4 ms·
> Most recently, the disagreements in the field have pulled the American author Tom Wolfe into the fray, with a new book... This has changed the debate a bit, e
by abalone 10y ago
> Most recently, the disagreements in the field have pulled the American author Tom Wolfe into the fray, with a new book... This has changed the debate a bit, engaging many more people than ever before, but now it’s centred around Wolfe, Noam Chomsky – and me.
What a self-aggrandizing distortion. A non-specialist author writes a research-free book thumbing his nose at Chomsky (also, Darwin), gets some press coverage "engaging many more people than even before" -- except for, you know, linguists -- and now the "debate" is "centred" around this guy who was mentioned in the book.
Give me a break. Here's one of many takedowns of Wolfe, this one by Scientific American.[1] And here's a takedown of Everett, who basically is the only expert on the sole, inaccessible language he claims pokes holes in Universal Grammar, so may be fabricating results.[2]
[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/tom-wolfe-challenges-chomsky-s-theory-scientific-american-does-it-better/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/tom-wolfe-...
[2] http://www.chronicle.com/article/angry-words/131260 http://www.chronicle.com/article/angry-words/131260
- pmontra 10y agoNon paywalled article: What’s universal grammar? Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language learning http://www.salon.com/2016/09/10/what-will-universal-grammar-evidence-rebuts-chomskys-theory-of-language-learning_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2016/09/10/what-will-universal-grammar-...
- e2e8 10y agoYour [2] summarizes the whole situation evenhandedly. Far from being a take down of Everett, it ultimately comes down slightly on his side of the controversy.
- abalone 10y agoIt literally ends with Everett's MIT collaborator surprising him by saying the data "falsified" his theory and another researcher noting that there was some embedding, contrary to Everett's theory.
- e2e8 10y agoThis is a silly thing to argue about, but the article ends with a 5 paragraphs on how "Everett is far from the only current Chomsky challenger." And Everett has his own explanation of why his ideas still stand. It is a good article and people who are casually interested in the topic should read it.
- abalone 10y agoI agree it's worth reading. But you're conflating Everett, whose theory does not hold up well to peer scrutiny, with everyone else who thinks there are problems with Generative Grammar, which is teased but not actually examined by the article.