Chomsky wrong on language?

[Hud955]

I don't think Chomsky's theory would have a problem with this, Alan. It does not predict the actual sounds we use to convey the underlying concepts, only the underlying concepts themselves.  In his terminiology, the sounds of our languages are part of our 'communication' systems, not 'language'. He uses the term 'languge' to refer to the concepts and the structures which are, he believes, embedded individually in our brains from birth.The Hadza in the north-west of Tanzania, in the rift valley also have a click language, which as far as we can tell is completely unrelated to the language of the Bushmen/San.  It is thought that the Eastern and Western Pygmies of the sub-saharan forests once had click languages too, but they now speak tongues related to those of their Bantu farming neighbours.  If you think about it, click languages are remarkably practical, the clicks carry across considerable distances, and would be useful for communcation between  spread out hunting bands.  The actual sounds we make can be explained in historical or practical terms like this without creating a problem for Chomsky.What is problematic for Chomsky's theory are the grammatical structures of the world's 'communication systems'.  Chomsky claims that underneath all the superficial differences of actual grammars, there is a single underlying universal grammatical structure which was installed in our brain through genetic mutation some time in our ancestral past.  The problem is, he has never been able to identify a single rule belonging to  his underlying universal grammar which all languages have in common.  I am no linguist, but I am also aware that languages divide the observable world up in different ways.  One particularly obvious example is the way they divide up the colour spectrum.  Colour words in Welsh for example do not map on to colour words in English. Welsh has a single word to cover what in English we would distinguish as dark blue and grey, for instance.  This would seem to be fatal to Chomsky's assertion that we have a stock of fixed concepts with which we are all born and which our various languages merely reproduce.

[SocialistPunk]

Hud955 wrote:

What is problematic for Chomsky's theory are the grammatical structures of the world's 'communication systems'.  Chomsky claims that underneath all the superficial differences of actual grammars, there is a single underlying universal grammatical structure which was installed in our brain through genetic mutation some time in our ancestral past.  The problem is, he has never been able to identify a single rule belonging to  his underlying universal grammar which all languages have in common.  I am no linguist, but I am also aware that languages divide the observable world up in different ways.  One particularly obvious example is the way they divide up the colour spectrum.  Colour words in Welsh for example do not map on to colour words in English. Welsh has a single word to cover what in English we would distinguish as dark blue and grey, for instance.  This would seem to be fatal to Chomsky's assertion that we have a stock of fixed concepts with which we are all born and which our various languages merely reproduce.

Hi Hud,This isn't a subject I find that riveting but I'm watching to see what I can pick up. If what you say here is accurate regarding Chomsky's theory of universal grammar, then if he hasn't been able to back up his theory with evidence by now, it's unlikely he ever will. Therefore he is wrong.

[Hud955]

Hi SPThat, in two words, is what most linguists now believe – and have believed for quite some time.  I posted earlier about the way in which Chomsky has been able to retain his pre-eminent position though Pentagon and other funding, while never managing to provide a theory which makes sense to the majority of his colleages, so I won't repeat it here. I'm not sure it is a subject that many people do find riveting.  I only got involved with it by accident.  

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

His methodological individualism, his Cartesianism and his biological determinism are the intellectual foundations on which his linguistic theories rest.  These are intellectual positions usually associated with capitalist or propertarian ideologies, political viewpoints very different from Chomsky's own.

[my bold]I'm just going to have to be happy with what you've publicly said here, Hud, and leave it at that, because I'm going to get banned (yet again) for asking questions about our proletarian method. My warnings from the moderator are stacking up.Hopefully, either you or another poster will deepen these insights into Chomsky's ideological foundations, upon which are built his parameters of selection for 'evidence'.Our selection parameters will be very different, because we have different 'foundations/positions/ideologies/viewpoints' , as you call them, from Chomsky's 'capitalist/propertarian' ones.Put simply, he's a bourgeois academic, and workers should be aware of this, when reading his necessarily biased work.

