Is Noam Chomsky really that great?

[barbos]

I don't doubt that being a linguist he can write a lot of good books.
I doubt his contribution to science.
In US there are a lot of "scientists" who now write books. And most of them are lousy scientists if any, they are only famous because of their books, not because of their contribution to science. This Hollywoodish aspect of science in US annoys me a little.

 

[Iggy]

I don't doubt that being a linguist he can write a lot of good books.
I doubt his contribution to science.
In US there are a lot of "scientists" who now write books. And most of them are lousy scientists if any, they are only famous because of their books, not because of their contribution to science. This Hollywoodish aspect of science in US annoys me a little.

Hopefully I am not misunderstanding you and is concluding you think linguistic is about grammar and syntax and etymology etc. It is more than that. It is about why and how our language come to be. Linguistics do write books but their excellence at linguistics is not a creative aspect of book authorship. Some are as crippled at putting words to text as I am.

I cannot speak to scientists who in your opinion are faux scientists or who as you infer, "gone Hollywood". Chomsky's genius is in the content of his work; in his seminal work that is known in linguistics, the Chomskean hypothesis...that language is genetically specified. Indeed many linguistics go into convulsions about this. They resist completely that language is not a product of socialization and culture. Like you they may think he is a flake. The overwhelming consensus, however, is that he is the real deal.

 

[pegasus8]

I remember the the "superstructure" being referred to as a kind of innate filter in humans.

Pegasus,

Just because you agree with what he's saying doesn't make him a great thinker.

First, Chomksy is the person who give cognitive science is sea legs and his ideas has transformed everything from artificial intelligence to theories about the mind. His principal idea is easily proved. It states that the basic design of language is innate, ie it is an instinct. At its source is the self evident fact that every culture that ever lived developed language and every language ever developed is translatable. Chomsky deduced that an inherent brain architecture contains the superstructure that is the same in all humans and it is the bony framework from which humans hang words and phrases in whatever language. The existence of this universal "mentalese" overthrew previous ideas that language was primarily a cultural artifact. He showed that there are universal constraints on language formation an that this iwas predictable. Chomsky is not only smart, he is very smart. I have not read any of his political writings because I was never interested in that part of his creativity You should read his work before deciding he was a pedestrian thinker.

Very pragmatic and concise comment Iggy. It has been years since I have discussed the concepts and theories on linguistics. I still disagree with the point of Chomsky taking the direction in that Mankind is born with this innate ability for language. Does Mankind have that certain "filter" at birth or does language evolve and has its foundation in logic and reasoning? Basically all languages are based on symbolic logic. Again this is not my concentration but one can not say that they died last week and are looking forward to next week. The 1950's were quite a time for all kinds of cool new theories in world. The French Structuralist and Post Structuralist thought that they had figured it all out. Well till the smart ass Derrida came along in 1968 and told everyone that all of Mankind's thoughts and theories are suspect to deconstruction. Hence why language will forever be on that slippery slope. Chomsky did take linguistics in that new direction. This alone, IMO, qualifies him as a great thinker.

Yet his dialogue and discourse on politics and history are implacable, IMO. You do not need to agree with all of his positions. He is actually kind of boring and plain in his delivery. But the man can really send out some zingers that are right in front of people's eyes that are hidden in plain sight. Chomsky is one copious intellectual. He is a man that will be thought of and quoted many years after he is gone. Who gives a rat's ass about us? I am just thankful that I can read his work.

Peace

Oh and your last name is not Pop? Just kidding.

Pegasus

 

[barbos]

I don't doubt that being a linguist he can write a lot of good books.
I doubt his contribution to science.
In US there are a lot of "scientists" who now write books. And most of them are lousy scientists if any, they are only famous because of their books, not because of their contribution to science. This Hollywoodish aspect of science in US annoys me a little.

Hopefully I am not misunderstanding you and is concluding you think linguistic is about grammar and syntax and etymology etc. It is more than that. It is about why and how our language come to be. Linguistics do write books but their excellence at linguistics is not a creative aspect of book authorship. Some are as crippled at putting words to text as I am.

No, I said no such thing. I only implied that being a linguist helps.

