Re: MD Access to Quality

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 03:38:09 BST

  • Next message: Dan Glover: "RE: MD Lila's Child - A question for Dan Glover"

    Hi Arlo,

    Thanks for your two cents. It sounds like you are in a position to
    know better than I, so I defer to your experience.

    I'd like to know what you think of the article in the link I sent to
    Scott. I found it interesting, and particularly liked the sand dune
    analogy. I was also pleased to see the work was being done at one of
    my alma maters, the University of Arizona. Man did we have some
    parties in Tucson, circa 1977-79!

    Thanks again,
    Mark

    On 3 May 2005 at 21:35, Arlo J. Bensinger wrote:

    [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    outdated as better theories (I personally favor Vygotsky's SCT) are developed.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
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
    why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
    understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

    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 - 03:39:21 BST