this is the simplest overview of chomesky's hypothesis I came across during my 7 years studies of a SLA and linguistics... thanks for putting it this way (y)
@@oscarmoreno2585 The existence of universal grammar is hotly debated within the field today. His hypothesis cannot be said to be true or false, although a majority of linguists do subscribe to some version of it. Many believe that UG may be true for some domains of language acquisition, but not others.
The concept of universal grammar Noam Chomsky put forward not only leads to an innovative understanding of linguistics, ideas, philosophy, history and science , but also to an understanding of human nature, value of existence, and the distinction between humans and other living things.
I do wonder what he actually said that was new, other than creating a way to transform between languages. Except the transformation doesn’t really work except in a broad sense.
@@whc1737 that's exactly what chomsky did to BF Skinner. He called him a fool and ruined the serious rise of applied behavior analysis. ABA is still relatively unknown. Chomsky shot his mouth off and ruined something distinguished. Go ahead and look up Skinner V Chumpsky.
@@franciscoo7478ABA will continue to be unknown, though the reason for this is the apparent paradox that it is too well known. We don't study the interstellar ether, either, though many will want to cling to the ether expertise they already have. Rather than call Skinner a fool, Chomsky exposed the unsupported claims of ABA, and the faulty logic that was its structure.
Wonderful video!!! We are what our prepositions make us! This seemingly most insignificant part of speech is perhaps the common binding thread that runs through different languages as it helps to order how we experience the world.
I think that this makes so much sense it is almost obvious. I can't believe it was only discovered / established recently. Anyway, I am a big fan of Chomsky. Great short video.
+flyamil How does this make sense? Chinese children learn languages with very different grammar. Either this representation of Chomsky's theory is very much simplified or it is just nonsensical in my opinion.
+BigBadWolf I think all natural languages share the same building blocks which make logical thinking possible. I don't think our mind at birth is a clean slate. The meaning of works like yes, no, me, you, stop, now, later, etc. are probably hard wired in several parts of our programming that makes us survive even without language or before being born. Maybe when we first learn a natural language, we use a natural ability to classify words (actions, things, physical properties, time or space related attributes, etc.) and link them to algorithms we implement without realizing. I haven't read any of chomsky's books in this subject, but I would like to. If anyone can suggest where to start, let me know. I am not good at finishing books. I get easily distracted. That's why I loved this video :)
+BigBadWolf No. We wouldn't have natural languages without human interaction. We learn a clumsy natural language with share with others just to communicate. Which is slow and inefficient compared to thinking. Sometimes we verbalize it in our minds out of habit. But we don't need it to make decisions. I feel that we have a more efficient language already built in that we developed without knowing. We probably use something sort of like feelings rather than words. It is different for each person based on human experience. Only the most basic building blocks we have before birth. I am curious, what do you think is missing the most in this picture?
+flyamil I can see where you are coming from. I believe that we are born with feelings (social behaviours in a way) which bleed into our formation of language. Those have evolved over the years and are hardwired in our brains. But I don't see any good arguments for why language and grammar per se should be part of that hardwiring. I believe it is rather obvious that it is certainly not. What do you think would happen if we abandon baby humans on an island and try to "grow" an uneducated society. I'm sure you'd agree that they will develop a very simple language in support of their rudimentary social behaviour - nothing like today's languages. Without building a "norm" through the passing of knowledge from generation to generation, it would probably remain that way. This is also the case in my opinion why language is so young compared to the human evolution. Which picture are you referring to? The easiness on our language acquisition? I guess it is not easy at all. It is just easier than most other things because it builds on problems we try to solve in a very early age and because young humans are very good in learning fresh knowledge. Once a basis of thinking is established it seems to be very hard for the brain to adapt afterwards. For me, the biggest question to answer is how we are able to create those hierarchies of associations in our brains. Those inner representations of words and the associations with different meanings seem to be the key to the proficient use of language. Young humans are just better at learning such "structures" than older ones. I, therefore, argue that language acquisition of young humans is not really important for the study of language understanding. Would you argue otherwise?
