Ah! YES! A little swipe at Chomsky here

Ah! YES! A little swipe at Chomsky here smile emoticon Marvelous guy but he was far too much into the “Universal language/universal ideas/universal mental states”. I mean, it was USEFUL for this theories but considering that no language machine in the brain was ever discovered or will be.. it kinda calls his theories as anything but PRACTICAL but not entirely accurate at all, but certainly quite precise… missing the target completely but doing a very good job at what it does. Still, it’s dominance in linguistics overshadowing all other is due for an overhaul, considering advances in cognitive science since his early days of attempting to computerize grammar production. Not that’s it’s not USEFUL what he’s done and what’s come out of it for the past 50 years, but we can definitely do better….

“Henry Hiz (1967:74) pointed out, criticizing Chomsky, there is an
important question that must be answered linguistically. ‘How does
it happen that an ambiguous sentence ceases to be ambiguous when
placed in the context of other sentences?’ This book provides a
partial answer.
I further agree with Hiz when he says, ‘But it should be easier to
explain why we assign such-and-such a structure to a sentence by
pointing out how this sentence changes the readings of neighboring
sentences than by referring to innate universal ideas and mental
reality’ (1967:74).”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× six = 42

Leave a Reply