the "bad thing." "...you have to start with a theory at some point." Yes, and you have to drop it at some point when new evidence keeps making it less and less plausible. That point was years ago.

hasenj 15y ago
The alternative to Universal Grammar is Skinner style behaviorism; which is clearly wrong. Think of Universal Grammar is a rule for building grammar rules. It's pretty clear that humans have a distinct innate ability to learn language: no monkey can learn English no matter how much you try to teach it. You can teach animals all kinds of interesting behavior but you can't teach them language. > Yet despite the fact that nobody starting fresh with what we know today would ever propose a theory of innate, universal grammar, we still have most people calling themselves "modern linguists" claiming to believe it. Quite the contrary. Anyone starting fresh would probably start with an assumption about some innate ability to learn language.
- SiVal 15y ago
  The alternative to UG is not behaviorism; there are countless alternatives. There are all sorts of learning algorithms that are more plausible than UG or behaviorism. Yes, it IS clear that humans have an innate ability to LEARN languages, as you insist. Unfortunately, UG denies this, claiming that we CAN'T possibly learn anything as rich and complex as a human language in so short a time with so little, and such messy, input, and since humans have NO innate ability to LEARN human (first) languages, they must instead GROW them "like you grow teeth." "The alternative to UG" isn't behaviorism, it's that languages are LEARNED. >"Quite the contrary. Anyone starting fresh would probably start with an assumption about some innate ability to learn language." You're so right, except that your claim is not contrary to me, it's contrary to UG. Now try to convince the modern linguists of your theory that humans have the innate ability to LEARN first languages and see how that goes.
  - hasenj 15y ago
    I'm not contradicting UG. From what I took out of the linguistics course I took at university, the idea is that part of this innate ability is an innate understanding of grammar, or rather we expect to learn grammar and so when we receive all the "input" our mind tries to make sense of it.
  - Afton 15y ago