What are the most convincing and most popular arguments against the Innateness Hypothesis of Universal Grammar or Universal Grammar as described by Chomsky?
|
|
Obviously there is much written on this topic. A good place to start reading might be Evans & Levinson's (2009) article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences which is accompanied by responses. See The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science by Nicholas Evans and Stephen C. Levinson. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
Here is an essay you can find interesting: http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/CounterChomsky.htm |
||||
|
||||
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer: please explain why you're recommending it as a solution. Answers that don't explain anything will be deleted. See Good Subjective, Bad Subjective for more information. |
||||
|
You may be interested in A Thousand Plateaus, a book Felix Guattari co-authored with Gilles Deleuze, in which they discuss Chomskyian linguistics in some depth and with a great deal of care. Some caution may be warranted: they may seem to take Chomsky rather lightly, and their position may appear to be antithetically opposed in many ways -- you will find them, for instance, arguing against 'tree-based' sentence analysis, promoting in its stead a kind of 'an-hierarchical' or 'rhizomatic' language analysis emphasizing the pragmatic and collective aspects of discourse. However, a careful reading of this work will find a unique encounter with Chomsky's linguistics that is well worth the time to unpack. They also offer a detailed reading of the Labov-Chomsky debate, which may be of some interest in this context. |
||||
|
|