

Pirahã defies Chomsky's theory of universal grammar - j2d2
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto

======
mglukhovsky
Everett's claims have provoked a firestorm of debate. I was lucky enough to
take a seminar with David Pesetsky from MIT shortly after Everett's story
began appearing in the popular media, and he discussed what he perceived as
serious flaws in Everett's findings and methodology. Nevins, Pesetsky, and
Rodrigues have since published a lengthy and detailed rebuttal
(<http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000411>) that shows that Piraha does in fact
have recursion. In fact, the surprising thing about Piraha is how unremarkable
it is. It shares traits with German, Hindi, Hebrew, and many more languages.
Pesetsky, et. al. also believe that the argument that quantifiers do not exist
is not supported by the facts. More details are in the paper.

As far as their culture is concerned, there is evidence from other
anthropologists that the Piraha do indeed have creation myths (the rebuttal
paper actually includes one on page 44).

People jump on stories like these because it makes for a good news story
("Rebel Linguist Takes Down Noam Chomsky"). But the evidence I've seen doesn't
sound so convincing.

~~~
TriinT
Linguistics is not my field, so please bear with me...

As much as I admire and respect Chomsky, would it be too far-fetched to claim
that he lacks field work and expects the world to adapt to his theories,
rather than adapting his theories to the world?

Theoretical physicists sometimes suffer from the same problem. They see
reality as an approximation of theory. Experimental physicists are the ones
"in the trenches", so why not listen to what they have to say? Same goes for
linguists. Advances in theory should be based on experiment and observation.
Otherwise, theory becomes _l'art pour l'art_ and degenerates.

~~~
mglukhovsky
He does lack field work. But there are many other linguists, like Pesetsky and
Stephen Pinker who have spent plenty of time in the field.

Field work for linguists amounts to working with people on dying and lost
languages, but also the hard work of understanding and analyzing the
intricacies of common languages like Hindi, German, and English. While Chomsky
himself may not spend an inordinate amount of time proving his theories in the
field, others have.

It should be noted, that Chomsky's theories have changed over time to reflect
current findings. But the basic ideas of Universal Grammar and the essence of
recursion in language have stayed the same.

------
gruseom
A superb piece. I couldn't help reading the whole damn thing. The interplay
between the scientific and human dramas is masterfully done. There are so many
things I could say about this article that I'm not even going to try.

I didn't recognize the name John Colapinto, but it didn't take long to figure
out that I've heard him before. He wrote a book about the infamous case of a
boy who, after a botched circumcision as a baby, was forcibly raised like a
girl to satisfy the pet gender theory of an unscrupulous psychologist. It was
a tragic story. The boy grew up to courageously challenge the identity that
had been imposed on him and lived as an adult male, but killed himself a few
years after the book was published. I remember hearing a riveting interview
with him and Colapinto on Fresh Air
(<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1111038>).

So that makes two great pieces by John Colapinto. I wonder what else I've
missed.

