Do you even listen to him? he is barely even lucid? i saw in one video he is claiming that the U.S. is responsible for the failure of central planning in Venezuela. Its laughable that one man can be so wrong on so many issues.
I like science, but it seems arrogant to apply the logical positivist way of thinking to everything. Perhaps there some mysteries can never be solved. That has its own beauty.
@@newsletter4826 firstly you ought address his points in this video and not drag in another point on another matter in which you happen to disagree with. You are lazy, and I'm confident to make this statement, as you don't even attempt to address where you disagree with him on the subject exclusively discussed in this video, furthermore to claim anyone could be wrong on all subject matter because they were wrong else where on another subject, which is altogether disconnected from the one presented here, wasn't to your taste, I say this as even where you disagree with him you fail to present any contrary evidence let alone remotely associated with the topic of the video. Before you claim an irrational loyalty to Chomsky of me, I would prefer you could persuade me by specifics and not sweeping statements. So yes, you can sway my opinion, if you can focus the argument, PS related to the points discussed in the video and not another on another topic
@@newsletter4826 You're insulting someone else's intelligence however your comment barely makes sense. Also stop being a brain dead nationalist, just because he criticized your countries interference with Venezuela's government doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about on the topic of linguistics.
I finally se a video with professor Noam Chomsky where he days something I don't agree with. But I would have to listen to the half an hour lecture on it to be sure.
Chomsky is making a genius point here- think about this. Computers have a "language" and the language and coding is used for the processing of information. Sure, computers communicate using language and data, but they mainly process information with the language. That's what we use language for mostly; considering thoughts, naming things. Imagine how useful names are to remembering things.
no Chomsky hasn't been even highly intelligent, let alone genius, since his mid 30's. His tipping toward dementia now that everything he has ever claimed is turning out to be empirically wrong.
please resolve to stop using the word 'literally' that way-- it's wrong word usage 'literally'. When you use the word that way you are just signifying that you cannot communicate. Ha, don't make me laugh, 'govt control' and foreign policy. Look he had some good points about Vietnam--not so much him, but his partners enlightening him on some of the ground facts. He has also had relayed some good information about Media. But you Chomsky acolyte's need to stop acting like this is a wise man--he was intelligent but blow it by never progressing mentally and engaging all his energy in his quest to be recognized as intellectual. The man is not even a top 1000 historian. His presentation of the 'facts' is always laughably dull and stuck in the 60s.
So Chomsky says language is not so well suited for communication and takes that as a sign that it developed as a meaning of thought and not of communication. Steven Pinker (in his Book "the Language instinct") argues the opposite: that the ambiguities in many sentences proves that we do not think in language, so therefore language not well suited to beeing the medium of thought, but has to be developed for communication. I find Pinkers Argument more convincing but would be glad if anybody knows where I might read more about it.
Well, I think he is talking about some words in English sound the same but have different meaning or the words are spelled the same but depending on the context we sound them differently. I am fluent in 6 languages but the only language that this can happens extensively is in English.
The reason why he did not provide examples here is because you have to study syntactic strucuteres profoundly. You have to understand GB theory’s sub modules and the advanced minimalist program framwork along with Darwinism and Galilean challenge. However, as a syntatician, his logic is definite. I think it is impeccable. Speech is NOT a motive for language, never.
Chomsky has often said that language developed as a cognitively re-organizing sort of mechanism for thought verses the common misconception of language evolving as a means for communication primarily. I am currently reading a paper by Anne C.. Reboul from the Institute of Cognitive Sciences in France about this topic. I am not very deep into the paper but just for starters, I am curious to know some examples that are the inefficiencies or conflicts that Chomsky refers to regarding the structure of language where "communicative efficiency is sacrificed." Any help or resource recommendations?
You could ask Noam Chomsky directly as the last resort, seriously. On his website, there should be an email where people can send their (any) questions. I wouldn't expect a quick reply, but many have tried that and it has worked for them :) chomsky.info if I'm not mistaken, then look for the contacts page
I don't remember the specific lectures or I would link them, but if you just search RU-vid for "Chomsky on language" and watch one of the more recent videos (based on his age) he often talks about this and gives plenty of examples. Basically sentences are not organized in a computationally efficient manner. He also talks often about how some sentences you can think but you can't say in any meaningful way. I think one of the examples he often uses is: -"They wonder why Suzy fixed the car with a wrench." Then if you didnt hear what Suzy fixed you ask: -"What do they wonder why Suzy fixed the car with a wrench?" Then if you didn't hear what Suzy used to fix the car you ask: -"how do they wonder why Suzy fixed the car?" Notice the last sentence is now a question about how one wonders rather than anything about the question the individual intended to ask. This means that one has to construct a new sentence to ask the question. You can think such a question but you can't ask it.
