It seems to me almost incomprehensible that language does not some genetic base. All humans can speak and listen to verbal communication (I know except certain physically disabled ones). No other animal can do this, and no I will not accept alarm calls or birds singing as language. To me that is prima facie evidence of genetics at work. Okay that's my penny's worth.
@tbayley6
6 жыл бұрын
Let's take the example of the child learning to formulate a question properly. He learns it in one domain but this new knowledge does not reliably transfer to another. Ok, but what about the child's intention in both cases? Is his intention misformed in the second case? That's all that Chomsky is really asking, I think. What is the relevant part of 'language acquisition'? Is it in having a coherent expression, or in having a coherent intention? I venture that only robots struggle with this.
@tbayley6
6 жыл бұрын
This fellow says almost nothing, and does his best to avoid any of the pith of Chomsky's thought. I suggest going to the source. These people are not trying to understand anything any more - as Chomsky often says, they are like a physicist pointing a camera out the window and looking for correlations in the pixels.
@vavilonskaya_rybka
6 жыл бұрын
the thought Chompsky was illustrating with this example was proven wrong, so I wouldn't use it as a rhetorical device to argue with his opponents :)
@tbayley6
6 жыл бұрын
Proven wrong where? The evidence given in this video was concerning the acquisition of language externalisation skills. Is this relevant to the formation of the intention behind those skills? Just because the child has not grasped the pattern of expression, does it mean the thought behind them is jumbled? We all know what a child is trying to say, even when they mess up their words. What does that say about language?
Пікірлер: 7