My aunt emigrated to Cyprus with two teenage daughters and the 2 year old girl. After about 1 year the little 3 year old girl was speaking fluent grammatically correct Greek, just how Chomsky described. The girl was translating for her elder sisters who only learnt as adults do, very difficult. What Chomsky was saying is so true. Language seems to be a savant skill we all have. This language power switches off at around the age of 5. Empiricists who try to argue against Chomsky are going against the evidence.
Chomsky actually said that the power switches off "by puberty or somewhat earlier," not 5. Plenty of adult language learners reach very high levels of fluency. But schoolchildren who have little motivation to study another language usually achieve far less than native mastery. And it is uncontroversial that our ability to learn slows down with age.
J Lieto The key idea is that children at a certain age can learn a language without being taught -- no instruction, no special class, no nothing. That's the whole idea. Obviously adult learners "reach very high levels of fluency." That's beside the point. They can do so only by means of instruction, and special efforts. So you can take your "uncontroversial" [imitating C's manner and phrasing, we see. So funny.] and, basically, shove it. What Moesy Pittounikos says is completely true.
@@brandgardner211 Yes, which is why adults learning a foreign language need to make a conscious effort to learn grammar, the structure of the language, while young children seem to unconsciously absorb the language they're exposed to, without consciously thinking about grammatical rules. This is because they have an innate ability to understand the structure of the language they hear, just as Chomsky pointed out with his concept of ''universal grammar''
Not true. In the 1950s, Chomsky was right that the behaviourists in the early 20th century could not explain how infants learned language, but you need not go from one extreme (empiricism) to the other extreme (nativism). Chomsky never studied infant development. If he did, he would agree with developmental psychologists in the late 20th century and 21st century that the data suggest something very different from either behaviourism or nativism. In short: it's complex. A lot happens from when the fetus is in the womb to when the child can first string together sentences. And they learn single words before grammar.
Language Acquisition Device and String Theory. Two unproven theories that have fallen out of favor not because they were unproven, but simply because they could not be proved.
I'm looking into language acquisition. Can I use this clip after I insert the subtitle? It will only be used for presentation material and I will send you a translation. Please reply if possible.
Not writing the slate before birth, but a kind of prewritten software - just as all other parts of the body have a prewritten blueprint which guides and limits how they'll take shape from the earliest stages of development.
I wouldn't say that we know the reason we learn so easy to say our thoughts through language, because the mind, or human brain it is such a complicated thing... Notwithstanding what we may say for sure is that, we're biologically engineered for language use.. Not just due to brain but physiological adjustment related with lungs and our supralaryngeal vocal tract... Anyway have been advances in Genetic theory that could unify language and DNA; i.e the Foxp2, is thought to be a gene related with language, however those areas with tonal languages such as chinese that gene dost appear in population... Think about Language by itself, as an artificial structure that makes our thoughts come out our mind... that's mind-blowing...
She spent her formative years living in England and lives there today. She says that when she's in America she speaks with an American accent because it makes things easier for her (idk what that means), but everywhere else she uses an English accent.
THATS WHAT I WAS THINKING!!!! I was like wow this sounds a LOT like Scully but this voice is English that doesn't make sense, then I read this comment and WOW this is so cool
@@retop56 people understand you better if you speak with an accent they are expecting to hear. So it's easier if you can code switch (i.e. switch accents to fit in) when you travel. Not everyone can do it. Some people do it kind of automatically, just pick up the speech patterns of those around them.
The problem with this is that 1) there is almost no practical scientific data to prove linguistic theory. You cannot test humans in critical stages of language acquisition because they are so young that they cannot co-operate with you - not even holding still. It would also be completely unethical to have a "control group" - aka children who have been kept in complete isolation, in order to definitively proof exactly what/how much stimulus you need to acquire language. This leads to 2): For the past 30-40 years theories in the field have run rampant. Sometimes a study indicates or proves that something isn't quite right with your theory. The reaction to that of the linguists who are invested in that pariticular theory is to try to bring a counter-study, to safe that particular branch of linguistics, while others, including Chomsky, modify their theory and move on. This has led to a confusing amount of theoretical dead-ends, which you still have to learn to understand the now-more-complex-than-ever new theories that built on it.