I cannot speak to scientists who in your opinion are faux scientists or who as you infer, "gone Hollywood". Chomsky's genius is in the content of his work; in his seminal work that is known in linguistics, the Chomskean hypothesis...that language is genetically specified. Indeed many linguistics go into convulsions about this. They resist completely that language is not a product of socialization and culture. Like you they may think he is a flake. The overwhelming consensus, however, is that he is the real deal.

consensus especially in such a flimsy and inexact field as linguistic is not worth much in terms of certainty.
And I am glad you called it hypothesis.
His contribution is this rather obvious hypothesis and no decent attempt to make it a theory or even extract practically useful results.

 

[untermensche]

I still disagree with the point of Chomsky taking the direction in that Mankind is born with this innate ability for language.

I find that an odd position.

Language acquisition is an innate skill. It's like walking. A child doesn't walk because they figure out how to control all the muscles involved. There is underlying "programming" in the brain that allows a young infant to walk. Certain muscle groups are "pre-programmed" to work in unison. There is innate "programming" that allows for smooth movements.

But these innate "programs" can be influenced by experience. A young child born in Canada that begins skating at a young age will use them to develop great skill at skating. Even though learning to skate is not something we are "programmed" to do.

There are the underlying basic "programs", but they are flexible and can be built upon.

And language acquisition is one of these basic underlying "programs". Humans don't need to be taught language. They only have to be taught vocabulary. They can learn language just by listening to it.

 

[Iggy]

I don't doubt that being a linguist he can write a lot of good books.
I doubt his contribution to science.
In US there are a lot of "scientists" who now write books. And most of them are lousy scientists if any, they are only famous because of their books, not because of their contribution to science. This Hollywoodish aspect of science in US annoys me a little.

Hopefully I am not misunderstanding you and is concluding you think linguistic is about grammar and syntax and etymology etc. It is more than that. It is about why and how our language come to be. Linguistics do write books but their excellence at linguistics is not a creative aspect of book authorship. Some are as crippled at putting words to text as I am.

No, I said no such thing. I only implied that being a linguist helps.

I cannot speak to scientists who in your opinion are faux scientists or who as you infer, "gone Hollywood". Chomsky's genius is in the content of his work; in his seminal work that is known in linguistics, the Chomskean hypothesis...that language is genetically specified. Indeed many linguistics go into convulsions about this. They resist completely that language is not a product of socialization and culture. Like you they may think he is a flake. The overwhelming consensus, however, is that he is the real deal.

consensus especially in such a flimsy and inexact field as linguistic is not worth much in terms of certainty.
And I am glad you called it hypothesis.
His contribution is this rather obvious hypothesis and no decent attempt to make it a theory or even extract practically useful results.

Saying that being a linguist helps one to write books is no less than as saying that being an artist, a biker or a street cleaner does the same. It is a purely gratuitously prose that perhaps aims at an insult ( and fails to accomplish the task if so).

There are many "decent" attempts to use Chomskys theory for useful work in second language acquisition and in cognitive sciences from smart machines to behavioral psychology etc. If he is not correct ( and he has the best explanation for what we know to be) then he still has contributed to science.

He has captured the attention of scholars in linguistics and cognitive sciences sufficiently so to have them talking and probing for better ideas and methods. In that way he certainly is the best motivator for progress in these fields ( which happen to be a vast collaborative field of multi disciplines)

I am of the opinion that you do not clearly understand anything about Chomsky is you think the field he is in and the areas his ideas cover is flimsy. Also, consensus is very useful for determining validity and utility ( peer review?) so i do not worry much if you think it overused and trite.

 

[pegasus8]

I came to a different conclusion Untermensche. But its all good in the hood.

I still disagree with the point of Chomsky taking the direction in that Mankind is born with this innate ability for language.

I find that an odd position.

Language acquisition is an innate skill. It's like walking. A child doesn't walk because they figure out how to control all the muscles involved. There is underlying "programming" in the brain that allows a young infant to walk. Certain muscle groups are "pre-programmed" to work in unison. There is innate "programming" that allows for smooth movements.

But these innate "programs" can be influenced by experience. A young child born in Canada that begins skating at a young age will use them to develop great skill at skating. Even though learning to skate is not something we are "programmed" to do.

There are the underlying basic "programs", but they are flexible and can be built upon.

And language acquisition is one of these basic underlying "programs". Humans don't need to be taught language. They only have to be taught vocabulary. They can learn language just by listening to it.

