5 ms·
Probably because you are only listening to soundbites. Try reading something detailed he has recently written on the subject like "Why Only Us". The arguments
by foobarqux 2y ago
Probably because you are only listening to soundbites. Try reading something detailed he has recently written on the subject like "Why Only Us".
The arguments for language as not-for-communication are 1. language's hierarchical structure is inefficient for linear communication 2. language seems to have appeared suddenly (probably due to a sudden mutation) and had no time to evolve and initially no one to communicate with 3. most use of language seems to be internal/thinking not communication.
These are all better arguments than those in the paper.
- abetusk 2y agoThanks for the link. I haven't read much written text by Chomsky but, in my defense, I've listened to a lot more video and audio of his talks than mere "soundbytes". I stand by my statement about his talks.
- foobarqux 2y agoSo have I and I came across those ideas first from his talks on Youtube not his writing. He talks about this ideas constantly so I don't know if these are the best examples but: 1. About evidence for how language for communication is inefficient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXqXfg-Dq4&t=3354s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXqXfg-Dq4&t=3354s 2. About the sudden appearance of language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTGoYXx0Kew&t=1557s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTGoYXx0Kew&t=1557s 3. Arguing with a biologist about the evidence for language being for thought (and a little bit at the end about how hierarchical structure is inefficient): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzzuPMA8s7k&t=307s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzzuPMA8s7k&t=307s