Your points 1) and 2) are generic and wrong. For instance, you claim : ".. there is almost no practical scientific data to prove linguistic theory." Um, why should I take your word for it? On the contrary, there are shitloads of scientific data that shines buttloads of light on the processes by which humans acquire language. You make the assumption that children must be kept in isolation to learn something about human language acquisition. This is a completely unwarranted assumption. Etc. etc etc
I was thinking more along the lines of "when do humans acquire language?". Well, from when we are born and come in contact with language. I see a practical problem in doing studies with 0-3 year-olds.
Observing 0-3 yr olds is not inherently immoral. Parents do it all the time. Much is already understood about language acquisition. I only object to your blanket denial of all that has been learned so far. For instance, the idea that the mind is a tabula rasa has been completely discredited due to the work of scientists.
HaploidCell You really need to think things through before you post and try to disprove your own claims and ideas which, in this case, wouldn't have taken more than a 10 minute Google search. You also need to learn to distinguish between fact and opinion. Your whole argument amounts to nothing else than an argument from ignorance. Why bother posting that?
I think that's not true. Chomsky's ideas have been challenged, yes, and that's something very good for linguistics, but the basic nativistic foundation of generative grammar has not yet been proved or disproved. For some linguists, as myself, it's still the best explanation for a great lot of pheanomena and a good foundation for theoretical linguistics' research programs.
1:07 Chomsky's hypothesis: there are inbon structures of some kind of L.A.D. device "Universal Grammar; if he's right Locke's blank slate assertion is wrong.
It's a different thing. According to him after the critical period (after 8 or 9) LAD no longer becomes very sensitive to other languages which makes it a bit harder to acquire compared to first language. You can read Stephen Krashen's works though .he is a specialist in 2nd language acquisition and he has a great theory..
Sounds like a sort of kantianish account of language learning, which makes sense to me. Both poles of the innatism/empiricism duality do seem incapable of explaining the complex phenomena involving living beings in general, human languages included.
This is also a great argument for God, as Creator of language. Language is relative but it is innate, and it is hardwired into us. As the video says, "our slates have been written on before we were born."
Num Chompsky, haha... - Actions, things, and their relationships -- does every language deal with these in some common way? Crying means feeding, Mama means comfort, broccoli means spitting, etc -- are there fundamental things every language center must address? How to make breast come, bad smell from diapers go away, I'm bored, sleepy, happy -- how do all human languages construct these relationships and expressions?
0:40, Children don't have a poverty of stimulus, they are always stimulated by the environment. Chomsky ignores the motivating operant of the individual that may constantly seek reinforcement, that's probably the only thing that's innate.
"Other animals communicate, but they dont have anything approaching the sophisticated grammar of human languages." I'd say dolphins absolutely 'approach' it. There's ongoing research that is showing just how complex dolphin speech really is.
I think that the clè of leroning is listening we have exemple for the little child ho or her you think they are baby but listening for the air and environment behind him or her then they repete what they listening voice forme me we leroning to speak or spoke or say whit listening and we have difference between the langue mother and the langue acquisition we have sntence in arabe said that leroning a child is like write in ruche. all this leron forme Allah all this informations and may leroning in langue and langues is frome Allah ho sande to me in may way the Galaxie of humaine may Professors frome the primaire inttel the université they are Galaxie of leroning and art of teacheing all may thank frist to Allah then to may Professor in all don't frogart ho I listening to them in difference place beaucause the sceine don't konw the limit it just make us in non hand if problème happen we asked Allah peace in this world.
What happens to our (human) special facility with grammar when we go from a hypothetical, "wired" advantage in infancy to the slowness of school-age? Why doesn't Prof Chomsky's advantage of universal, human grammar make easy the learning of English grammar? Where does that hard-wired knowledge go? How does it become "unwired" as seems to be true of US school children? They study for years but only a few learn the difference between a subject and an object. They acquire arithmetic skills, but they never learn how to conjugate "to lay / to lie". After all the years of Prof Chomsky's theory, where is the evidence?