Don't be happy with this LB, respond to my challenge to give a coherent account of how and in what way you believe Chomsky's linguistics are informed by his political ideology and how this invalidates them from a socialist perspective.  I'm sure the moderator would be very happy for you do that without giving you another warning.  It would open up the discussion and be of value to the rest of us.  But by 'a coherent account',  I don't just mean labelling Chomsky as 'bourgeois' without telling us why you believe that (as was the habit of Soviet idealogues and is still the habit of 'vulgar Marxists' everywhere) or of simply associating one piece of data with another and crying 'see!', as though the multiple circumstances of the material world did not exist.  For instance, you refer obliquely here to Chomsky's capitalist/propertarian values, so tell us what you think they are, and, again so long as you relate that to the question of the validity of Chomsky's linguistics you will not be going off topic.  I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a line of argument anticipated by ALB when he started this thread,  but it would still fall squarely within the terms of the title he set for it.  You can always check with the moderator if you are uncertain of this  – or start another thread.This is my issue with your position, LB: as soon as you are asked to put some flesh on your ideological obsessions, you back out and simply resort to repeating them, over and over, endlessly critiquing others without ever making a real positive contribution to the discussion yourself.   

[SocialistPunk]

Yes, found your post about Chomsky and Pentagon funding on page one.

[Hud955]

OK, lets get the ball rolling, LB."Chomsky is an individualist, and assumes that the answer to social questions lies in 'biological tissue'. He has an ideology, and that provides the basis for his research. As Lakatos called it, 'negative and positive heuristics': 'what' to look for, and 'what' to ignore. We all do it, we all wear ideological blinkers, and that's the human condition."I didn't have the energy to reply to all the misinterpretation you made of other poster's views in your last long post LB but let's just pick up on one here.  If the reason for the failure of Chomsky's linguistics lies in his politics, then we need to look at his politics.  Chomsky has a keen class analysis, not fundamentally an individualistic one.  You might argue that his class analysis comes not out of a direct identification with the working class but a rationalist sense of duty to aid those who are suffering, yet, it is nevertheless the case that in a class society, he recognises suffering is confined to the working class, and the reason for their suffering is related to their class politics of capitalism.  He therefore gives his support to working class movements against the interests of the capitalist class.   Chomsky is a strong supporter of the actions of labour unions around the world, for instance, but also of revolutionary action – if that action is taken by a mass of the working class and not just a minority elite. The methodological individualism that lies at the root of his linguistics is a different beast.  This is an analytical tool, not a social or political statement.  What is interesting about this is that methodological individualism is often at the root of theories proposed by those with pro-capitalist sympathies (often but not always).  And it is not difficult to see why that should be so.  It can certainly be linked with the political ideology of bourgeois individualism.  But while it has political implications, methodological individualim itself makes no value judgements and  has no political content. If you are to show that Chomsky's lingustics are invalid because they are underpinned by his politics, you will need to explain how someone with a commitment to working class politics can also base his linguistics upon such a methodology.  That may not be impossible, but calling him bourgeois is not sufficient.  

[Hud955]

mcolome1 wrote:

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/02/pirahã-undermines-noam-chomskys-idea-of-a-universal-grammar.htmlPiraha undermines Noam Chomskys idea of a universal grammar  Chomsky should have studied Anthropology  instead of Linguistic

There is actually a debate going on about whether Piraha does or does not allow recursion.  Chomsky claims that even if it does not, it does not invalidate his position.  While recursion is latently available to all human languages, he says, it does not have to be manifested.  This appears to be yet another of his regular retreats in the face of new evidence and certainly knocks away one of the evidential supports for his theory.Everett's books on the Piraha are fascinating, BTW, for anyone interested in pre-state societies.

[LBird]

I refer you to my post #67 about method, Hud, for which I received a warning.But I can't help commenting on the confusion of your last post.

Hud955 wrote:

The methodological individualism that lies at the root of his linguistics is a different beast.  This is an analytical tool, not a social or political statement.

[my bold]So, 'methodological individualism' is not political?

