Langacker > Chomsky

[Gość: kidslayer]

your opinion?

[norge75]

> your opinion?

well, Chomsky is a great revolutionary linguist; I doubt you can call Langacker
one. Langacker's theories cannot be really verified. It's not really
linguisticts to me; I guess it's more like poetry.

[Gość: kidslayer]

well, if we applied Popper's methodology - yes.

But -at the same time- how can you really say Langacker's theory is unverifiable if it was postulated on
the basis of real-language-usage observation. I mean, it accounted for numbers of seemingly infelicit
language expressions. Then, he did put forth a plausible definition of meaning (this part of Langacker's
theory is not that innovative, though).

Last but not least he suggested and proved the fact that grammatical structures carry meaning.

How about family resemblance, polysemy?

Space grammar!

[norge75]

> well, if we applied Popper's methodology - yes.
>
> But -at the same time- how can you really say Langacker's theory is
unverifiabl
> e if it was postulated on
> the basis of real-language-usage observation.

it's good that it was postulated on any basis. however, as far as i know,
Langacker's theory rejects langauage/grammar modularity, which is completely at
odds with medical or genetic findings (c.f. the Down's syndrome, the Williams'
syndrome, the critical period for first language acquisition etc.).
Furthermore, does it say anything interesting about language acquisition?

I mean, it accounted for numbers
> of seemingly infelicit
> language expressions. Then, he did put forth a plausible definition of
meaning
> (this part of Langacker's
> theory is not that innovative, though).
>
> Last but not least he suggested and proved the fact that grammatical
structures
> carry meaning.

I've always thought that people have always thought that it is the case.


> How about family resemblance, polysemy?
>
> Space grammar!

Well, fair enough, cognitive linguists have explored some areas of language, I
agree. But can you build your whole grammar on family resemblence or polysemy?
You can't explain all grammatical facts with it. Language is much more complex.
Can a space grammar have a real predictive power? Isn't it a mere description?
Can you explain why, for example, Polish is not like Dutch, and why Dutch is
not like Norwegian?

In this respect, generative linguistics is much more powerful, as it aims at
both descriptive *and* explanatory adequacy. Moreover, bear in mind the huge
number of languages that have been successfuly investigated within the
generative framework.

greetings,

[norge75]

I forgot to recommend a very good book by Lyle Jenkins, "Biolinguistics:
Exploring the Biology of Language," published by Cambridge University Press in
2000.

[Gość: erwas]

norge75 napisał:

> I forgot to recommend a very good book by Lyle Jenkins, "Biolinguistics:
> Exploring the Biology of Language," published by Cambridge University Press
in
> 2000.

yeah, right, whatever...
I only know ol'chom the bumper-sticker that gets you rear-ended on the highways
of America by the "brainwashed under freedom". anarchist, libertanian
socialist, left (anti)-Zionist, now that US "unilateral use of power" threatens
to become the only credible authority on Earth, featuring vindictivness and
irrationality as the main aspect of the national persona it projects, Chomsky
needs to be heard too.
erwas

[chickenshorts]

Gość portalu: erwas napisał(a):

> norge75 napisał:
>
> > I forgot to recommend a very good book by Lyle Jenkins, "Biolinguistics:
> > Exploring the Biology of Language," published by Cambridge University Pres
> s
> in
> > 2000.
>
> yeah, right, whatever...
> I only know ol'chom the bumper-sticker that gets you rear-ended on the
highways
>
> of America by the "brainwashed under freedom". anarchist, libertanian
> socialist, left (anti)-Zionist, now that US "unilateral use of power"
threatens
>
> to become the only credible authority on Earth, featuring vindictivness and
> irrationality as the main aspect of the national persona it projects, Chomsky
> needs to be heard too.
> erwas

My wife's sticker says: "I' (then the heart) Pinker"...
When asked, she said it was...about tongue, somemthing linguistic... Could
anyone explain to me what could all that mean? Should I worry?

[tynski]

>
> My wife's sticker says: "I' (then the heart) Pinker"...
> When asked, she said it was...about tongue, somemthing
linguistic... Could
> anyone explain to me what could all that mean? Should I
worry?

You might worry should she mean Steven Pinker.

[chickenshorts]

tynski napisała:

>
> >
> > My wife's sticker says: "I' (then the heart) Pinker"...
> > When asked, she said it was...about tongue, somemthing
> linguistic... Could
> > anyone explain to me what could all that mean? Should I
> worry?
>
> You might worry should she mean Steven Pinker.<


hey, are you telling me you sympatize with her or (hopefully... should you
be a female) with me?

(...of course ole' 'Pinky' is Steven, even I know that...)

[tynski]

Gallivanting better half, sappy about "singular their"?
Well, his reputation reached the bumper level...but he is
about fifty...
No, it can't be, although woman's passion brings
confusion into society, and passion begets infinite
possibilities.
Watch out.

[norge75]

> I forgot to recommend a very good book by Lyle Jenkins, "Biolinguistics:
> Exploring the Biology of Language," published by Cambridge University Press
in
> 2000.

you can read the whole book online at:

shop.ebrary.com/Top?URL=%2Fpdfsubmit%2FReceived%2Fsubmit%2FCambridge_Press%
2F10000007%2F10000100%2F2002%2F5%2F10%2F11%
2F2000849.pdf&cobrandName=shop&f00=text&frm=smp.x&hitsPerPage=20&id=2000849&layo
ut=document&p00=Biolinguistics&sch=%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0Search%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0

Actually, www.ebrary.com is a very useful website.

best,