Chomsky proposes that a single gene mutation caused a "rewiring" of the brain. A gene that controlled a lot of other genes changed and caused cells to arrange themselves very differently.
He proposes that this rewiring did not initially create a language. It initially ordered thoughts and allowed the animal with the mutation to think better.
Because this gene caused the animal to think better the animals with it eventually dominated.
The rewiring, he calls it the language capacity, is what allows a person to learn a language at an age they can't learn much else.
Chomsky also claims that since there are only individual and not group differences in language acquisition abilities the language capacity has not evolved since it appeared.
Chomsky proposes that a single gene mutation caused a "rewiring" of the brain. A gene that controlled a lot of other genes changed and caused cells to arrange themselves very differently.
He proposes that this rewiring did not initially create a language. It initially ordered thoughts and allowed the animal with the mutation to think better.
Because this gene caused the animal to think better the animals with it eventually dominated.
The rewiring, he calls it the language capacity, is what allows a person to learn a language at an age they can't learn much else.
Chomsky also claims that since there are only individual and not group differences in language acquisition abilities the language capacity has not evolved since it appeared.
With, of course, no actual evidence to support his hypothesis. Why does Evo Psych attract all the armchair speculators?
Chomsky proposes that a single gene mutation caused a "rewiring" of the brain. A gene that controlled a lot of other genes changed and caused cells to arrange themselves very differently.
He proposes that this rewiring did not initially create a language. It initially ordered thoughts and allowed the animal with the mutation to think better.
Because this gene caused the animal to think better the animals with it eventually dominated.
The rewiring, he calls it the language capacity, is what allows a person to learn a language at an age they can't learn much else.
Chomsky also claims that since there are only individual and not group differences in language acquisition abilities the language capacity has not evolved since it appeared.
With, of course, no actual evidence to support his hypothesis. Why does Evo Psych attract all the armchair speculators?
There is no evidence about how the language ability arose.
It is all speculation.
Chomsky is far from an armchair spectator.
He has his reasons. No living human understands language better than Chomsky.
There is no evidence about how the language ability arose.
It is all speculation.
Chomsky is far from an armchair spectator.
He has his reasons. No living human understands language better than Chomsky.
I'm certain Chomsky himself would make no such claim. Don't deify men, it leads to navel-gazing.
Linguistics has been a science since William Jones et al. discovered the Indo-European language family in the late 1700s.Chomsky turned linguistics into a science.
Linguistics has been a science since William Jones et al. discovered the Indo-European language family in the late 1700s.Chomsky turned linguistics into a science.
I have enormous respect for Noam Chomsky, and it is certainly true that his work on structural linguistics and that of his disciples has greatly influenced the past 60 years of research in that field. But he is a scientist, not a demigod, and though tenacious (even dogged) like any scientist he cheerfully invites critique and commentary on his hypotheses. Science when functional is a community of shared discovery, not an autocracy. I had the opportunity to attend a public address of his some years ago (a very enjoyable evening) and can testify that he most certainly did not make any attempt to supplant or replace his linguist forebears as you have done. Genetics, in particular, and paleobiology, are not fields in which Dr. Chomsky has any advanced training nor has contributed any work, so I am less inclined to take his opinions on those matters as authoritative.
Good argument.Linguistics has been a science since William Jones et al. discovered the Indo-European language family in the late 1700s.Chomsky turned linguistics into a science.
Nope.
Good argument.Nope.
Good argument.Nope.
Why is Chomsky called the father of modern linguistics?
Better argument. Still not a good argument.Good argument.Nope.
Why is Chomsky called the father of modern linguistics?
Why is Chomsky called the father of modern linguistics?
You say you aren't deifying him, but you are appealing to a grandiose title awarded by his students rather than to the content of his argument as pertains to the topic of the thread, that is, the development of uniquely human language.
