Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky's theory of Linguistics & Politics (Part 1)

[DerEchteSenf]

Wow a Steven Pinker video on youtube with broken volume. Thank god that almost never happens.

[minzhide]

Somebody needs to get this boy a vowel chart.

[minzhide]

Somebody needs to get this boy a vowel chart. He doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

[expressexpose]

@minzhide

I find your comment insulting.

[mintun122]

không hỉu gì hết!!! =))

[Tippersnore]

The New York Times won't touch Chomsky now and haven't for decades.

[i2v2s]

Chomsky and Pinker are complete morons that have ruined science. Any person that has read Verbal Behavior and not just the ignorant blowhard criticism like all you pawns knows Chomsky and Pinker are wrong. Read A Half Century Of Misunderstanding by David Palmer. You idiots have ruined any understanding of human behavior and need to be stopped. Science over cultural superstition!

[minzhide]

@i2v2s ^_^ Put more simply, any real linguist knows that the data never points to what Nativists believe. Quite the contrary, you have to have the belief first, then ignore all the data that doesn't agree with you... which is nearly all of it.

[minzhide]

@minzhide When variety in language complexity is tested for, it's found, contrary to Chomsky. When variety in language form is tested for, it's found, contrary to Chomsky. When poverty of stimulus occurs it creates greater variety in grammars, not less, contrary to Chomsky. A number of languages, Salishan languages in particular, permit well formed sentences w/o internally specified predicates, contrary to all of formal linguistics, including Chomsky. It's hardly science by any stretch.

[i2v2s]

Yes Data driven analysis. Truth is to be sought in does and doesn't.

Science: On Chomsky's Appraisal of Skinner's Verbal Behavior: A Half Century of Misunderstanding

[owenline]

@HIM0G Your a fag. Just making an observation.

[Entropy56]

Steven destroyed Noam. If you have to ask me how, then you weren't listening.

[Entropy56]

@polymath7 Thou sayest you have no knowing, but methinks you feign ignorance. However, I will do this unto you; I will appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

[polymath7]

@Entropy56 At the risk of straining your patience, I'm afraid I still didn't quite make that out.

I feign no ignorance, I swear, but I do hope you'll not hesitate to unmask my knowledge for fear of making a fool of me.

While your forbearance is admirable, my curiosity of the truth gets the better of my pride, and so I grant you full dispensation to make me look like an ass, should frankness and honesty require it.

I'll try to listen still harder.

[Dymdez]

I bet if Chomsky was there, Pinker would look really dumb...

[ehudnold9]

you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this

comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even steven pinker is jewish d

[Tyrfingr]

@ehudnold9 Try for once to consider people to be people without putting them into categories. If we play that childish and silly game, then we could easily say that the gentiles have given the jews refuge in lack of a country of their own, and thereby providing them with the possibility to pursue careers and ability to inquire into the various fields. But that would be a silly thing to say that would attempt to make us out to be exclusionary, it's just childish.

[fraserdaly]

Pinker says that from the Enlightenment through to the Chomskyian revolution, the notion of an innate human nature had largely been dormant among intellectuals, who commonly regarded the blank slate view as scientifically more credible and politically more enlightened. While perhaps it is fair to look to the Enlightenment as the modern source of this view, much philosophy of mind, and most political philosophy, of this era emphasized that humans were fundamentally rational.

[2LegHumanist]

one of many you tube videos that is barely audible *sigh*

[1980Jonno]

PLEASE EVERYONE: READ ROY HARRIS AND YOU WILL SOON REALISE THE ABSOLUTE NONSENSE PEDDLED BY CHOMSKY, PINKER AND THE LIKES.

[LearnerChess]

The guy is talking about how he admires Chomsky's work, while most of the comments here are nothing more than knit-picking the guy to pieces.

[pjhirsch]

Pinker needs a new permanent. Hint: less curling iron this time.

[MikeRoePhonicsMusic]

Uhhhhhhhhh....

[mistersmith6000]

Universal Grammar,given up in the 70s, Behavourism trashed in '59 by Chomsky, language teachers floundering with nothing for 50 years except woolly 'communicative BS' -the mental universal skeleton of language does not exist , never has. never has been proved? proven? what rule? Do these guys even learn second languages as adults?