Thanks for pointing this out Untermensche. Here is where I take the fork in the road to language. One can learn and teach themselves to walk alone. There are many things that humans can do by themselves. From how I interpret language it has to be an acquired skill in a social and or cultural context. One can not teach yourself language skills by yourself. You need, IMO, an interrelation with others for to practice language skills.

Now if there is some kind of physiological attribute then that would be a different argument. You know like with the tongue,larynx, pharynx, etc. Is there some kind of "programed," or "pre-programed" innate filter in the human brain then this also would be a separate argument. In Mankind's past there had to be some kind of environmental conditioning that along with our huge brains melded this language acquisition skills that with intelligence, physical attributes and the need to survive to arrive at where we are. We can agree that grunting and other voice skills in our primitive past are nowhere near our language today.

It has been years since this argument had come to the front of the line for me. It basically boils down to the great argument of Nature vs Nurture. Thanks for the comment untermensche. And you are 100% correct in that Chomsky did take linguistic theory in new and exciting directions. Those who can not see this are well blind.

And by the way you do have a good argument in the innate versus the environment theme. From my studies language is very important in that we think with our brains in the language that we were conditioned to think and speak.

This my man is a good argument either way. It would take a year of studying, researching and focusing to get back up to speed on the exact language used pro or con. But I am no spring chicken anymore so one must choose their topics wisely.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[untermensche]

One can learn and teach themselves to walk alone.

I don't know. I don't think there is a documented example of that happening.

It would be abuse to not help a child as it developed the expression of it's underlying walking "programs".

From how I interpret language it has to be an acquired skill in a social and or cultural context.

The vocabulary must be acquired, but the ability to know when sounds are language and when they are not language is not something I think you could teach a young child. The child must have an innate programming to recognize the difference.

There are the basic language abilities all normal humans share, and then there are also the individual language experiences that create differences in the way people use language.

There is walking and there is skating. One innate, the other easily learned because of the innate programming.

There is language and there is formal English. The innate ability to recognize and develop a language allows one to learn the latter.

Now if there is some kind of physiological attribute then that would be a different argument. You know like with the tongue,larynx, pharynx, etc. Is there some kind of "programed," or "pre-programed" innate filter in the human brain then this also would be a separate argument. In Mankind's past there had to be some kind of environmental conditioning that along with our huge brains melded this language acquisition skills that with intelligence, physical attributes and the need to survive to arrive at where we are. We can agree that grunting and other voice skills in our primitive past are nowhere near our language today.

There must be innate "programming" that allows humans to make distinct sounds by pushing air past vocal cords and mouths. The acrobatic maneuvers couldn't be taught.

So in humans there are really two distinct innate "programs". One that allows a young child to know what sound is and what sound isn't language, and another "program" to control some of the intricate movements humans use to produce distinct sounds.

 

[barbos]

Can't find the article but apparently scientists disproved Chomsky hypothesis.
They linked language to ancient genes which are present even in drosophila.
In drosophila it is responsible for contextual memory, helps it to navigate to food or something.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Scientifically I can't say. Politically, I think he's rather over the top.

 

[Melange_Thief]

On Chomsky as a linguist: Some have it right, that there is a bit of a cult around some of his ideas. However, generally the Chomsky cult isn't people who agree with his idea of Universal Grammar (which is this hypothesis of an innate language faculty that keeps being mentioned), but rather the ones following a particular approach that Chomsky came up with in the '90s called the Minimalist Program. Some linguists would agree that, in hindsight, the idea that language is innate should have been obvious all along, but the fact is it was Chomsky who had the idea and wrote the book (or rather books, see my mention of Sound Pattern of English below) that effectively founded modern linguistics. While I've got no problem with valid criticism of his works in linguistics, I don't take kindly to barbos, someone who demonstrates very little understanding of the field, dismissing my entire field out of hand, as he seems to do in his posts. As such, I've got some counterpoints for his most recent posts that I hope are somewhat educational.

I don't doubt that being a linguist he can write a lot of good books.
I doubt his contribution to science.
In US there are a lot of "scientists" who now write books. And most of them are lousy scientists if any, they are only famous because of their books, not because of their contribution to science. This Hollywoodish aspect of science in US annoys me a little.

