From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 02:35:25 BST
[msh had said]
> Yes, but thanks to Chomsky, we now understand that language is rooted
> in biology.
[scott responded]
> No we don't. In the first place, Chomsky's deep structure is a debated issue
(at least it was when I was studying linguistics in the 80's).
[msh responds to scott]
> You're right; it's still debated, something like 95-5% in favor of
> deep structure. The UG model has been virtually uncontested in the
> study of linguistics for 45 years; at least that's my understanding.
[arlo adds]
The language center I work for (the Center for Advanced Languauge Proficiency
Education & Research) works closely with the Applied Linguistics program at
Penn State. Chomsky may well be the "American tradition" of linguistics, but
many linguists stateside are starting to pay more attention to Halliday's
"Systemic Functional Linguistics" (who could well be the Australian tradition)
and build on the work of Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory (in such fields as
socio-pragmatics and sociolinguistics). Chomsky's work may be profound, but
there are better, more explanatory theories that are emerging (statement of
opinion :-)). My personal feeling is that one day soon, Chomskian linguistics
will be akin to Newtonian physics. Not discredited, and not a mis-step, but
outdated as better theories (I personally favor Vygotsky's SCT) are developed.
But, I am not expert linguist, and at present there are still many who adhere
to Chomsky's views on linguistics. Just my two cents...
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 04 2005 - 02:40:10 BST