Posted: Nov 24, 2010 10:18 am
I am basically a lurker in that very interesting debate, but since I have been quoted on the UG from the point of view of formal language theory, here is a quick summary in order to lift possible misunderstandings.
- From what I know, the main credential of Chomsky's theory of generative grammar is not only that it is the way of modeling computer languages, but also that it is the most parsimonious way for a computer to generate grammatically correct sentences in natural languages. That makes it very seductive for people with an AI frame of mind (cognitive scientists?).
- A lot of confusion seems to come from an unfortunate wording, so I'll bold what I have said again : Chomsky's Universal Grammar is not a grammar in Chomsky's sense (nor probably in anyone's sense). It is a very large, but finite set of possible grammars. So variations observed in existing grammars don't disprove UG. The problem is more with what the existence of UG actually proves, and that Chomsky has got far ahead of himself on the matter seems unquestionable.
- From what I know, the main credential of Chomsky's theory of generative grammar is not only that it is the way of modeling computer languages, but also that it is the most parsimonious way for a computer to generate grammatically correct sentences in natural languages. That makes it very seductive for people with an AI frame of mind (cognitive scientists?).
- A lot of confusion seems to come from an unfortunate wording, so I'll bold what I have said again : Chomsky's Universal Grammar is not a grammar in Chomsky's sense (nor probably in anyone's sense). It is a very large, but finite set of possible grammars. So variations observed in existing grammars don't disprove UG. The problem is more with what the existence of UG actually proves, and that Chomsky has got far ahead of himself on the matter seems unquestionable.