Biography of Noam Chomsky, Writer and Father of Modern Linguistics
Noam Chomsky – ‘The Father of Modern Linguistics’
Noam Chomsky: The Father of Modern Linguistics.
About Noam Chomsky
Considered the founder of modern linguistics
Better argument. Still not a good argument.Why is Chomsky called the father of modern linguistics?
In the first place, Galileo is called the father of science. Are we supposed to infer that Copernicus wasn't a scientist? "The father of X" is an honorific handed out to people who make important advances in a field. Changing a field from non-science to science isn't the only advance important enough to rate the honor. See "List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field". As you'll note, it's a bloody long list.
In the second place, modern linguistics already had a father before Chomsky was even born. The notion that Saussure wasn't doing science is ludicrous.
And in the third place, linguistics is a broad field with many subspecializations. Chomsky did a lot for the study of syntax and child language acquisition, but not much for comparative linguistics. When people call him the father of linguistics, that's just them parochially regarding the specializations Chomsky paid attention to as worthier than the ones he didn't.
His students did not give him that name.
Biography of Noam Chomsky, Writer and Father of Modern Linguistics
https://www.thoughtco.com/noam-chomsky-4769113
Noam Chomsky – ‘The Father of Modern Linguistics’
https://www.immerse.education/articles/noam-chomsky-the-father-of-modern-linguistics/
Noam Chomsky: The Father of Modern Linguistics.
http://www.modlingua.com/blogs/1349-noam-chomsky-the-father-of-modern-linguistics.html
About Noam Chomsky
Considered the founder of modern linguistics
https://linguistics.arizona.edu/user/noam-chomsky
Right now there is only one thing we know for certain.
You have no clue why Chomsky is called the father of modern linguistics.
His students did not give him that name.
https://www.thoughtco.com/noam-chomsky-4769113
https://www.immerse.education/articles/noam-chomsky-the-father-of-modern-linguistics/
Noam Chomsky: The Father of Modern Linguistics.
http://www.modlingua.com/blogs/1349-noam-chomsky-the-father-of-modern-linguistics.html
About Noam Chomsky
Considered the founder of modern linguistics
https://linguistics.arizona.edu/user/noam-chomsky
Right now there is only one thing we know for certain.
You have no clue why Chomsky is called the father of modern linguistics.
If you did, you'd be explaining generative grammar to us instead of expecting platitudes to serve in place of empirical evidence. Seriously, this aside is only relevant to the OP if we take it back in the direction of the tangible evidence that exists for the development of complex language.
His students did not give him that name.
https://www.thoughtco.com/noam-chomsky-4769113
https://www.immerse.education/articles/noam-chomsky-the-father-of-modern-linguistics/
http://www.modlingua.com/blogs/1349-noam-chomsky-the-father-of-modern-linguistics.html
About Noam Chomsky
Considered the founder of modern linguistics
https://linguistics.arizona.edu/user/noam-chomsky
Right now there is only one thing we know for certain.
You have no clue why Chomsky is called the father of modern linguistics.
If you did, you'd be explaining generative grammar to us instead of expecting platitudes to serve in place of empirical evidence. Seriously, this aside is only relevant to the OP if we take it back in the direction of the tangible evidence that exists for the development of complex language.
So now you understand it?
I don't think so.
He is not called the father of modern linguistics because of any specific theory he devised.
He changed the way language was looked at.
He made the field scientific.
What is linguistics?
While Skinner focused on the language people were observed using, Chomsky was interested in the underlying structure of language. This shift in focus affected not only how we view the structure of language, but how it might be learned as well; while Skinner believed that children learn language by imitating and repeating what they hear, Chomsky hypothesized that language learning went far deeper than that.
Chomsky made the study of language scientific. He demonstrated that despite the observable variety of the world’s languages, there is likely only one inventory of linguistic features. All languages — dead, still used, or even future ones — are combinations of these elements. After Chomsky, linguistics is defined as 'the scientific study of language'— 'language' in the singular.