well, you were responding to Michael Smith who was referring to actually hanging around children. He was referencing research in precisely that way: as an empirical endeavor.
As Kenneally points out, Chomsky's after a formal, mathematical (IIRC that's her word), logical system and, as the Harper's article and Kenneally's book point out, Chomsky didn't think linguistic fieldwork mattered to his claims. He poo'd poo'd anyone who bothered. He has since changed his mind on that from what I gather.
In regard to your earlier question: "It obviously doesn't refer to the social structures that must exist for any language to be used and passed from generation to generation; although those structures are fundamental to the actual existence of language, they exist "outside" our heads. So--what is "in our heads" that enables us to speak?"
She talks about this as not the study of the origins of language, but as the study of the origins of a language suite. This suite includes, at least, all the things encompassed in each of the chapter titles. And the chapter titles are important clues to understanding her. The first section is called: Language is not a Thing (VERY important!)
The chapter titles illustrate components of a language suite: -- you have something to talk about -- you have words -- you have gestures -- you have structure -- you have speech -- you have a human brain -- your genes have human mutations
But the language suite is not enough, thus you have chapters on evolution -- about species AND about cultures (and what she means by that)
I know Doss won't read the book =p, but the syntax question comes up over and over again. There is no simple answer because the issue has to do with this suite of capacities all over which are components of human communication. She discusses syntax under the language suite component: structure.
(aside: the chapter on the brain is fascinating in its discussion of a rare group of people who, for whatever reason have to have their left or right brain removed. no matter which side is removed, all these people are able to speak again. IIRC, she goes on to talk about the importance of the cerebellum as a kind of manager that smooths things out. They've done research for example on the act of reaching for a cup. You can get all the sequence of movements right required to reach for a cup, but it won't be a smooth undertaking if the cerebellum doesn't function correctly. (I think I"ve remembered that correctly) IT's not enough to have the ability to have capacity for the sequencing, without the smoothing out capacities of the cerebellum. Which is kind of the deal with speech.
>
"let's be civil and nice, but not to the point of obeying the rules of debate as defined by liberal blackmail (in which, discomfort caused by a challenge is seen as some vague form of harassment)."
-- Dwayne Monroe, 11/19/08
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws