Does Pinker agree with Chomsky?

Does Pinker agree with Chomsky?

Pinker argues that humans are born with an innate capacity for language. He deals sympathetically with Noam Chomsky’s claim that all human language shows evidence of a universal grammar, but dissents from Chomsky’s skepticism that evolutionary theory can explain the human language instinct.

What is Steven Pinker’s theory regarding language acquisition?

Studying children’s language development, Pinker argued that it was neither exclusively a genetic, inbuilt brain function or a result of interaction with the environment. Instead, it was a combination of the two – a ‘language instinct’ that could have evolved via natural selection and emerge through social interaction.

Does Steven Pinker defend Noam Chomsky?

In his emailed response, Pinker defends Chomsky, sort of. None of Chomsky’s critics have created a language-acquisition model that entirely dispenses with “innate structure,” Pinker contends. Here are his comments in full: None of this is new—the same debate has been playing out for fifty years.

Is Chomsky’s Language-acquisition model defended by Pinker?

Pinker has written several acclaimed books on language, notably The Language Instinct (1994) and The Stuff of Thought (2007). In his emailed response, Pinker defends Chomsky, sort of. None of Chomsky’s critics have created a language-acquisition model that entirely dispenses with “innate structure,” Pinker contends.

What are Noam Chomsky’s political views?

Noam Chomsky’s political views attract so much attention that it’s easy to forget he’s a scientist, one of the most influential who ever lived. Beginning in the 1950s, Chomsky contended that all humans possess an innate capacity for language, activated in infancy by minimal environmental stimuli.

Will Noam Chomsky’s innate-language theory endure?

If I may paraphrase: Pinker is saying that Chomsky’s fundamental claim–that language is innate—will endure in one form or another. Chomsky himself recently dismissed criticism of his innate-language theory, telling The New York Times that Tom Wolfe’s attack “hardly rises to the level of meeting a laugh test.”