A. Being a linguist doesn't mean shit about how good you are at adeptly using language. A linguist is someone who studies the human facility of language using the scientific method. A linguist's study of language helps them with writing about as much as a physicist's knowledge of physics helps them with playing sports. Reading Chomsky's books would make that clear, as his prose is famously opaque in his academic books about linguistics. Hell, practically any paper would tell you that. Even papers about topics that intensely interest me are capable of putting me to sleep, they're so dry.
B. Chomsky wrote those books in the 50s and 60s for an academic audience, not for a popular one. And quite frankly, they are still hugely important in the field of linguistics today. For instance, The Sound Pattern of English (co-authored by Chomsky and Morris Halle) is so important that it's often simply abbreviated as SPE, and the powerful method it provides for describing phonological alternations (i.e. the feature theory framework) is still the gold standard in phonological notation, even if phonological theory itself has moved on to deeper things.

consensus especially in such a flimsy and inexact field as linguistic is not worth much in terms of certainty.
And I am glad you called it hypothesis.
His contribution is this rather obvious hypothesis and no decent attempt to make it a theory or even extract practically useful results.

A. I don't see how one can characterize linguistics as "flimsy" and "inexact", unless you're talking about diachronic linguistics (in which case even the strongest hypotheses will remain quite speculative until a time machine is invented). Linguistics concerns itself with figuring out the fundamental rules behind language, and as a result examines the phonological and grammatical rules governing the languages we see in the world. Our ability to describe the rules governing the grammars and phonologies of specific languages is very exact, and I am perfectly willing to show an example of this if desired (but I do not want to waste a long time writing a novel about, say, English word order if my efforts will go unappreciated).
B. Who cares if the hypothesis has practically useful results at the moment? Many hypotheses don't currently have practically useful results, but that doesn't mean they never will. In particular, if we are able to figure out all of the ins and outs of the language faculty in the human brain, that would have major implications for the field of machine language. Subtract the field of linguistics, and you wouldn't even have the relatively poor language abilities seen today in computers' ability to utilize language.

Can't find the article but apparently scientists disproved Chomsky hypothesis.
They linked language to ancient genes which are present even in drosophila.
In drosophila it is responsible for contextual memory, helps it to navigate to food or something.

Linking language to genes doesn't hurt Chomsky's hypothesis, it supports it. I question your grasp on the idea of Universal Grammar if you fail to understand that. I'm guessing you're talking about the  FOXP2 gene which appears to have some sort of link to language and does indeed appear in both Drosophila and humans. However, our version of FOXP2 isn't exactly the same as the Drosophila, meaning that if this is what you're talking about, this is no argument against UG.

 

[barbos]

This IS an argument UL hypothesis.
Language ability is due to the part of the brain which was originally something else but was later adapted to be able to do language too.
Also there is the scientific fact that if children are not taught to speak before certain age they will never do.
So language acquirement must be done early as part of child development. Language/grammar is not innate.
Otherwise everything can be declared innate.

And yes, linguistic is a whimsical and inexact field. Compare it to physics or even modern biology.
I know that even within whimsical field you can have best, but be honest, you can't put Chomsky even near Einstein.

 

[barbos]

Our ability to describe the rules governing the grammars and phonologies of specific languages is very exact, and I am perfectly willing to show an example of this if desired (but I do not want to waste a long time writing a novel about, say, English word order if my efforts will go unappreciated).

There is nothing exact about word order in russian language. So yes, your efforts on the part of universal grammar
would go unappreciated.
The only thing which is universal is ability of the brain to learn patterns, and it does not matter what they are, as long as they are efficient and do the job.

 

[Melange_Thief]

Our ability to describe the rules governing the grammars and phonologies of specific languages is very exact, and I am perfectly willing to show an example of this if desired (but I do not want to waste a long time writing a novel about, say, English word order if my efforts will go unappreciated).

There is nothing exact about word order in russian language. So yes, your efforts on the part of universal grammar
would go unappreciated.
The only thing which is universal is ability of the brain to learn patterns, and it does not matter what they are, as long as they are efficient and do the job.