Hud955 wrote:

What is interesting about this is that methodological individualism is often at the root of theories proposed by those with pro-capitalist sympathies (often but not always).  And it is not difficult to see why that should be so.  It can certainly be linked with the political ideology of bourgeois individualism.  But while it has political implications…

[my bold]So, 'methodological individualism' is political?

Hud955 wrote:

…methodological individualim itself makes no value judgements and  has no political content.

That's an astonishing statement, Hud.No value judgements or political content? You don't think the theory is related to social classes and their historical development, and their ethics? Simply astonishing.

Hud955 wrote:

…you will need to explain how someone with a commitment to working class politics…

Chomsky has a commitment to Communism, to workers' power, to the end of private property, the market and money, and to the democratic control of world production (including production of scientific knowledge and truth)?I don't think so. Chomsky's 'methodological individualism' is the philosophical basis of his 'biological determinism' and his individualist, 'free-thinker', 'free association' Anarchism.His research, his selection parameters, which he employs to select his 'facts' (see my post 67 about your incorrect method), and his 'evidence' and 'proof' about individuals having biological mechanisms which determine their ahistoric and asocial language abilities, are all totally at odds with anything whatsoever to do with our Communist politics, philosophy or method.I'm beginning to think that you regard political philosophy as not being at the root of science.Y'know, that human and social activity, that the bourgeoisie pretend is an objective, neutral method to get at 'The Truth', and are supported in this myth by academics, who can see the threat, too, to their power, legitimacy and authority, when confronted with claims for democratic controls.Many physicists since Einstein have been aware that science is based upon 'theory and practice', as Marx argued, and not 'theory alone' or 'practice alone' or 'practice and theory'.Roll on my next warning.Thanks, Hud.

[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

Chomsky claims that underneath all the superficial differences of actual grammars, there is a single underlying universal grammatical structure which was installed in our brain through genetic mutation some time in our ancestral past.  The problem is, he has never been able to identify a single rule belonging to  his underlying universal grammar which all languages have in common.

Let alone identifying the gene or genes involved

Hud955 wrote:

I am no linguist, but I am also aware that languages divide the observable world up in different ways.  One particularly obvious example is the way they divide up the colour spectrum.  Colour words in Welsh for example do not map on to colour words in English. Welsh has a single word to cover what in English we would distinguish as dark blue and grey, for instance. 

I didn't know that and I had to learn Welsh yn ysgol. As a matter of curiosity, what is the word?

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Chomsky claims that underneath all the superficial differences of actual grammars, there is a single underlying universal grammatical structure which was installed in our brain through genetic mutation some time in our ancestral past.  The problem is, he has never been able to identify a single rule belonging to  his underlying universal grammar which all languages have in common.

Let alone identifying the gene or genes involved

Hud955 wrote:

I am no linguist, but I am also aware that languages divide the observable world up in different ways.  One particularly obvious example is the way they divide up the colour spectrum.  Colour words in Welsh for example do not map on to colour words in English. Welsh has a single word to cover what in English we would distinguish as dark blue and grey, for instance. 

I didn't know that and I had to learn Welsh yn ysgol. As a matter of curiosity, what is the word?

Here you go.The Celtic spectrum was different to the one the Western world is now used to, and based on the quality of a hue rather than its wavelength. So "llwyd" can mean brown (paper), blue (mould) or grey (rabbit); "glas" can mean blue (sky), green (grass), grey (horse) or transparent (saliva); "coch" can mean brown (sugar) or red (meat) and so on. There are learned papers on this "spectrum overlap", which is present in the traditions of Scotland and Ireland also.

[ALB]

Diolch, Mr Moderator.

