Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Evidence Rebuts Chomsky's Theory of Language Learning 2016-09-13 04:13:47 Post No. 8502900
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Evidence Rebuts Chomsky's Theory of Language Learning 2016-09-13 04:13:47 Post No. 8502900
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: A680FCC2-FE3E-4FA4-A1623C6B4EDB9A79_source.png (472KB, 2458x3630px) Image search:
[Google]
472KB, 2458x3630px
Evidence Rebuts Chomsky's Theory of Language Learning
Anonymous
2016-09-13 04:13:47
Post No. 8502900
[Report]
>Experimental studies confirm that children produce correct question sentences most often with particular wh-words and auxiliary verbs (often those with which they have most experience, such as “What does ...”), while continuing to make errors with question sentences containing other (often less frequent) combinations of wh-words and auxiliary verbs: “Why he can’t come?”
>The main response of universal grammarians to such findings is that children have the competence with grammar but that other factors can impede their performance and thus both hide the true nature of their grammar and get in the way of studying the “pure” grammar posited by Chomsky’s linguistics. Among the factors that mask the underlying grammar, they say, include immature memory, attention and social capacities.
>Yet the Chomskyan interpretation of the children’s behavior is not the only possibility. Memory, attention and social abilities may not mask the true status of grammar; rather they may well be integral to building a language in the first place. For example, a recent study co-authored by one of us (Ibbotson) showed that children’s ability to produce a correct irregular past tense verb—such as “Every day I fly, yesterday I flew” (not “flyed”)—was associated with their ability to inhibit a tempting response that was unrelated to grammar. (For example, to say the word “moon” while looking at a picture of the sun.) Rather than memory, mental analogies, attention and reasoning about social situations getting in the way of children expressing the pure grammar of Chomskyan linguistics, those mental faculties may explain why language develops as it does.
>As with the retreat from the cross-linguistic data and the tool-kit argument, the idea of performance masking competence is also pretty much unfalsifiable. Retreats to this type of claim are common in declining scientific paradigms that lack a strong empirical base—consider, for instance, Freudian psychology and Marxist interpretations of history.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_MB_FEAT
>>
>>8502900
Keep this old leftist cuck on tumblr.
Only nu-males take his nonsense seriously
>>
>As with the retreat from the cross-linguistic data and the tool-kit argument, the idea of performance masking competence is also pretty much unfalsifiable. Retreats to this type of claim are common in declining scientific paradigms that lack a strong empirical base—consider, for instance, Freudian psychology and Marxist interpretations of history.
what did he mean by this
>>
>>8502906
I bet you can't even establish a proper demarcation between the terms you use
>>
>>8502932
The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified. Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation. They thus gave a ‘conventionalist twist’ to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.
The psycho-analytic theories were in a different class. They were simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behaviour which could contradict them. I personally do not doubt that much of what they say is of considerable importance, and may well play its part one day in a psychological science which is testable. But it does mean that those ‘clinical observations’ which analysts naively believe confirm their theory cannot do this any more than the daily confirmations which astrologers find in their practice.
>>
>>8502944
I do when they feature your mom
>>
>>8502900
https://medium.com/@dan.milway/dont-believe-the-rumours-universal-grammar-is-alive-and-well-58c1fbc5608b#.rij3rvxer
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1