discreteinfinit

3 ms·

1.
by discreteinfinit 11y ago
You were almost coherent until you get to your assumptions about 'what people would have me believe' about linguistic universals. There are many universals that can be explained by generative grammar. There are numerous examples.
2.
by discreteinfinit 11y ago
Theoretical Linguistics in the Generative tradition is entirely based on empirical data. If a theoretical linguist proposed a theory without any empirical data to support it, they would (and do) get laughed at. The poverty of the stimulus
3.
by discreteinfinit 11y ago
I mean, if you happen to have some data that Stratificational Grammar can explain better than Generative Grammar I would love to see it. There are a bunch of theories directly influenced by Chomsky which offer alternatives to generative gra
4.
by discreteinfinit 11y ago
Your Dad really likes assumptions and not providing arguments but Ill look into some of the names Ive never heard of. Thanks !
5.
by discreteinfinit 11y ago
Chomsky and people who study in the generative tradition have a lot to say about language as a biological organ (which obviously evolved from the language organs Chimps possess). In fact, Chimps have very similar systems to us. They can per
6.
by discreteinfinit 11y ago
Could you link some of those 'baby studies' you are referring to ?
7.
by discreteinfinit 11y ago
Thing is, Chomsky is (at least partly) responsible for the so-called Cognitive Revolution. Look up B.F Skinner and notice what happened to his career after Chomsky reviewed one of his papers. Skinner's brand of behaviorism was surely s