Goedelite Kurt: The hard-wired nature of grammar and syntax is the only explanation we have so far for the ability of children to express whole sentences years before they will be able to name the parts of speech. There is no Japanese L.A.D. and there is no Italian L.A.D., but the likelihood of the general one is very high, as we have observed adopted children from one culture effortlessly acquiring the idiomatic speech of their new families. Also, after all these years of Professor Chomsky's theory we still hear talk of "the invention of human language", as if we all got together one day and verbalized our DNA. "Once the adults were brought up to speed, they passed the new invention on to their children" is nonsense. To some, we seem to "rise" into our ability to speak and that is as good a metaphor as any for now. Chomsky slammed into our most brainless assumptions about language back in the 1960s and still, otherwise intelligent people talk as if language is knowable in the way that arithmetic is knowable.
@@cupwithhandles it’s only something I heard so I could just be spouting nonsense. There is an article in scientific American that tries to rebut it but I can’t read all of it without a subscription, and another article in the same journal rebuts that article.
@@cupwithhandlesJust check the book “Don’t sleep, there are snakes” by Daniel Everett. He found a language that absolutely challenges universal grammar. Of course the academic elite has tried to ridicule him anyway.
The ease of learning a language is not a scientific concept. How does one measure it? Why does Prof Chomsky's theory require the heavy public exposition on youtube? A scientific theory belongs in scientific journals where it is reviewed and challenged by peers.
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
this is the simplest overview of chomesky's hypothesis I came across during my 7 years studies of a SLA and linguistics... thanks for putting it this way (y)
Chomsky is a fool
@@franciscoo7478 bait
Is his hypothesis true?
@@franciscoo7478 why
@@oscarmoreno2585 The existence of universal grammar is hotly debated within the field today. His hypothesis cannot be said to be true or false, although a majority of linguists do subscribe to some version of it. Many believe that UG may be true for some domains of language acquisition, but not others.
I died when I saw the title for narrator
+Ezgi çelebi Why?
+Caffa Jake i love her so much from x files
+Ezgi çelebi Oh, watch Hannibal she is on another level.
Aaaaaaand american gods ;)
AHAHAHA SAME. I came for the schoolwork part of it and was like "OH MY GOD"
I always knew I was a LAD
funny use of the word
why did i find this funny lol
So clear and well-stuctured and with this amazing additional illustration. Thanks for the effort!
Wow this was fun and it made a clear distinction between Plato, Locke and Chomsky.
I love this woman's voice, and obviously the topic at hand.
She's Gillian Anderson
The concept of universal grammar
Noam Chomsky put forward not only leads to an innovative understanding of linguistics, ideas, philosophy, history and science , but also to an understanding of human nature, value of existence, and the distinction between humans and other living things.
He’s gotta be one of the most influential thinkers of our time. Isaac newton status.
I do wonder what he actually said that was new, other than creating a way to transform between languages. Except the transformation doesn’t really work except in a broad sense.
Unless it's wrong. So far UG seems to not be supported by evidence.
oh my god Gillan Anderson
love it, super clear. Her voice is awesome
What an illustration. Thank you.
I really like the idea of LAD. It makes the most sense and It really sets us apart as a species.
Chomsky is a fool.
@@franciscoo7478 “Only a fool would call someone a fool without explaining why they are a fool”
@@whc1737 that's exactly what chomsky did to BF Skinner. He called him a fool and ruined the serious rise of applied behavior analysis. ABA is still relatively unknown. Chomsky shot his mouth off and ruined something distinguished. Go ahead and look up Skinner V Chumpsky.
@@franciscoo7478 You are no longer a fool, Thanks for explaining. I will check it out later 👍
@@franciscoo7478ABA will continue to be unknown, though the reason for this is the
apparent paradox that it is too well known. We don't study the interstellar ether, either,
though many will want to cling to the ether expertise they already have. Rather than
call Skinner a fool, Chomsky exposed the unsupported claims of ABA, and the faulty
logic that was its structure.
Wonderful video!!! We are what our prepositions make us! This seemingly most insignificant part of speech is perhaps the common binding thread that runs through different languages as it helps to order how we experience the world.
Simple and straight to the point.
I think that this makes so much sense it is almost obvious. I can't believe it was only discovered / established recently. Anyway, I am a big fan of Chomsky. Great short video.
+flyamil How does this make sense? Chinese children learn languages with very different grammar. Either this representation of Chomsky's theory is very much simplified or it is just nonsensical in my opinion.
+BigBadWolf I think all natural languages share the same building blocks which make logical thinking possible. I don't think our mind at birth is a clean slate. The meaning of works like yes, no, me, you, stop, now, later, etc. are probably hard wired in several parts of our programming that makes us survive even without language or before being born. Maybe when we first learn a natural language, we use a natural ability to classify words (actions, things, physical properties, time or space related attributes, etc.) and link them to algorithms we implement without realizing. I haven't read any of chomsky's books in this subject, but I would like to. If anyone can suggest where to start, let me know. I am not good at finishing books. I get easily distracted. That's why I loved this video :)
So you want to purely base human language on behavioral instincts? Good luck.
+BigBadWolf No. We wouldn't have natural languages without human interaction. We learn a clumsy natural language with share with others just to communicate. Which is slow and inefficient compared to thinking. Sometimes we verbalize it in our minds out of habit. But we don't need it to make decisions. I feel that we have a more efficient language already built in that we developed without knowing. We probably use something sort of like feelings rather than words. It is different for each person based on human experience. Only the most basic building blocks we have before birth. I am curious, what do you think is missing the most in this picture?
+flyamil I can see where you are coming from. I believe that we are born with feelings (social behaviours in a way) which bleed into our formation of language. Those have evolved over the years and are hardwired in our brains. But I don't see any good arguments for why language and grammar per se should be part of that hardwiring. I believe it is rather obvious that it is certainly not. What do you think would happen if we abandon baby humans on an island and try to "grow" an uneducated society. I'm sure you'd agree that they will develop a very simple language in support of their rudimentary social behaviour - nothing like today's languages. Without building a "norm" through the passing of knowledge from generation to generation, it would probably remain that way. This is also the case in my opinion why language is so young compared to the human evolution.
Which picture are you referring to? The easiness on our language acquisition? I guess it is not easy at all. It is just easier than most other things because it builds on problems we try to solve in a very early age and because young humans are very good in learning fresh knowledge. Once a basis of thinking is established it seems to be very hard for the brain to adapt afterwards. For me, the biggest question to answer is how we are able to create those hierarchies of associations in our brains. Those inner representations of words and the associations with different meanings seem to be the key to the proficient use of language. Young humans are just better at learning such "structures" than older ones. I, therefore, argue that language acquisition of young humans is not really important for the study of language understanding.
Would you argue otherwise?
bonus Gillian Anderson narration!
That is a very cool drawing
I haven't watched yet but I'm 100% sure I'll love it
My aunt emigrated to Cyprus with two teenage daughters and the 2 year old girl. After about 1 year the little 3 year old girl was speaking fluent grammatically correct Greek, just how Chomsky described. The girl was translating for her elder sisters who only learnt as adults do, very difficult. What Chomsky was saying is so true.
Language seems to be a savant skill we all have. This language power switches off at around the age of 5. Empiricists who try to argue against Chomsky are going against the evidence.
Chomsky actually said that the power switches off "by puberty or somewhat earlier," not 5. Plenty of adult language learners reach very high levels of fluency. But schoolchildren who have little motivation to study another language usually achieve far less than native mastery. And it is uncontroversial that our ability to learn slows down with age.
J Lieto The key idea is that children at a certain age can learn a language without being taught -- no instruction, no special class, no nothing. That's the whole idea. Obviously adult learners "reach very high levels of fluency." That's beside the point. They can do so only by means of instruction, and special efforts. So you can take your "uncontroversial" [imitating C's manner and phrasing, we see. So funny.] and, basically, shove it. What Moesy Pittounikos says is completely true.
@@brandgardner211 Yes, which is why adults learning a foreign language need to make a conscious effort to learn grammar, the structure of the language, while young children seem to unconsciously absorb the language they're exposed to, without consciously thinking about grammatical rules. This is because they have an innate ability to understand the structure of the language they hear, just as Chomsky pointed out with his concept of ''universal grammar''
Not true. In the 1950s, Chomsky was right that the behaviourists in the early 20th century could not explain how infants learned language, but you need not go from one extreme (empiricism) to the other extreme (nativism). Chomsky never studied infant development. If he did, he would agree with developmental psychologists in the late 20th century and 21st century that the data suggest something very different from either behaviourism or nativism. In short: it's complex. A lot happens from when the fetus is in the womb to when the child can first string together sentences. And they learn single words before grammar.
Language Acquisition Device and String Theory. Two unproven theories that have fallen out of favor not because they were unproven, but simply because they could not be proved.
Indeed, I also think because it implies the existence of a creator as well if you really look between the lines. 🤔
@@SonDeku-y5x Lol no they don't
@@user-jw6yh4ev4n string theory dose
*Acquisition
Wow, this is something very interesting.
amazing explanation in such a short video.
simply brilliant clip!
I knew it was Gillian. I knew it.
it makes so much sense
I'm looking into language acquisition. Can I use this clip after I insert the subtitle? It will only be used for presentation material and I will send you a translation. Please reply if possible.
Amazing video
Nice idea to get this knowledge
I could pick out that voice anywhere, which is strange because I watched 15 seasons of the X-files, where she had an American accent.
I have always found the slate-metaphor lacking. The LAD - if it exists - is not a pregriven writing on a slate, it IS the slate.
watched for agent scully
Thanks
Great video. Speaking of language, did Gillian Anderson always have a British accent?
Yes, she was born in the UK, but her family moved to the US when she was a teenager I believe.
Not writing the slate before birth, but a kind of prewritten software - just as all other parts of the body have a prewritten blueprint which guides and limits how they'll take shape from the earliest stages of development.
❤ Beautiful and creative 😅
him nd wittgenstein would have cool dialects
Thanx
I wouldn't say that we know the reason we learn so easy to say our thoughts through language, because the mind, or human brain it is such a complicated thing... Notwithstanding what we may say for sure is that, we're biologically engineered for language use.. Not just due to brain but physiological adjustment related with lungs and our supralaryngeal vocal tract... Anyway have been advances in Genetic theory that could unify language and DNA; i.e the Foxp2, is thought to be a gene related with language, however those areas with tonal languages such as chinese that gene dost appear in population... Think about Language by itself, as an artificial structure that makes our thoughts come out our mind... that's mind-blowing...
Whatta...? Narrated by GILLIAN ANDERSON?? O_O
As an X-Files lover, I'm delighted to find her among my studies!
What? That's how Scully speaks in real life?
She spent her formative years living in England and lives there today. She says that when she's in America she speaks with an American accent because it makes things easier for her (idk what that means), but everywhere else she uses an English accent.
@@retop56 I had no idea; interesting.
THATS WHAT I WAS THINKING!!!! I was like wow this sounds a LOT like Scully but this voice is English that doesn't make sense, then I read this comment and WOW this is so cool
@@retop56 people understand you better if you speak with an accent they are expecting to hear. So it's easier if you can code switch (i.e. switch accents to fit in) when you travel. Not everyone can do it. Some people do it kind of automatically, just pick up the speech patterns of those around them.
I like your vids! Keep going :-)
The problem with this is that 1) there is almost no practical scientific data to prove linguistic theory. You cannot test humans in critical stages of language acquisition because they are so young that they cannot co-operate with you - not even holding still. It would also be completely unethical to have a "control group" - aka children who have been kept in complete isolation, in order to definitively proof exactly what/how much stimulus you need to acquire language.
This leads to 2): For the past 30-40 years theories in the field have run rampant. Sometimes a study indicates or proves that something isn't quite right with your theory. The reaction to that of the linguists who are invested in that pariticular theory is to try to bring a counter-study, to safe that particular branch of linguistics, while others, including Chomsky, modify their theory and move on.
This has led to a confusing amount of theoretical dead-ends, which you still have to learn to understand the now-more-complex-than-ever new theories that built on it.
Your points 1) and 2) are generic and wrong. For instance, you claim :
".. there is almost no practical scientific data to prove linguistic theory."
