There was a very interesting article today in the Chicago Tribune about Daniel Everett, a professor at Illinois State University (hardly a heavy-hitting university), finding some evidence to refute Chomsky's theory that there are fundamental characteristics that underlie all human languages. Everett has studied a tiny tribe in the Amazon (the Piraha) for 30 years and has found that they have no recursive devices, which are fundamental to Chomsky's theory. Recursion allows humans to link various parts of our experience; for example, it allows you to direct others to not just any cat, but to the one that chased the rat. The word "that" is an example of what linguists call a recursive device. Having studied the language this long, Everett hasn't found any such words in their language, thus causing lots of linguistic discussions in academia!

Thoughts?

AIUI, it's that Everett claims that Pirahã has no recursive embedding. The response by Nevins, Pesetsky & Rodriguez, and Everett's response to the reponse, are available on Linguzz. I haven't read them yet but I plan to.

It seems to me that the problem is that Everett is one of the few linguists who has studied this language. Until we have more research, we really only have his word to go on.

Here's another opinion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

Those are wonderful links, Goofy...and so much to read! I've been spending far too much time trying to sift through everything, and yet my lack of knowledge in linguistics is getting in the way.

Goofy, as to your comment, Liberman on Language Log said this: "If some human languages (and Pirahã is not the only candidate) lack recursion, then it's hard to see how recursion could be the defining characteristic of human language." If Pirahã is not the only candidate, I am not even sure why this is in dispute. It does sound to me as though Chomsky's theory is in question, though I probably have no idea what I am talking about!

One new word I've found throughout this is "parataxis," meaning the placing together of sentences, clauses, or phrases without a conjunctive word or words. Since "epistaxis" means a nosebleed, it sounds like a medical word to me. But what do I know?

Well, in this quotation from Language Log, I actually thought the minimalist program started in 2000: "(Given that the theory in question (that human language in the narrow sense is only recursion) was first proposed in 2000, and immediately called into question by Pinker and Jackendoff among others, the modifier 'long-established' is a bit of a stretch here. 'Universal grammar' is a term with a longer and broader history -- but this post is not yet another critique of linguistic journalism...)"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I can't find that quote, but I found this: "dating only to 2002 in its current form -- and it has never been universally accepted, with prominent rebuttals from Ray Jackendoff and Steven Pinker, among others"

The minimalist programme was introduced 95, but it looks like it's been revised since then.