4 ms·
The Chomskyan idea that has been "debunked" or at least has little credibility as a theory of language, is his syntax models. Syntactic Structures was a formida
by tgv 2y ago
The Chomskyan idea that has been "debunked" or at least has little credibility as a theory of language, is his syntax models. Syntactic Structures was a formidable influence on linguistics, but it (and the models that follow from it) do not connect well to the way "the brain" processes language. One of the underlying ideas behind Universal Grammar, namely that parts of language acquisition and processing have a biological base, is not debunked.
That both Chomsky and AI proponents can rub people the wrong way, doesn't help the debate, indeed.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago>> One of the underlying ideas behind Universal Grammar, namely that parts of language acquisition and processing have a biological base, is not debunked. That's my understanding also but in discussions I've followed that was the main sticking point rather than the specific form of this "language endowment" as I've heard Chomsky call it. E.g. see Alex Clark's "Linguistic Nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444390568 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/97814443905... This was recommended to me by my MSc thesis advisor who I believe felt I was a little too eager to accept Chomsky's arguments for linguistic nativism. I should read it again, it went over my head at the time.