[amaxamon]

I find it ironic that a professor whose specialty is language can't get a sentence out without constant "ahs" "ums" and "buts"....!

[heller22joseph]

@amaxamon I don't at all.

[letsmakeapoint]

@amaxamon Noam does this extraordinarily well. But a persons ability to speak has nothing to do with how right they are. Some people, like me, just are incapable of verbal communication, but we can still dissect language.

[Alexdurrant7]

@amaxamon What's the problem? A person's intellectual ability is not reflected by their ability to express their ideas.

[mightyafrowhitey]

into "run" in the first place?

[SPKaa]

@mightyafrowhitey you have the perfect nick for this vid.

[vigilverse2]

pinker's main argument against chomsky regards morphology, but the main focus of chomsky's philosophy is syntax...thus in the end a moot point?

[mightyafrowhitey]

@vigilverse2 not knowing much about linguistics myself, couldn't ' the phonetic changes for different parts of speech, at least in the english language be explained by the different langues the english language has borrowed from having different rules for morphology. I know that sounds very awkard but I couldn't think of any more eloquent way to pose the question lol. and secodnly, if Chomsky is indeed correct in the "rin, ran, had run" example, what reason would there be for changing "rin"

[vigilverse2]

@mightyafrowhitey i think i know what you meant, and my opinion is that the languages that english borrowed from have incredibly less ambiguity than english, so i believe that at some point (maybe during old english years) rin was used instead and the phonology changed at some point for some reason. second, the rin ran run thing is not like a debate between the two guys, its just an example pinker is trying to use as a devils advocate but what im saying is that its moot cus its not syntax

[michaelcjordan]

@kenmacmillan And America isn't a socialist economy, I suggest you research what socialism is (and it's not regulation/not even close).

[michaelcjordan]

@kenmacmillan Actually minimum wage was created in 1938. What the hell are you talking about.

[rxvp9000]

Can someone explain to me the relationship between Chomsky and academia? What I mean more specifically is that academics/intellectuals tend to be more progressive/leftist and anti-individualistic, and Chomsky seems to be one of them but also displays individualistic tendencies in thought.

[KenMacMillan]

@rxvp9000 His "libertarian socialism" is pure marxism.

[idSuperego]

"Libertarianism" was used by anarchists way before right-wing groups hijacked it

[mtb416]

@idSuperego Adopting an ideology is not tantamount to hijacking something. Either way, all ideologies have been "hijacked" by extreme interpretations, not just libertarianism. And if anarchists employed libertarianism to try and attain their goal are they still not just employing Anarchy? Or do the means change the ends? If the end is not anarchy than anarchists they are not.

[idSuperego]

@mtb416 If I understand you correctly, you mean it doesn't matter who uses the term, as long as they reach the same goal? If so, the problem is that anarchists and new libertarians have VERY different goals. For one, new libertarians support the existence of a state - a small one, albeit, but thats irrelevant - while anarchists do not. Also, new libertarians believe in capitalism as the most efficient system for growth and personal freedom, whereas 99% of anarchists oppose this.

[KenMacMillan]

I know Chomskey is a libertarian socialist but it still makes me cringe to hear him called a libertarian.

[joshplayin111]

@KenMacMillan He said "libertarianism and anarchism" which is pretty apt

[KenMacMillan]

@joshplayin111 Yeah, they're similar but the idea of eliminating government & giving control to the unions doesn't appeal to me.

[joshplayin111]

@KenMacMillan oh, i think i misunderstood you, i meant i thought steven was probably thinking "libertarian socialist" and "anarcho-syndicalist" at the same time and said the first word of each to describe noam.

[KenMacMillan]

@joshplayin111 I'm a different type of libertarian than chomskey, the self proclaimed libertarian socialist so to hear him called libertarian gets under my skin. That's all I meant.

[mistermoen]

@KenMacMillan

Yeah, that level of democracy; people actually having control over their own lives. That is awfully unappealing.

[KenMacMillan]

@mistermoen Where's the democracy? Who would you vote for, your union leader?

[mistermoen]

@KenMacMillan

Yes. Union is almost as vague a term as government. Of course trade unions, such as those in the automobile industry, no longer represent the will of the workers, but to think that people should be forced to be a part of a corporate decision making system, in which only the "owners," of the company make decisions is tyranny.

