/lit/ - Literature

>>3367974
This is an incredible ignorant viewpoint. While I don't disagree with you completely, there's some things you're totally wrong about.

1. Moderately true. However, no other alternatives haven't worked, either.

2. This is not the 70s. Chomskian syntax is now about a "Language Module", and while I personally believe its posited to keep syntacticians in tenure, it's not "magic, untestable, unfalsifiable, etc." Right now, it's generally accepted by its adherents that it's a more advanced/specific portion of the brain that can and does exist in myriad animal species, and what makes it uniquely human is language's ability to be recursive. (Recursion being absolutely testible, and not yet found in any non-human species).

3. This is the stupidest thing. What shit department are you in without any science in it? Fuck, I spend most of my life in the phonetics lab. I spent 9 hours yesterday running subjects.

Get out of the theoretical fields (syntax/phonology/historical) and into the scientific ones (phonetics/acoustics/socio/psycho/etc).

4. See point 2. Chomsky's a nativist, yes, but not everybody agrees with him. In fact, most of the literature I've read in the last 10 years, especially in acquisition studies, is about generalized learning processes, and not a modular theory at all.

You sound like a first-year undergrad with an intro class under your belt talking about things you don't understand.

I dislike chomsky. The arguments from the Minimalist Program don't sway me and don't have the explanatory adequacy I feel is necesary for a theory of language. But, as I said earlier, all other theories are shit at this to.

Show me a framework that adequately explains English Do-insertion. I would be so happy.
(non-linguists - why do we say "I like apples" but we have to put 'do' in negative constructions "I DO not like apples.")