> I have to say that's my initial reaction to Michael S's precis about
> "what's in the head that enables us to speak". What's fundamental to
> the development of language is its role in social relations, not
> what's in our heads. My fondness for late Wittgenstein is definitely
> showing here!
I haven't followed this thread from the beginning, but I think Miles' fundamental objection has to do with the implication that any aspect of language could somehow be part of (what might be called) an "intrinsic human nature," because Miles doesn't believe there is such a thing. Chomsky famously does believe there is such a thing, and I think he's more or less explicitly said that he sees his linguistic work as a confirmation of it. So while Chomsky obviously believes many basic aspects of human life are socialized (including many aspects that conservatives see as "human nature"), he doesn't believe that children need to be socialized into the fundamental structures of grammar. He thinks those structures are intrinsically built into the human mind. I think that notion is what Miles is objecting to.
SA