The concept of universal grammar not only leads to an innovative understanding of linguistics, ideas, philosophy, and history, but also to an understanding of human nature, value of existence, and the distinction between humans and other living things.
I don't see that the fact that, according to Prof Chomsky, all languages have noun parts and verb parts means that the principle is "wired" into the brain as a part of a set of principles, a universal grammar. Certainly, if any thought or communication, is to be meaningful, it must have a declared or implied subject and an activity. That is not a principle of biology; it is a principle of thought. That human beings can think, have thoughts, about something and about an activity, can be considered equivalent to stating that humans can have a language. That these thoughts may be "new" in the sense that they are not simply selected from a storage of thoughts in a human pre-wired brain containing a collection of them to me seems related to the fact that experiences are new, especially in early life, and they become stored in the memory and utilized as the elements of thought. "Hmmph! Now what do think of that?" Thinking of that, an experience in the external world is what generates linguistic consequences. I believe that humans simply think more deeply about their experiences and have an intelligent ability to find connections among them. That is where language originates, rather than in a special, pre-wired part of the brain. It is the total ability of the human to consider experiences and relate them that produces language. Chomsky says we generate language in order to think. I believe that our ability to think is what produces language.
www.youtube.com/@crowncollegeonline1223 *Re 'open' & 'closed' classes:* What *defines* those concepts for some human language is then probably ALSO LEARNED by said Language Acquisition Device. And as learning-time progresses, ever-better concluded/ascertained. Here is where the concept "Artificial Intelligence" might be very appropriate. As in ARTIFICIAL intelligence before becoming HUMAN intelligence. (This is a VERY CRUDE way of perceiving it!) In computers this form of "AI" might be likened to a language-related^ booting program (usually stored in ROM) that in humans creates-&-tunes-&-refines a set of algorithms for the relevant human language. Re ^: LANGUAGE-related because other such booting programs might exist (for instance for vision/hearing/taste/&c). With most-or-all of them being "brought online" AFTER the "INITIAL Program Loader", which "starts up" the entity in its whole as a HUMAN. (If the-above sounds as if I make little difference between "Natural" & "Artificial", then you understand me correctly.)
www.youtube.com/@crowncollegeonline1223 *Re "not responding to correction":* this raises the question "Is the so-called 'correction' relevant to whatever logic that the child is using?". A possible (maybe even probable) answer is that the 'correction' is indeed NOT relevant to the CHILD'S logic. AND also quite possibly--even probably--that the 'correction' is not logical at all! m If one dislikes the use of the word/concept 'logic(al)', then feel free to replace it with 'consistent'. Consider this: why should a child's version of a language be as INconsistent as most-any real-life language typically is? Chomsky: *1*, Human languages: *0*.
Why does a theory that is a scientific one require so much exposition on youtube or on other lay publications? Usually, a scientist publishes his work in an appropriate journal for publications in his field and waits for his peers to review his work and offer criticisms, supportive or adverse. In the case of Prof. Chomsky's "universal grammar", it is certainly not a case of a discovery that could save lives and is being ignored by those who could bring its benefits to humankind.
One of the reasons is that it’s complicated and the other is that the theory cemented itself in the field of linguistics so that contradicting research is viewed with beyond harsh criticism even when it’s worth consideration. Look at the Piraha language for instance… researchers haven’t found a good example of recursion present but of course it’s not the only language to pose challenges to UG. It’s controversial to do so and ppl love controversy but do we really think there are linguistic universals? lol
I'm a bit late, but I hope there's a strong rhetorical component in this question. Universal grammar isn't scientific. That there are language universals is supported by a lot of science, but Chomsky's view of what grammar actually is is not.
The concept of universal grammar not only leads to an innovative understanding of linguistics, ideas, philosophy, and history, but also to an understanding of human nature, value of existence, and the distinction between humans and other living things.
Woah! Did not expect the religious commentary but I liked the rest of the video quite a bit.
great.... Very helpful for me thanku so much my teacher
It is a very useful video,I learned many things .Thank you
I don't see that the fact that, according to Prof Chomsky, all languages have noun parts and verb parts means that the principle is "wired" into the brain as a part of a set of principles, a universal grammar. Certainly, if any thought or communication, is to be meaningful, it must have a declared or implied subject and an activity. That is not a principle of biology; it is a principle of thought. That human beings can think, have thoughts, about something and about an activity, can be considered equivalent to stating that humans can have a language. That these thoughts may be "new" in the sense that they are not simply selected from a storage of thoughts in a human pre-wired brain containing a collection of them to me seems related to the fact that experiences are new, especially in early life, and they become stored in the memory and utilized as the elements of thought. "Hmmph! Now what do think of that?" Thinking of that, an experience in the external world is what generates linguistic consequences. I believe that humans simply think more deeply about their experiences and have an intelligent ability to find connections among them. That is where language originates, rather than in a special, pre-wired part of the brain. It is the total ability of the human to consider experiences and relate them that produces language. Chomsky says we generate language in order to think. I believe that our ability to think is what produces language.
www.youtube.com/@crowncollegeonline1223 *Re 'open' & 'closed' classes:* What *defines* those concepts for some human language is then probably ALSO LEARNED by said Language Acquisition Device. And as learning-time progresses, ever-better concluded/ascertained.
Here is where the concept "Artificial Intelligence" might be very appropriate. As in ARTIFICIAL intelligence before becoming HUMAN intelligence. (This is a VERY CRUDE way of perceiving it!) In computers this form of "AI" might be likened to a language-related^ booting program (usually stored in ROM) that in humans creates-&-tunes-&-refines a set of algorithms for the relevant human language.
Re ^: LANGUAGE-related because other such booting programs might exist (for instance for vision/hearing/taste/&c). With most-or-all of them being "brought online" AFTER the "INITIAL Program Loader", which "starts up" the entity in its whole as a HUMAN.
(If the-above sounds as if I make little difference between "Natural" & "Artificial", then you understand me correctly.)
It was so helpful, thank you
www.youtube.com/@crowncollegeonline1223 *Re "not responding to correction":* this raises the question "Is the so-called 'correction' relevant to whatever logic that the child is using?". A possible (maybe even probable) answer is that the 'correction' is indeed NOT relevant to the CHILD'S logic. AND also quite possibly--even probably--that the 'correction' is not logical at all! m If one dislikes the use of the word/concept 'logic(al)', then feel free to replace it with 'consistent'. Consider this: why should a child's version of a language be as INconsistent as most-any real-life language typically is?
Chomsky: *1*, Human languages: *0*.
the best video ever that explains the theory super effectively :)
Why does a theory that is a scientific one require so much exposition on youtube or on other lay publications? Usually, a scientist publishes his work in an appropriate journal for publications in his field and waits for his peers to review his work and offer criticisms, supportive or adverse. In the case of Prof. Chomsky's "universal grammar", it is certainly not a case of a discovery that could save lives and is being ignored by those who could bring its benefits to humankind.
One of the reasons is that it’s complicated and the other is that the theory cemented itself in the field of linguistics so that contradicting research is viewed with beyond harsh criticism even when it’s worth consideration. Look at the Piraha language for instance… researchers haven’t found a good example of recursion present but of course it’s not the only language to pose challenges to UG. It’s controversial to do so and ppl love controversy but do we really think there are linguistic universals? lol
I'm a bit late, but I hope there's a strong rhetorical component in this question. Universal grammar isn't scientific. That there are language universals is supported by a lot of science, but Chomsky's view of what grammar actually is is not.
kapoya aning theories oy
did he named God? is he beliver?