2 ms·

Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity and his explanation of the photoelectric effect are well grounded in experimental science. At this point,

Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity and his explanation of the photoelectric effect are well grounded in experimental science. At this point, they count as proven as far as we can call anything true. Chomsky’s UG doesn’t rise to quite that level, but is very well-grounded in experimental science. The field of linguistics has an extraordinarily high degree of rigor, both in theory and experiment, and Chomsky’s theories have tons of experimental data backing them up.

slowmovintarget 2y ago
I thought there was evidence against Universal Grammar. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-c... > A key flaw in Chomsky’s theories is that when applied to language learning, they stipulate that young children come equipped with the capacity to form sentences using abstract grammatical rules. (The precise ones depend on which version of the theory is invoked.) Yet much research now shows that language acquisition does not take place this way. Instead young children begin by learning simple grammatical patterns; then, gradually, they intuit the rules behind them bit by bit. Chomsky's work is important, but the main part of it doesn't seem to be holding up under prolonged study. (Don't take my word for it, though, I know very little about the formal study of linguistics.)
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  I’ll show the article to my linguistics friends and see what they say. From the beginning, there has always been a vocal minority in the field opposed to Chomsky; I don’t know rhetorical merits of the Scientific American article and if it represents anything new. The professional linguists I associate with haven’t brought anything earth-shatteringly new to my attention that seriously challenges UG. Thanks though.

slowmovintarget 2y ago

I thought there was evidence against Universal Grammar. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-c... > A key flaw in Chomsky’s theories is that when applied to language learning, they stipulate that young children come equipped with the capacity to form sentences using abstract grammatical rules. (The precise ones depend on which version of the theory is invoked.) Yet much research now shows that language acquisition does not take place this way. Instead young children begin by learning simple grammatical patterns; then, gradually, they intuit the rules behind them bit by bit. Chomsky's work is important, but the main part of it doesn't seem to be holding up under prolonged study. (Don't take my word for it, though, I know very little about the formal study of linguistics.)

BenFranklin100 2y ago
I’ll show the article to my linguistics friends and see what they say. From the beginning, there has always been a vocal minority in the field opposed to Chomsky; I don’t know rhetorical merits of the Scientific American article and if it represents anything new. The professional linguists I associate with haven’t brought anything earth-shatteringly new to my attention that seriously challenges UG. Thanks though.