Philosophy of language 10: Universal grammar

The tenth lecture of the course Philosophy of language. You can find more study materials at sites.google.com/view/filiptvrdy. If you find a mistake, please write an email to [e-mail].

[@nesrinegharbi4212]

Thank you for the useful information

[@jacquelinewolf-xw8cs]

I love your lectures. Thank you for making them available.

[@filiptvrdy]

You are very kind, thank you.

[@mariocampos1969]

I did enjoy this series of lectures a lot, but I found this particular episode disappointing.
After watching it for the first time, I was left with a question: Why would a theory as crude as that described therein deserve any attention of the academic community, even to criticize it? I checked some other sources, being the most important one the lecture on the same subject by John Searle, also a critic to Chomsky. The difference is that Prof. Searle endeavors to explain to the best of his ability the Univesal Grammar theory before stating his objections. In this video, there are 2 or 3 sentences of explanation diluted in 40 minutes of critics.
I did not see in this video a honest effort to explain the reasons for Chomsky to postulate the innativism of certain language capabilities. The language acquition is completely unlike any other kind of learning known. A child aged 2 is capable of grasping by itself, without methodic teaching, an immensely complex language system. There is nothing comparable that you can teach to a kid of such age. Strangely enough, the capacity to learn the language does not increase with time, as it happens with other matters - it decreases. One that did not acquire language when entering teenage will hardly ever be a proficient speaker. Also, the general intelligence of the child does not seem to influence much its ability to acquire the language. The kids, bright or not, all learn to speak about the same age. All this is a strong indication the pure behaviorism is not enough to explain the language acquisition. Of course, that does not prove the Univesal Grammar exists, but shows Chomsky did not postulate it just out of subjective dislike for behaviorism, as the vídeo seems to suggest.
As for Chomsky's views on evolution of linguistic capabilities, the article "The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It and How Did It Evolve" (available online - you may google it) co-authored by Chomsky shows that, at least in 2002, he had much different views from those described in the vídeo. Though the article does not provide a concrete theory for the evolution of human linguistic capabilities, it does fully acknowledge the role the natural selection must have in any such theory and suggest certain general lines of investigation. There is nothing there that suggest the belief in a "linguistic Adam" which got the speech ability from nowhere. I don't know if Chomsky ever had such beliefs, but if he had and they changed over time, I would expect the author of the vídeo to acknowledge that.
Finally, that "digression" on Chomsky's exotic (to state it mildly) political views seems out of place to me. Yes, I belive a couple of months spent in North Corea would cure him of any sympathy for such dictatorial regime. But that has nothing to do with his linguistics. It seems the author could not refrain from fielding against Chomsky every possible argument he could marshal, even the ad hominem ones. I don't recall of author having discussed the political beliefs or character of any other philosopher in this lecture series.
My conclusion is there is a very good reason the philosophy of language is one of the most contested battlefields in current philopsophy. Probably no one has a really compelling theory and the preferences boil down to which liabilities you are willing to carry along with the theory your choice. I don't know who is right, but at least I am no longer stuck in Kruger Dunning effect as I was after seeing this video first.