This would then be the main difference between man and animal. I think that is at least an interesting thought. To my mind, there is no escape from the conclusion that human language is at least partly shaped by its use in communication. But my objection to a lot of functionalists work is that it takes a very simplified view of language, in that it assumes that communication sometimes even only the restricted form of communication that is transmission of thought is the only function. I think we would all be better of if we understood that language has several functions and is somehow shaped by each of them.
To the contrary, the discussion between those who are interested in cognitive views and those interested in functionalist which in phonology often means: phonetic views is much older in phonology, has always been much less polemical, and also more fruitful, leading most people to take a fairly nuanced view I think. The only extremists are those who would simply deny that there is anything like phonology at all, since we can explain everything by phonetics and the workings of diachrony; but as I said, the idea of a very rich UG has not been popular for a long time.
Minimalist Program - Glottopedia
One might interpret Prince and Smolensky in such a way because it poses a universal and innate set of constraints Con , but the doubling of the content of that set with certain phonetic findings was very soon recognized. I am not saying that the problem has been solved in a way that can boast consensus, but I think almost everybody is aware of it.
- Search form.
- Unified Separation Science!
- Risks at Sea: Amsterdam Insurance and Maritime Europe, 1766-1780;
- Recent comments.
- Elliott Carter: Collected Essays and Lectures, 1937-1995.
- Lie Algebras and Algebraic Groups (Springer Monographs in Mathematics).
You can look up a list of possibly innate, possibly universal phonological features on Wikipedia. There is nothing of that sort in morphosyntax, so it seems that the question should be equally controversial among syntacticians. And I agree with you of course that communication need not be the only function of language. Language s may have many functions.
- Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders v. 1: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution!
- Supplementary Information;
The question is not primarily which functions languages have, but what explains their properties, and it is clear that one cannot understand their properties without considering communication, I think. Just a word about universal features in phonology. There do seem to be good typological generalizations, but nothing that needs to be seen as specifically linguistic AND innate.
So that even calls into question the idea that distinctive features are useful for describing phonologies in a comprehensive way. Really interesting. I realise interviews are tricky and respondents are not typically perfectly careful. But, it is difficult to misunderstand Chomsky, in the discussion pasted below, as saying anything except that he thinks the evolutionary leap forward was not necessarily a big one. If so, citing that would be useful to me, and perhaps other readers.
The book I am citing has two parts, an older part from and a newer part from around , which is more recent. Q: Somehow the evolutionary leap which we are talking about seems to be quite a big one. Yet, the period of differential evolution has been comparatively short.
It just could be that much of it turns on that. We do not know, but that might reflect a small change in the brain. It could, for example, be a consequence of the increase in brain size or complexity. And if that system develops and links to a conceptual system, it really offers a total new world. For all we know that has happened once in the history of the universe. There is not particular reason to believe that it has happened elsewhere, so those possibilities and in fact even likelihoods make this a very important central issue….
So, I found that part of your post a bit confusing. In fact, I often find such discussions confusing, as people seem at least to me to be mixing up different concepts. Honestly, I think I am perhaps being a bit sloppy here too. It is of course possible to separate the concept of specific to our linguistic capacity from a domain-general capacity. As far as I can see, there is nothing antagonistic between something being innate but domain-general, and still being part of UG. Again, the confusions or assumed issues might be arising from different usages of the terms particularly, the term UG.
Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. In a blogpost earlier this year , Norbert Hornstein , who is generally a staunch defender of the Minimalist programme, said that surprisingly for me, and for him as well he actually agreed with me that categories and features are probably not innate natural kinds : I found the whole discussion to be disconcertingly convincing and believe me when I tell you that I did not expect this. References Chomsky, Noam. Three factors in language design.
Linguistic Inquiry 36 1. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 Haspelmath, Martin. Defining vs. New approaches to the old questions of noun, verb and adjective, — Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Hauser, Marc D. Tecumseh Fitch. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did It evolve? Science Scientific American. Martin Haspelmath More Posts. Hi Martin, Just a word about universal features in phonology.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. He does not frequent parties that either Chomsky or anyone else currently goes to.
The Minimalist Program
This is silly. Calling things Chomskyan for him would be like Turing calling his device a Turing Machine. You are kidding right? I can call it Chomskyan, and I do. If he did people like you would be up in arms noting his overbearing arrogance and noting that others, e. Galileo, said these things first. Chomsky's biggest success was posing a set of questions that are answerable and deep. He made linguistics part of cognitive psychology and ultimately neuroscience, though this is more ambition than result at this moment.
However there have been lesser results.
All of these have made lasting contributions. If asked I did what he thinks are among the most interesting things that the MP has found, he notes the the things I mentioned. These, however, may be wrong. These are theoretical contributions, that in my view, have done pretty well over the last 5 years, but they are more ephemeral precisely because they are empirical although at a pretty high level. There is a risk that if you don't know anything about linguistics that Chomsky's popular writings will lead you off in a wrong direction.
The gist is always accurate, but details and subtleties are put aside for clarity of presentation for the uninitiated.
Maybe you might start with LGB if you are interested in getting into the heart of things. I find it interesting to learn what 'people like me' would Chomsky accuse of. But you are mistaken. If Chomsky's science would be 'Galilean' I would not at all object to him using the label [though i would not 'be up in arms' if he would not either].
But is style is so distinct from Galileo's that it not only deserves a different label but is actually misleading to call it Galilean. Further the aspects of Galileo's style which could be charitably called similar to Chomsky's style are the ones Descartes strongly objected to. Given that Chomsky calls his approach also Cartesian he advocates a style he would have to reject. So it would be by no means immodest if Chomsky would call his style not Galilean - merely honest. Thank you for the reading suggestion. Given that Chomsky calls it a "substantial break from earlier generative grammar" [p.fagosfoxsgeekb.tk
But i agree that compared to later works it was informative [presumably more so at the time it came first out]. I have a very different opinion about The Minimalist Program and think it is best we agree to disagree. There are in fact very few books of Chomsky I have not read. But to become knowledgeable about your field surely I need to read more than Chomsky's work - so what are your recommendations?
In my view the style is similar; lots of thought experiments, lots of clearing conceptual confusion. But further discussion would not clarify matters so let's stop. Btw, as you no doubt know words like 'honest' are very loaded and you do yourself a disservice by suggesting there is dissimulation on Chomsky's part. I have never seen Chomsky call an intellectual opponent a liar in print but it seems to be the sort of charge that his disgruntled interlocutors have no problem throwing about.
Very bad form and very bad taste. As my mother would say; not the way a well brought up person should behave. Read LGB again. MP is a break but because a new question is being asked, not because the results are being thrown out. I tried to explain how in an earlier reply so I will leave aside further comment. There aree several books that on MP that stress the continuity with earlier work. The book discusses early minimalism, but it still reflects much of how I take the issues to align.
There is other excellent stuff out there as well.
Related Chomskys Minimalism
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved