Print

Print


Ray Brown scripsit:

> I may have misunderstood Chompskyism, or maybe Pinker mis-represents
> it - but my understanding was that the 'innate grammar' is regarded
> as the end-product of aeons of evolution, just as people like me see
> the the human eyeball the result of the same process.

Chomsky, however, is unwilling to discuss mechanisms whereby this
may have come about, and people have charged him with what we might
call implicit creationism: he treats the language organ/instinct
as if it arose complete and full-blown in all details.

BTW, your spelling "Chompsky" is interesting as showing the regular
English sound-change /ms/ > /mps/ that has actually added a "p"
to "Thompson" (Tom's son).  (Hi, Chlewey!)

> I think the trouble is that much of 'classical' Chompskyan linguistics
> was done simply by anglophones looking within themselves to discover
> these transformational rules; the thinking was, as I understand it,
> that as the 'deep structure' was common to all humans, it didn't
> matter too much what surface natlang you began with when you did your
> introspection.  But, I agree, it did give appear to give Chompskyism
> an anglocentric slant; but I do not believe this was intended.

Indeed.  I believe this complaint can fairly be called obsolete as well:
too many languages have now been discussed using various Chomskyan
frameworks.

--
And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods --  the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John [log in to unmask]