[Dave B]

 I suspect that language, as we have it, is synergistically wrapped up with and evolved in tandem with abstract thought or thinking. The necessity of, or for higher levels abstract thought like tool use and making for instance may have evolved separately from just the social and co-operative function of sharing, signaling  or ‘communicating’ information. Like leopard warning call or whatever; as opposed to snakes and eagles or I have just found great tree with loads of banana's on it (part of the vocabulary of one species of small social monkeys) However after that perhaps abstract thought enhanced the capacity for language and then vice versa in an endless synergistic feedback process. Can we actually think properly without using language in our ‘minds ear’ so to speak. I have heard that fully bilingual people can think, and dream, in two languages and switch from one to the other. But it is nearly always one or the other. It looks as though we may come pre-programmed and prepared with a set of ‘grammar’ to interpret our physical universe. In a series of reproduced experiments that have only fairly recently have able to be carried out due to technology.They showed almost new born infants a series of images and could monitor their eye movements etc.They showed a distinctly greater interest in ‘paradoxes’ that were beyond 'simple'. As a chemist and mathematician. Does the use of symbols and rules by which they are related to each other as part of,  or to facilitate, abstract thought or representation of reality etc transcend language as we normally think about it? Where does Nicaraguan sign language phenomenon fit in to all this? As a Darwinist and biological determinist as well as a cultural materialist; I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. I believe in the Hegelian and Fred’s motif of ‘quantitative changes leading to qualitative ones’; and therefore I am totally opposed to ‘creationist Darwinism’ of Chomsky with his idea of the revolutionary mutation. Fred’s Lamarkianism is making a small comeback so he may have the last laugh. We I think we experience the world mostly through vision which takes up a lot of processing power; as it does with computers. Is language an existential ‘engineering’ solution to an existential problem.  I have not been following this thread so far so may have missed previous stuff.

[Hud955]

LB, to save you from the ignominy of a further warning or getting banned, I've transferred my reply to your last post over to a new thread.  Meet me there if you want.  Up to you.

[Young Master Smeet]

My time running low, quick drive by link:http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00830/abstract

Quote:

Many sign languages display crosslinguistic consistencies in the use of two iconic aspects of handshape, handshape type and finger group complexity. Handshape type is used systematically in form-meaning pairings (morphology): Handling handshapes (Handling-HSs), representing how objects are handled, tend to be used to express events with an agent (“hand-as-hand” iconicity), andObject handshapes (Object-HSs), representing an object's size/shape, are used more often to express events without an agent (“hand-as-object” iconicity). Second, in the distribution of meaningless properties of form (morphophonology), Object-HSs display higher finger group complexity than Handling-HSs. Some adult homesigners, who have not acquired a signed or spoken language and instead use a self-generated gesture system, exhibit these two properties as well. This study illuminates the development over time of both phenomena for one child homesigner, “Julio,” age 7;4 (years; months) to 12;8. We elicited descriptions of events with and without agents to determine whether morphophonology and morphosyntax can develop without linguistic input during childhood, and whether these structures develop together or independently. Within the time period studied: (1) Julio used handshape type differently in his responses to vignettes with and without an agent; however, he did not exhibit the same pattern that was found previously in signers, adult homesigners, or gesturers: while he was highly likely to use a Handling-HS for events with an agent (82%), he was less likely to use an Object-HS for non-agentive events (49%); i.e., his productions were heavily biased toward Handling-HSs; (2) Julio exhibited higher finger group complexity in Object- than in Handling-HSs, as in the sign language and adult homesigner groups previously studied; and (3) these two dimensions of language developed independently, with phonological structure showing a sign language-like pattern at an earlier age than morphosyntactic structure. We conclude that iconicity alone is not sufficient to explain the development of linguistic structure in homesign systems. Linguistic input is not required for some aspects of phonological structure to emerge in childhood, and while linguistic input is not required for morphology either, it takes time to emerge in homesign.

Not fingding evidence of a universal grammar does not disprove the theory; nor does a Welsh difference in colour descriptions. 

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Not fingding evidence of a universal grammar does not disprove the theory…

You'll know from your reading of the philosophy of science, YMS, that even supporters of capitalism like Karl Popper have argued that 'absence of evidence' can't disprove a theory.And that 'evidence absent' for one perspective, is 'evidence present' for another.Science, eh? Who'd've thought it?Bring back 19th century certainty, eh? And listen to the academics, who claim to have a neutral method, and ignore that trouble-maker Einstein?

[Author]

Posts