But the thing is, Russian word order still does follow a pattern (and in fact, it was one of the examples I was going to use). It's just that word order is determined by pragmatic considerations (i.e. context) rather than the relationship between the constituents of the sentence (i.e. grammar). In Russian, in a statement, old information is put at the beginning of the sentence, and new information is put at the end. In a statement where the information is all equally new and the speaker doesn't want to emphasize something, the word order is subject-verb-object. And even then, prepositional phrases are very inflexible; the preposition always needs to precede the noun it introduces (except in the specific case of estimating a length of time where the noun is moved to the position immediately in front of the preposition, such as in минут через пять "in about five minutes"). I could very well go into more detail about the patterns found in Russian word order, but I think I've made my point that Russian word order still follows a pattern. As for the brain's ability to learn patterns possibly giving rise to the phenomenon of language, that's actually the big debate over UG in linguistics: whether language is domain general (pattern recognition "software" does all the work) or domain specific (dedicated linguistic "hardware" does the work). It's a discussion worth having, but unless you have a good rebuttal to linguistic universals or the poverty of the stimulus argument, I wouldn't recommend completely dismissing UG.

This IS an argument UL hypothesis.
Language ability is due to the part of the brain which was originally something else but was later adapted to be able to do language too.
Also there is the scientific fact that if children are not taught to speak before certain age they will never do.
So language acquirement must be done early as part of child development. Language/grammar is not innate.
Otherwise everything can be declared innate.

But Chomsky's argument never was that children will spontaneously manifest language, or that the language faculty evolutionarily comes out of nowhere. His idea is that there is specific architecture in the very young child's brain that specifically detects linguistic signals and breaks them down to determine the vocabulary and grammar of the language(s) in the child's social environment, and that this neural architecture comes preprogrammed with a set of possible grammatical structures in a given language. It doesn't matter whether this neural architecture evolutionarily used to be something else before humans were humans, it only matters whether or not we have this architecture now.

And yes, linguistic is a whimsical and inexact field. Compare it to physics or even modern biology.
I know that even within whimsical field you can have best, but be honest, you can't put Chomsky even near Einstein.

I'm not trying to argue that linguistics is as exact as physics, nor do I put Chomsky up there with Einstein (actually, there's a few things I really dislike about his linguistic work, such as his utter lack of focus on languages other than English). I simply disagree with the idea that it is "whimsical and inexact." There are meaningful things to be learned from it and there are interesting conclusions to be drawn.

 

[barbos]

There is nothing exact about word order in russian language. So yes, your efforts on the part of universal grammar
would go unappreciated.
The only thing which is universal is ability of the brain to learn patterns, and it does not matter what they are, as long as they are efficient and do the job.

But the thing is, Russian word order still does follow a pattern (and in fact, it was one of the examples I was going to use). It's just that word order is determined by pragmatic considerations (i.e. context) rather than the relationship between the constituents of the sentence (i.e. grammar). In Russian, in a statement, old information is put at the beginning of the sentence, and new information is put at the end. In a statement where the information is all equally new and the speaker doesn't want to emphasize something, the word order is subject-verb-object.

That's cute, you telling a russian about word order in russian language.
I wonder where did you get this particular theory, but I feel I need to correct you.
There is normal word order in russian but different order is allowed too in the sense it does not make it meaningless as in english.
And it's rather opposite of what you read somewhere apparently, word order is changed to put emphasis on words which move forward from normal position.

So most important (new information) goes first, not last. And even so that there is normal word order there are cases where different order is so ordinary and used so often that it is actually normal and former normal is abnormal.
Normal word sequence is "I went to New York" but if you're answering question "Where did you go?" then normal would be "To New York I went"

And even then, prepositional phrases are very inflexible; the preposition always needs to precede the noun it introduces (except in the specific case of estimating a length of time where the noun is moved to the position immediately in front of the preposition, such as in минут через пять "in about five minutes"). I could very well go into more detail about the patterns found in Russian word order, but I think I've made my point that Russian word order still follows a pattern.

Again, that's cute, but there is a reason why it's called PREposition (in russian too)
Yes, you can't mix words randomly, but if do it would still be possible to decipher what you're trying to say (unlike english).
Russian is much more redundant than english.

As for the brain's ability to learn patterns possibly giving rise to the phenomenon of language, that's actually the big debate over UG in linguistics: whether language is domain general (pattern recognition "software" does all the work) or domain specific (dedicated linguistic "hardware" does the work). It's a discussion worth having, but unless you have a good rebuttal to linguistic universals or the poverty of the stimulus argument, I wouldn't recommend completely dismissing UG.