[KenMacMillan]

@mistermoen What you're talking about is stealing a company from its rightful owners & dividing the spoils among the thieves. If you wanted to start a company where everyone who works there has an equal share in ownership then just do it. You'll have to justify why some idiot who can't do anything but sweep the floor is getting the same money as someone who is acting as the company's president. That sweeper would have to vote on high level decisions that he's probably incapable of understanding.

[KenMacMillan]

Communism has already failed on multiple occasions, let it go already.

[mistermoen]

@KenMacMillan

You are assuming a union situation to work in such a way that I wouldn't support either. You are also supporting a system which forces the majority to submit to the decisions of a very small minority. That isn't democracy. They are not the "rightful owners," in every sense. They don't own the workers. Most of the things you referred to I didn't even say, and are terrible assumptions. You should find a good defense of unions somewhere, because you care enough to rant a bunch of

[KenMacMillan]

@mistermoen Who said anything about owning workers? No, I'm supporting a system that offers me money for services rendered. If someone starts a company he or she is the "rightful owner" by definition. You're claiming that you are entitled to ownership in something that you had absolutely no hand in designing, building, or funding. It's the same as saying that if your neighbor pays you to cut his grass, then you're entitled to part ownership of his house. It's downright ridiculous.

[mistermoen]

@KenMacMillan

randian anti-unionism, you should at least see a real argument for unions. That would fill too many youtube comments. One sentence answers which beg the question might seem convincing, but they really suck.

[KenMacMillan]

@mistermoen The fact that unions have destroyed the industrial base of the country is enough proof for me that they need to disappear.

[KAPWC4EVR]

@KenMacMillan Uions did not shut down plants and send jobs to mexico. CEO's did. Germany has strong labor unions and there car industry is doing fine. The Japanese and the Koreans have strong welfare states that provide free healthcare to everyone. Don't you realize that without unions or worker collectives there would be no overtime pay, no vacations, no sick leave, no 40 hour week, no minimum wage, no ban on child labor, no safety requirements at all.

[KenMacMillan]

@KAPWC4EVR You can't honestly believe that the decision to shut down a multimillion dollar factory and move it overseas is as simple as the CEO did it. Every socialist economy in the world, including Germany, Japan, & the United States is in a state of decline. The world is on the edge of the worst depression in history thanks to socialist planning and over regulation, regulations written by unions and socialist think tanks and turned in to politicians who are bought & paid for, think obamacare.

[KenMacMillan]

The 40hr work week and the minimum wage were started by Henry Ford who hated unions with a passion and believed in industrial paternalism where the company takes care of its employees. Look it up, it's called welfare capitalism. American car companies are doing great... in China where people can't get enough of them. How do foreign car factories survive in America? They avoid the UAW like the plague. They do it for less than $2000.00 in labor per car.

[polymath7]

@KenMacMillan You're a fool. Would you like a thoroughgoing intellectual humiliation? Because a scarcely sentient ape like you makes me positively itch to dispense it, against my better nature.

[impCaesarAvg]

When I want to learn more about language and cognition, I rin to Pinker, not Chomsky.

[defdeezy]

@impCaesarAvg that's because you're not a linguist : )

[impCaesarAvg]

@defdeezy In this interview, Steve pank Noam.

[baystategal]

@impCaesarAvg Funny and clever! That rated an out-loud laugh.

[AttilatheMike]

I like what he's saying...but god I wish some of these academics would learn to deliver their thinking a little better. He talks of Chomsky's application of ideas as abstract. Pinker's whole life seems pretty abstract, in my view this is lovely to listen to but useless if it makes no tangible change in the real world.

[Diosibundo]

Wait.... what?

The child wouldn't know the underlying form of ran is "rin"? That's the whole point of Chomsky's work, the computational system of language is innate, the child DOESN'T need to know it, he just hears the verb used and instantly assimilates it, even if he doesn't know why.

Come on, that's basic 101 Chomsky. This Pinker's a goof Pop Linguist.

[greenshadow9]

@Diosibundo

Your criticism of Pinker is based on ignorance. If you had read any of his work, you would know that he understands Chomsky perfectly; his dispute here is whether there is sufficient evidence for "rin" as an underlying form, not whether underlying forms exist. And it seems reasonable to ask how a child would identify "rin" as an underlying form for "run" if it never hears it spoken. Analogy with "ring" is hardly ironclad evidence for an unattested UR.

