Language is innate?
- From: Farhad <fvafajoo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:02:34 -0000
Hi,
Chomsky has asserted that Language is innate. In support of his
assertion, he resorts to the universal principles of human language.
Binding is a universal principle. one of the sub-principles of Binding
says that an anaphor must be bound within its binding domain. Now,
let's turn the clock back to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Did
the human language at that time had the said principles? Did their
language followed the Theta criterion? Was there such a principle in
their language that dictated all the NPs, which I doubt if they had,
were case-marked?
If Chomsky or his follwers could prove that their synchronic universal
principles are also diachronically universal, then they might be right
in their assertion. Of course, therehave been some diachronic support
for their theory, but they are all related to languages of no more
than thousands of years tops.
What are your comments?
Farhad
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Language is innate?
- From: John Flynn
- Re: Language is innate?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cloud-Cloth; Oblak-Obleka (Belgo theory)
- Next by Date: Re: Is 'comparative linguistics' just a genocidal 'scientific' joke?
- Previous by thread: Coupling Re: Is 'comparative linguistics' just a genocidal 'scientific' joke?
- Next by thread: Re: Language is innate?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|