There is no debate, not for me. All brain does is learning patterns. That's how I was learning english. Same way drosophila is learning routes to food.

This IS an argument UL hypothesis.
Language ability is due to the part of the brain which was originally something else but was later adapted to be able to do language too.
Also there is the scientific fact that if children are not taught to speak before certain age they will never do.
So language acquirement must be done early as part of child development. Language/grammar is not innate.
Otherwise everything can be declared innate.

But Chomsky's argument never was that children will spontaneously manifest language, or that the language faculty evolutionarily comes out of nowhere. His idea is that there is specific architecture in the very young child's brain that specifically detects linguistic signals and breaks them down to determine the vocabulary and grammar of the language(s) in the child's social environment, and that this neural architecture comes preprogrammed with a set of possible grammatical structures in a given language.

That structure is brain, and there is not much specific about that, drosophila is the proof.
And yes, the way this hypothesis presented looks like he is literally suggesting some kind universal grammar capacity. That capacity would be extra special and extra remarkable compared to the rest of the brain function. Well. I don't think it is the case.

It doesn't matter whether this neural architecture evolutionarily used to be something else before humans were humans, it only matters whether or not we have this architecture now.

And yes, linguistic is a whimsical and inexact field. Compare it to physics or even modern biology.
I know that even within whimsical field you can have best, but be honest, you can't put Chomsky even near Einstein.

I'm not trying to argue that linguistics is as exact as physics, nor do I put Chomsky up there with Einstein (actually, there's a few things I really dislike about his linguistic work, such as his utter lack of focus on languages other than English). I simply disagree with the idea that it is "whimsical and inexact." There are meaningful things to be learned from it and there are interesting conclusions to be drawn.

Blame his fans, they continuously put him on the pedestal he clearly does not deserve, I merely react to that.
I mean, if this is a greatest "discovery/idea" in linguistic then I am really doubtful about the rest.

 

[Melange_Thief]

That's cute, you telling a russian about word order in russian language.
I wonder where did you get this particular theory, but I feel I need to correct you.
There is normal word order in russian but different order is allowed too in the sense it does not make it meaningless as in english.
And it's rather opposite of what you read somewhere apparently, word order is changed to put emphasis on words which move forward from normal position.

So most important (new information) goes first, not last. And even so that there is normal word order there are cases where different order is so ordinary and used so often that it is actually normal and former normal is abnormal.
Normal word sequence is "I went to New York" but if you're answering question "Where did you go?" then normal would be "To New York I went"

Just so you know, I am a non-native speaker of Russian who has lived and worked in Russia. Judging from my admittedly non-native experience with Russian, I would answer that question with a different word order depending on how it was asked. If it was asked with the neutral order, as in "Куда вы ездили?", I would answer with "Я ездил в Нью-Йорк." But if the question word were topicalized with the order "Вы куда ездили?᠌", I would answer with the order you mentioned above. If you disagree with this, then either I've been exposed to a slightly different variety of Russian or else I've acquired that all wrong (and please do give me feedback on this, I love Russian and wish to continue to master it). Even if I'm wrong about whether new information comes first or last, that doesn't change my point that the choice of word order is non-random and is based off of pragmatic considerations. Sidenote: What part of Russia are you from?

Again, that's cute, but there is a reason why it's called PREposition (in russian too)
Yes, you can't mix words randomly, but if do it would still be possible to decipher what you're trying to say (unlike english).
Russian is much more redundant than english.

I know what a preposition is. The fact is, though, it's entirely possible for a language to not have prepositions as we understand them in English and Russian. And in linguistics, whether a jumble of words can be interpreted is a different question from whether a native speaker finds it grammatical. Sure, you might be able to get that I mean на стадионе if i say стадионе на, but the latter still sounds hilariously ungrammatical, even to my non-native ears. But you are right that Russian's grammatical structure allows it to permit a freer word order than English. That's what happens when you encode the structural relations of the sentence on noun suffixes instead of through word order.

There is no debate, not for me. All brain does is learning patterns. That's how I was learning english. Same way drosophila is learning routes to food.

You're certainly free to think that it's not worthy of debating. If it were me, I would find it unsatisfying to totally dismiss UG based on my basic impressions without trying to understand or counter the arguments UG proponents make, but different strokes for different folks.