[Diosibundo]

@greenshadow9

I thought my criticism was based on this particular clip... but my conclusion that he's a goofy pop star is definitely based on ignorance... and maybe his hairdo.

Still, the point is not if there is sufficient evidence for a "innate hypothesis" (whatever that is), the point is, what is the alternative? That there is a "platonic form" of the English language and the kid just memorizes it the same way we memorize the pledge of allegiance?

[greenshadow9]

@Diosibundo

No arguments about the hair. But Pinker has actually written entire books defending the innate nature not only of language, but of many other aspects of human behavior. He is a thorough Chomskian. Here he's just objecting to certain particulars of Chomsky's work, which while groundbreaking has not been without its flaws.

Check out Pinker's work sometime. You might be surprised how much you like him.

[Diosibundo]

@greenshadow9

Actually, other people have suggested that to me. Which book?

[greenshadow9]

@Diosibundo

In the Language Instinct he go overs the basic arguments for the innateness of language. It's an interesting read even if you've already studied some modern theoretical linguistics, but still accessible to the general educated public. The purpose of the Blank Slate is much broader. He makes a strong case for the importance of biology in human culture and behavior. Reading it got me interested in evolutionary psychology, which explains the mind as a biological adaptation.

[ParkLeeNa]

@greenshadow9 tabula rasa

[00000gerat]

@Diosibundo and this a goof comment. it has to do with the connection of the abstract perfect feature when attached to a root form of the verb, and which of the phonetic forms gets mapped to it. pinker is talking about the theory where there is both rule-based constructions and also replacement of a lexical gap by another root (a singular phonetic storage of a word v. 2 entries which are near-synonymous). some models like DM don't think this happens until later anyway; it is just another theory.

[bobloblawrobslawblog]

@Diosibundo So I presume you've failed to read The Language Instinct or have misunderstood the merits of Pinker and his relationship with Chomsky. The argument that Pinker is making is one you're simply repeating in your comment: "the child doesn't need to know it, he just hears the verb used and instantly assimilates it, even if he doesn't know why." Yep, Pinker argues for that: Language is innate, but no child consciously realizes that "ran" is processed as "rin." Chomsky thinks they do

[the1musiclad]

@bobloblawrobslawblog - Does Chomsky ever argue, implicitly or explicitly, that a child 'consciously' realizes that 'ran' is processed as 'rin'? Deep structure is at more of a subconscious level, surely? That's the whole point.

[minzhide]

@the1musiclad He doesn't really argue at all. If you've ever tried talking to him about anything you'd realize that his tactics are more akin to bullying when he thinks he can, and simply disengaging from the subject (often by simply claiming that whatever you're saying is 'irrelevant') when he doesn't.

[the1musiclad]

@minzhide - I agree. I've seen what he's like in a discussion.

[intestinomedicino]

@Diosibundo People like Steven Pinker are not against Chomsky's idea rather they embrace them but take them a little further until someone else pick it up where they left it, this is the very essence and beauty of science, they are the ones testing his ideas and theories and improving them by designing studies and collecting data. Just like Einstein that was against many of the things that his own equations probe to exists (black holes and quantum physics).

[vanderbilt887]

One can say in line of Chomsky's own criticism of the tabula rasa aproach to language acquisition that Chomsky's approach to the evolution of the language-organ is "complete mysticism": how does one account for the development of such a highly designed and complex machinery if it isn't an evolutionary adaptation?

[etiennealive]

@vanderbilt887 I think the problem lies within our self centrisism and viewing humans as an endproduct, instead of a rapid evolving species who has developed special tools and is still developing them.

Language is a tool to, to be able to describe the surrounding information. And the amount of perceivable information is growing. aswell the quantity, the quality and complexity.

[LITTLER0CKAR]

pinker is my man. he does seem a little sleepy here.... lots of speaking engagements he's had the last few....

[csc302]

Being a psychologist, Mr. Pinker must know that there is a deep fuzziness in human thought, perhaps completely separate from our limited ability to reason with logic. Without it, we would be very impoverished creatures indeed, much less able to make decisions and be creative. "How does a child know" that on some level language conforms to a fundamental but non-intuitive regularity? Maybe it doesn't have to "know" that consciously, and it is handled with fuzzy reasoning, which works well enough.