Um, why should I take your word for it? On the contrary, there are shitloads of scientific data that shines buttloads of light on the processes by which humans acquire language. You make the assumption that children must be kept in isolation to learn something about human language acquisition. This is a completely unwarranted assumption. Etc. etc etc
Yuki Twirly Butts.
I was thinking more along the lines of "when do humans acquire language?". Well, from when we are born and come in contact with language. I see a practical problem in doing studies with 0-3 year-olds.
Observing 0-3 yr olds is not inherently immoral. Parents do it all the time. Much is already understood about language acquisition. I only object to your blanket denial of all that has been learned so far. For instance, the idea that the mind is a tabula rasa has been completely discredited due to the work of scientists.
HaploidCell You really need to think things through before you post and try to disprove your own claims and ideas which, in this case, wouldn't have taken more than a 10 minute Google search. You also need to learn to distinguish between fact and opinion. Your whole argument amounts to nothing else than an argument from ignorance. Why bother posting that?
What, if any, connection is there to the development of ego?
Chomsky was young and handsome in 60th! Why would you show 60th Chomsky older than Locke?! That's not fair!
it was good at first and then at the end i was like Noooooo!
...which has been disproved by more recent research.
I think that's not true. Chomsky's ideas have been challenged, yes, and that's something very good for linguistics, but the basic nativistic foundation of generative grammar has not yet been proved or disproved. For some linguists, as myself, it's still the best explanation for a great lot of pheanomena and a good foundation for theoretical linguistics' research programs.
1:07 Chomsky's hypothesis: there are inbon structures of some kind of L.A.D. device "Universal Grammar; if he's right Locke's blank slate assertion is wrong.
There is an error in the title - Acquisition!
Is this not just the a priori functioning that Kant described?
Well, he was right about a lot, but he's had extreme difficulty proving his "universal grammar" theory. Lot of evidence to the contrary, in fact.
Rex Harrison as Doctor Dolittle.
What does he say about second language acquisition???
Li V Provided it occurs before puberty, a second language may be acquired as easily as a first.
It's a different thing. According to him after the critical period (after 8 or 9) LAD no longer becomes very sensitive to other languages which makes it a bit harder to acquire compared to first language.
You can read Stephen Krashen's works though .he is a specialist in 2nd language acquisition and he has a great theory..
I always thought his theory was more complicated lol
0:54 stewie what are you doing here
I demand those 2 minutes back
من كلاس البطي نرسل تحية 🖖
Sounds like a sort of kantianish account of language learning, which makes sense to me. Both poles of the innatism/empiricism duality do seem incapable of explaining the complex phenomena involving living beings in general, human languages included.
I challenge anyone who things this is how language works to explain the Minimalist Program to me
thinks*
to hell with prescriptivism
Title spelled incorrectly. It is aCquisition
This is also a great argument for God, as Creator of language. Language is relative but it is innate, and it is hardwired into us. As the video says, "our slates have been written on before we were born."
I laughed when Stewie popped up at 0:55.
Since when did Mrs. Anderson get a UK accent?
Language comes alot from faith. A fear!
Be Aware and take care 🌏
Was the picture really necessary to convey such a simple idea?
Num Chompsky, haha... - Actions, things, and their relationships -- does every language deal with these in some common way? Crying means feeding, Mama means comfort, broccoli means spitting, etc -- are there fundamental things every language center must address? How to make breast come, bad smell from diapers go away, I'm bored, sleepy, happy -- how do all human languages construct these relationships and expressions?
0:40, Children don't have a poverty of stimulus, they are always stimulated by the environment. Chomsky ignores the motivating operant of the individual that may constantly seek reinforcement, that's probably the only thing that's innate.
Not true, extreme cases of neglected children clearly show that the quality of stimulus is also a factor
im still confused;( Help me understand
How do we know that animal's don't have sophisticated grammar?
Their languages would have more complexity to them. Additionally their front cortexes aren't developed enough for complex thought either.
Knowledge about one subject doesn’t translate to knowledge about another, Chomsky also showed us!
Great word choices in this video, there's a poverty of stimulus. Wish I could talk like that and not be considered a douche
"Other animals communicate, but they dont have anything approaching the sophisticated grammar of human languages."
