2 ms·
Everything you say is reasonable and I can agree with all of it except the claim that I’m misrepresenting Chomsky - in it’s original form it specifically define
by derriz 6y ago
Everything you say is reasonable and I can agree with all of it except the claim that I’m misrepresenting Chomsky - in it’s original form it specifically defined a “language acquisition device” - a part of the brain which evolved specifically and exclusively for language. The only basis for the claim, given the lack of physiological evidence at the time (subsequently evidence emerged against it) was that children were not subjected to enough samples/examples which would explain how they learn language.
- bolzano 6y agoWhere does Chomsky claim this? As far as I know, he has never claimed any particular part of the brain is responsible for language. The claim of Chomsky's UG is that there is a genetic component to the language faculty of humans. That's pretty much a truism given that we can speak and our closest biological relatives can't. Presumably this cashes out somewhere in our brain. There's evidence that certain regions of the brain are involved in Language (Broca & Wernicke's areas) given evidence from brain injuries and their effect on language. He does posit an LAD (language acquisition device) but this is a logical/theoretical construct, to aid in theory building. It seems very likely that we have this given the universality of language in our species and our ability to learn the language of our own culture. The LAD though has not been claimed to be physically located somewhere in our brains by Chomsky (again afaik). Though presumably if we have it, it is fairly likely to be somewhere within our skulls.