An article on language

[Miranda]

In the New Scientist, there was recently an interesting article written by Christine Kenneally, the author of The First Word. The article is essentially describing a critique of Chomsky's highly popular theory of UG. It also touches on the Sapir-Whorfian topic of how language shapes our thoughts.

You can find the article here, if you don't have the hard copy: Language lessons: You are what you speak - life - 01 June 2010 - New Scientist

 

I'm interested in sparking some discussion. Thoughts? :lol:

[IDMclean]

First off, Greetings Miranda.

Second off, while I respect the efforts of researchers like Evans and Levinson and encourage their work, I have to side with Universal Grammar, UG, at current. The argument for greater diversity than what the UG can describe is highly contingent on the model of language used, and in the field of computable languages as I understand it, UG is exactly isomorphic to the class of Turing Complete languages.

 

While I have yet to read the referenced paper by Evans et all, I know a model for the consistent computation of languages would have to be presented and proven by any alternative to UG before I would champion the alternative. Given their thesis that the diversity of languages can not be described by a common set of rules, I doubt they can present such a model because essentially, their argument reduces to a model-less, noncomputable theory.

 

For those not so concerned with the computation of languages, this may not be an obsticle, but in part, the privilege that UG has enjoyed over the last few decades arises from it's utility in natural language processing and the design of programming languages.

 

Perhaps, I'll feel differently after I've read their paper.

[sigurdV]

Wont pay for reading unless I get paid for writing:)

 

Why dont you make a short summary?