>You mean you think Chomsky was wrong that we have an
>innate capacity to produce grammatically structured
>linguistic expressions? What is "essentialist" about
>this idea, btw, and what is "essentialism"?
>
No, no. I'm fine with that. But did he not make a further claim about a
"deep" grammar that is shared by all languages? That's what I'm not
happy with.
Joanna
>The idea
>that that the capacity is innate? Note that Chomsky
>does not make the mistake of saying that it is rigidly
>manifested the same =way (since different languages
>have different grammars) regardless of environmental
>circumstances (because not only doers the grammar you
>use depends on the languages you learn, but some some
>lack the capacity entirely or can have it destroyed
>bad adverse physical or social circumstances? Is
>essential ism the the claim that there is anything
>innate about any aspect our behavior, the denial of
>the claim that wee are absolutely blank slates and all
>of our behavior is due to social conditioning? The
>term is vague in the extreme.
>
>
>>However, I do think that Chomsky was dead wrong in
>>his essentialist
>>linguistic position.
>>
>>
>>