Linguists disagree because they are not psychologists; when he mentions “objects”, this is very Vygotsky. To a developmental psychologist, Gestalt adherent, Montessori teacher, it all makes perfect sense.
"Language is given to man to hide his thoughts" (Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand) BUT: Maybe the b o d y language (lingua physica) will teach us MORE TRUTH . . .
the words we speak is a reflection of the world we live in , consciously or not , most speak like parrots , repeating words they heard , ideology , dogma , ...... without ever being able to transcende those words .
I have to agree with his point on language being the vehicle for thoughts but I wonder why does it then evolve through the means of communication. We optimise the language over time in different ways to make structures easier to use in writing and speaking but if we consider thoughts to be the main function of language, shouldn't it have been evolved in ways to make it easier to process by mind and not just in terms of communication? Btw, excuse the bad English, I'm not a native speaker.
There are cases where language change happened due to a loss of complexity but theres also the opposite. And Im talking about the spoken language. With regard to the written language what you said is a huge misconception. In fact writing systems take a very long time to change and never have a one-to-one correspondence with the spoken language, like the IPA does. Writing systems cause a lot of trouble for students of several languages. Regarding the question of optimization, we dont actually know if language has ever changed. For Chomsky it hasnt. It has been the same system for thousands of years. But in this case we are talking about universal grammar/ I-language. Of course e-languages, like French and English are constantly changing. If you really want to understand this you need to read about these concepts first. You can easily find them on Wikipedia.
Can anyone point to the examples in language structure where efficency of communication is sacrificed in favor of the biological structure of language? Reading material etc.
Language is based on what’s valued by those in power. RU-vid dislikes expletives, so language evolves around this by using euphemisms. Now imagine this on a larger scale.
If the primary purpose of language was for introspective experiences why are the anatomical structures of phonation so elaborately and exquisitely developed? Too much contrariness is often not a good thing.
He said somewhere that aristotles said that language(that is speech) was sound with meaning but in linguistic phylosophy we could say even better that speech is meaning with sound So the ur vocalization are complicated and try to shape meaning
"anatomical structures of phonation so elaborately and exquisitely developed" Those were evolved mainly for communication. But that dosnt mean the internal language capacity was.
These anatomical structures must have been completed in our ancestors way before the language (in this sense) was born. According to Mr. Chomsky, the birth of the abstract thought faculty took place for just a few generations ago (maybe some 150000-300000 years BP); we haven’t undergone any real evolution after that, because it was, like, yesterday. So, what were these phonetic abilities used for before we received THE language? Probably a fairly advanced communication, but without the abstraction that we all share today.
Linking mode of interpretation and creativity of thought to language in such a strict sense is highly dubious. You may undermine efficient communication purposes of language in favor of purposes according to a theoretically determined specific design of language. But these purposes are too close to discern, too tangled with each other and with an evidently inexplicable system. This exposition seems to be merely Chomsky's appropriation of something he's been chewing on, something he is hopeful for, but something which would require a significant amount of progress in our determination of problems and probably cant be solved under our current language system but can only be indicated in some way more or less--and this is perhaps something he is picking up early in its development.
Kyle Wit Kyle Wit I would say that we need some empirical data first. Like, can some animals make mental abstractions? If they could, this implies that language is not necessary for thought. Primates have the capacity to learn SIGN language, although not much. As an idea for experimentation, I feel that first one must study the brain activity before teaching sign language to a primate, and after to see if there is a neurological difference in the brain. Maybe with those tests we can get closer to the nature/purpose of language. In addition, to understand exactly what noam means when he says language shapes thought you have to know the concept of language that Jaques Derrida has laid down for us. Signs(words) function like: Signifier(Sign)+Signified(object or phenomena to which it refers to). Knowing this, language and the mind are conditioning reality. What do I mean? A sign is created to refer to something of the world. The meaning of that sign is arbitrarily made by the mind (Meaning that any word can mean anything) Ex: Tore means fish. I just created a sign and now for the mind it signifies an object (Fish). So, language, along with the mind’s properties CREATE a mental representation of the phenomena that it sees (Reality), in it’s own way. So this is what he meant when he said that aristotle did not comprehend fully the nature of language. It was believed before that somehow the a word would exactly represent and entity from reality. But think carefully, these stimulus must go through the mind first, in order for the MIND to CREATE, in it’s own way, the mental representation of that reality. All of this is done alongiside language it seems. One way to look a it is this: Language in the mind has created a mental world, a representation of those things we see in reality. So when we think, it is not about things in themselves in reality, instead it is a mental world which the mind creates. Of course, this mental world is not the real one, but it is taken from the real one.
