Amazing how many subjects Chomsky wrote about. I think his review of BF Skinner’s Behaviourism might be his best work because it is so devastatingly well argued.
Unfortunately, his UG work in the field of linguistics turned out to be really bad.
Universal Grammar states that all of the knowledge about languages is already in your brain when you’re born. The only thing that happens in language aquisition is figuring out which parameters are in what state:
If your mothertongue is German, then the parameter “has case system” is switched to “yes” and the parameter “has tone system” is switched to “no”.
The idea is that there is some parameter that is set to yes in ALL languages. But everytime such a parameter is put forward, we find that it isnt the case actually.
The next problem is its eurocentrism. Languages, through the lens of UG, all have to have similar parameters as Indo-European languages. Whenever languages do not fit that model, the first instinct in UG is to press it into that model, which leads to stuff like invisible affixes, invisible words and even invisible subjects.
Instead of analyzing a language on its own, forming new categories to understand the mechanics of the language, UG tries its hardest to computerize and systematize languages.
Amazing how many subjects Chomsky wrote about. I think his review of BF Skinner’s Behaviourism might be his best work because it is so devastatingly well argued.
Unfortunately, his UG work in the field of linguistics turned out to be really bad.
Universal Grammar states that all of the knowledge about languages is already in your brain when you’re born. The only thing that happens in language aquisition is figuring out which parameters are in what state: If your mothertongue is German, then the parameter “has case system” is switched to “yes” and the parameter “has tone system” is switched to “no”.
The idea is that there is some parameter that is set to yes in ALL languages. But everytime such a parameter is put forward, we find that it isnt the case actually.
The next problem is its eurocentrism. Languages, through the lens of UG, all have to have similar parameters as Indo-European languages. Whenever languages do not fit that model, the first instinct in UG is to press it into that model, which leads to stuff like invisible affixes, invisible words and even invisible subjects.
Instead of analyzing a language on its own, forming new categories to understand the mechanics of the language, UG tries its hardest to computerize and systematize languages.