I'd say dolphins absolutely 'approach' it. There's ongoing research that is showing just how complex dolphin speech really is.
wait a minute why stewie there?
Come on BBC..."Aquisition"? Seriously?
Anamnesis vs Tabula Rasa - Chomsky Sci-fi Anamnesis
So, basically: Nature, not nurture?...
I think that the clè of leroning is listening we have exemple for the little child ho or her you think they are baby but listening for the air and environment behind him or her then they repete what they listening voice forme me we leroning to speak or spoke or say whit listening and we have difference between the langue mother and the langue acquisition we have sntence in arabe said that leroning a child is like write in ruche. all this leron forme Allah all this informations and may leroning in langue and langues is frome Allah ho sande to me in may way the Galaxie of humaine may Professors frome the primaire inttel the université they are Galaxie of leroning and art of teacheing all may thank frist to Allah then to may Professor in all don't frogart ho I listening to them in difference place beaucause the sceine don't konw the limit it just make us in non hand if problème happen we asked Allah peace in this world.
It's a good thing we don't have processors in our brains, otherwise he'll have to take back his statements of the Singularity.
Um is that Gillian Anderson narrating?
Scully
No tabula Rasa
i have a presentation about this next week 💀
What happens to our (human) special facility with grammar when we go from a hypothetical, "wired" advantage in infancy to the slowness of school-age? Why doesn't Prof Chomsky's advantage of universal, human grammar make easy the learning of English grammar? Where does that hard-wired knowledge go? How does it become "unwired" as seems to be true of US school children? They study for years but only a few learn the difference between a subject and an object. They acquire arithmetic skills, but they never learn how to conjugate "to lay / to lie". After all the years of Prof Chomsky's theory, where is the evidence?
Goedelite Kurt: The hard-wired nature of grammar and syntax is the only explanation we have so far for the
ability of children to express whole sentences years before they will be able to name the parts of speech.
There is no Japanese L.A.D. and there is no Italian L.A.D., but the likelihood of the general one is very high,
as we have observed adopted children from one culture effortlessly acquiring the idiomatic speech of their
new families.
Also, after all these years of Professor Chomsky's theory we still hear talk of "the invention of human
language", as if we all got together one day and verbalized our DNA. "Once the adults were brought up to
speed, they passed the new invention on to their children" is nonsense. To some, we seem to "rise" into our
ability to speak and that is as good a metaphor as any for now. Chomsky slammed into our most brainless
assumptions about language back in the 1960s and still, otherwise intelligent people talk as if language is
knowable in the way that arithmetic is knowable.
who else is here for TOK...
We already knew this since at least the time of the Wise Greeks. I'm tired of academics reinventing the wheel.
I just came here to say that Noam Chomsky’s theory of Language Learning has recently had evidence come out against it. So it might not be true.
would you provide any reference to the evidence? If yes, thank you in advance
@@cupwithhandles it’s only something I heard so I could just be spouting nonsense. There is an article in scientific American that tries to rebut it but I can’t read all of it without a subscription, and another article in the same journal rebuts that article.
@@cupwithhandlesJust check the book “Don’t sleep, there are snakes” by Daniel Everett. He found a language that absolutely challenges universal grammar. Of course the academic elite has tried to ridicule him anyway.
Chomsky is a genius! Now, back to cooking. I hope nothing got burned.
Agent Scully? xD
Who is here from time travels ???
math? 😔
I'm not so sure about that Mr. Chomsky.....Plato is my guide here, symbols and images comes first than the gibber of the apes...
Using Chomsky's name to get viewers
Stewie fans hit like
The pictures are WAY TOO DISTRACTING. It takes away from the message.
fck this online class
In other words, babies eventually learn to use language because they can. Brilliant!
The ease of learning a language is not a scientific concept. How does one measure it? Why does Prof Chomsky's theory require the heavy public exposition on youtube? A scientific theory belongs in scientific journals where it is reviewed and challenged by peers.
Lies And Delusions
Thuy L Then what's your hypothesis, genius?
Humans are good at learning language because we are good at learning everything, genius
Sounds like horse shit to me.