Chomsky's theory is certainly innovative and elegant. However, I always suspected that his theory was to ahistorical and asocial a framework for theorizing language. Certainly the mediation of language by perception and communication is just as significant to the language organ.
It's simply not because human language developed during the cognitive revolution, back then the social structure of humans was very different and they clearly didn't use language to communicate
@@promitkar1528 That might be true. Still I have always been puzzled by Chomsky's internalist approach to language. The theory of UG proceeds on the validity of a formal grammar abstracted from semantics. Maybe this approach can explain things about the computational properties of language, but I have a hard time believing syntax is autonomous.
What is the evidence for this? He says this is the old idea of language bring for communication is being overturned but doesn't reference studies that suggest why.
You can run an experiment by yourself; Try living for a few days without communicating with other people and see how often you find yourself using language anyway. Communication cannot possibly be the reason why you'd speak to yourself.
The Tao does not appear in any ligual expression. By years reasearch, Tao ideology has some similarity with the idea of GOD in Jewish religion. But the latter is much much more deep and endless.
The thing that amazes me most about Chomsky is how brilliant his ideas on language are and yet how he lives in a completely fictional universe where everybody is a nice, decent human being with regards to his politics.
Really? So, he is a dissident, criticizing with the same vigor West and East, powerful nations and poor nations´ autocrats... but according to you he thinks everybody is a nice, decent human being. lol Your opinion is not defining Chomsky; it is just showing us your lack of capacity to make valid inferences. :)
Chomsky makes a lot of good points but also heavily misses the mark in many criticisms of geopolitics. Reason he's a linguist by profession and not a real historian, political analyst, economist, etc. Not saying you have to be these things to give good insight, but he clearly overstates the role of the west in many events.
@@AceofDlamonds No, he does not overstates the role of the West. You do not need to be a historian to know that... You just need to read a little from independent sources and keep up with current affairs. He is just on point. And he is actually a polymath. For example, he taught for a long time a course of Philosophy. And wrote books on many subjects... history, political subjects, neurosciences, etc. He wrote way over 100 books; several dozens only about politics. He was a good friend of Howard Zinn, a great American revisionist historian. They were activists together during the Vietnam War era. He has the most comprehensive and correct view of geopolitics.
the language and the thought they are two face fro the human kind or they are two processes of the cognitives of human kind the meaning that the language it translated the thought when the human kind take this processing of thoughting fro exemple when you thoughing about fro exemple :when this human hearing the verse of Qauran they thoughting in this world how it just have this cells they responsable about thoughting that all.
So, a man that spent his life discussing abstract, internal concepts concluded that language exists to understand abstract, internal concepts. Am I missing anything, or is it that simple?
You are missing almost all of what he is said. He is saying that language is not made primarily for communication to others, it is made for you to understand your thoughts. But we are using it to communicate which is fine. But make no mistake, it is not why we evolved language. A good example would be: Imagine, you are sleeping in your car. The car was not made for sleeping, it was made for driving places(to travel). But, if you're sleep in it, it is fine. But it is not what it was made for. That's the point he is making.
When was the last time you read non fiction, let alone Chomsky. I'd suggest starting with manufacturing consent since you're not a fan of abstraction, but then again you might lack the intellectual capability to process hundreds of pages of data. Good luck
@@promitkar1528 Why are you being a jerk to people instead of simply helping them out or just discussing things? I keep reading comments to know what people think and then I see you commenting things that have little positive value to the discussion. Please, don't continue doing this.
Structualists, who claimed like you, proved to be false. They are gone in this linguistics field. Generative grammar linguists survived until now. The reason is quite simple actually - language that is spoken, is linear. However, language is not linear. “Can the eagles that fly swim?” “Can” corresponds to swim, not fly. Though fly is farther linearlly, it is closer structurally. Think through it!
what language does a human think with if they were not taught a language? If language is to think with, then does it man animals can also think complexly, but just doesn't have the ability to sound it out?
