>>14415379>Chomsky argued that the human brain contains a limited set of constraints for organizing language.Based on what? Did he observe the human brain? Or better yet, the human mind? Just how could he assume something like that?
>This implies in turn that all languages have a common structural basis: the set of rules known as "universal grammar".Wow. So after just assuming that this exists based on... his hunch, he then says THEREFORE this means that all langs have a comm structural basis. A so called 'universal grammar'. Just wow...
Let me rephrase this: he says that there must be a limited set of constrains on smtgh. So far so good, why not, after all everything that exists must have some fundamental components which therefore implies a limited (finite many) configurations. Although the mind isn't matter, but anyway. But to say that this means that all existing human langs must therefore share these very same constraints is crazy.
Let me show this through an e.g.: let's say there's only a 100 different languages on this planet (or lang families, whatev). Let's say they all have a completely different structural basis. So even if the possible number of configurations of speakable (for humans ofc) langs would be say... 200, it'd still allow all langs to have a different structure. Not that it needs much arguing that langs irl are pretty different at times, or the fact that they had evolved separately many times, as such preventing them from sharing a common structural basis. But in Chomsky's pseudoscientific approach, a common basis somehow just... came to be?! Despite all evidence to the contrary?