That structure is brain, and there is not much specific about that, drosophila is the proof.

It'd be nice if you could find a link to the article instead of just saying that it's proof.

Blame his fans, they continuously put him on the pedestal he clearly does not deserve, I merely react to that.
I mean, if this is a greatest "discovery/idea" in linguistic then I am really doubtful about the rest.

They (well, most linguists anyway) are not trying to say that it's the single greatest discovery/idea in linguistics that ever was or will be. They're saying that it provides a useful framework for understanding human language that represented a big step forward in how we think about it compared to the way the behaviorists treated the idea. You need to understand the context in which it came about in order to understand why linguists praise it. That said, no contest that there are some serious fanboys out there who are pretty annoying.

 

[Togo]

There is no debate, not for me. All brain does is learning patterns. That's how I was learning english. Same way drosophila is learning routes to food.

Involves different parts of the brain though. Language learning isn't done in the same way as navigation, from a neurological perspective.

 

[barbos]

Just so you know, I am a non-native speaker of Russian who has lived and worked in Russia. Judging from my admittedly non-native experience with Russian, I would answer that question with a different word order depending on how it was asked. If it was asked with the neutral order, as in "Куда вы ездили?", I would answer with "Я ездил в Нью-Йорк." But if the question word were topicalized with the order "Вы куда ездили?᠌",
I would answer with the order you mentioned above.

Well, in that particular variant of translation to russian of my original phrase you are correct.
In conversation if stress is put on some particular question words like who,what,where then word which answers that particular question moves forward, Or you just put stress on the word in your answer.
Anyway this whole thing is a giant derail. My original point was to provide an example of language which has very different grammar. I am sure chinese is much better example of different (from english) grammar but I don't speak it.

There is no debate, not for me. All brain does is learning patterns. That's how I was learning english. Same way drosophila is learning routes to food.

You're certainly free to think that it's not worthy of debating. If it were me, I would find it unsatisfying to totally dismiss UG based on my basic impressions without trying to understand or counter the arguments UG proponents make, but different strokes for different folks.

That structure is brain, and there is not much specific about that, drosophila is the proof.

It'd be nice if you could find a link to the article instead of just saying that it's proof.

Blame his fans, they continuously put him on the pedestal he clearly does not deserve, I merely react to that.
I mean, if this is a greatest "discovery/idea" in linguistic then I am really doubtful about the rest.

They (well, most linguists anyway) are not trying to say that it's the single greatest discovery/idea in linguistics that ever was or will be. They're saying that it provides a useful framework for understanding human language that represented a big step forward in how we think about it compared to the way the behaviorists treated the idea. You need to understand the context in which it came about in order to understand why linguists praise it. That said, no contest that there are some serious fanboys out there who are pretty annoying.

I am sorry, but to my non-linguist brain UG hypothesis seems remarkably obvious. I would come out with it in 30 minutes into my linguistic studies, of course I would have it dismissed 10 minutes later as utter crap.
Its superficial grandiosity is annoying and reminds me some New Age crap.
And despite having being a hypothesis for the last I don't know, 50 years? there is no practical attempts to make it a theory.

 

[arkirk]

He's a linguist that says things the left likes to hear so they think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

He's just a typical scientist way outside his field--not worth much.

That's funny, Loren, change left to right in your statement above, and I had the same feeling about you. Chomsky is really good at what he does and he has a very deep vocabulary of facts to call on. That is to say, he spent a lot of his time studying and has a remarkable retention of information. There is nothing typical about Chomsky. As for being "way outside his field" it is possible you don't understand what linguistics is about.

 

[untermensche]

He's a linguist that says things the left likes to hear so they think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

He's just a typical scientist way outside his field--not worth much.

That's funny, Loren, change left to right in your statement above, and I had the same feeling about you. Chomsky is really good at what he does and he has a very deep vocabulary of facts to call on. That is to say, he spent a lot of his time studying and has a remarkable retention of information. There is nothing typical about Chomsky. As for being "way outside his field" it is possible you don't understand what linguistics is about.

Chomsky has two fields.

Linguistics AND political/historical/philosophical commentary, with a focus on the US.

He has been doing both for over 50 years.

He is liked for his moral outlook, his scholarship, and his analysis.