What about Linguistics?

It's discussed from time to time whenever that one user who wants graph representations in minimalism shows up

No idea what you're even asking about here

and judgements, such as Martin-Löf’s view of logical truth in form of judgments and evidence in form of axioms and inference rules.

I'm the fucker who made the last linguistics thread and I'm not OP.

you're still a faggot though

I most certainly am.

A lot of things that aren't really science are called linguistics, but the segment involving Chomsky is called Generative Grammar, the object of study of which is (arguably misleadingly) called "Universal Grammar," the aspect of the human mind which gives us the ability to learn and use languages.

It's an overgeneralization to state that the object of study of generative grammar is UG. While UG is very central, generative grammar should be more generally understood as the study of the grammars as systems of rules. Investigation of UG is simply a consequence of this more general approach, as the claim has been advanced that the rules of any given grammar cannot be learned without assuming a universally built-in language acquisition module in the brain.

I don't totally agree. The way I look at it is the study of individual grammars as systems of rules is the only currently viable method of identifying properties of UG.

So what determines which copy is pronounced in movement? "What was John impressed by?" is supposed to have several invisible copies of different words. What determines which ones are pronounced and which ones aren't?

and it seems like this is what Chomsky seems to be saying here (1m31s)
youtube.com/watch?v=urrNTVxuCxs&t=1m31s

Well there are a number of points to be made here. The first is that generative linguistics predates the contemporary study into UG. Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was published before the elaboration of any rationalist positions on language acquisition. However, you are correct that (for the most part) UG is studied through the comparative study of individual grammars. It is not limited to that, but it mainly consists in that. This does not entail that generative grammar is the study of UG. In fact, there is no contradiction in proposing a set of context-free rules and transformations for English while postulating that there is no specific language module, i.e. no UG. The poverty of stimulus argument was developed within the framework of generative grammar, not as a precursor to it. Moreover, many of the points in that argument, at least as it has been traditionally described by Chomsky, beg the question. The only reason I see why UG is so important to generative grammar is historical, as it happened to be an early idea postulated by Chomsky, who essentially built the field. It should nevertheless be clear that you can be a generativist and not believe in UG, although I don't know anyone in the field who doesn't.

>the aspect of the human mind which gives us the ability to learn and use languages

Pattern recognition?

Dogs can recognize patterns, but they can't learn language. The notion of a universal grammar is based on the ethological notion of an acquisition device. It is noted that animals such as birds, to give an example, are predisposed to acquire song. Likewise, humans seem predisposed to learn languages. A child exposed to bird songs will not begin to sing in the manner of a bird, but all children learn language after being exposed to speech.

No, by now there is good reason to believe that general pattern recognition doesn't suffice.

I can't say I'm familiar with work that purports to be generative grammar which does not take UG as its object of study, at least in terms of a motivating research program. Even non-transformational factions of generative grammar take this approach. You're right that UG is totally absent from Syntactic Structures, but from what I understand the field developed more or less cohesively throughout the 60s, not beginning the process of fragmentation until the 70s, so UG became part of the shared tradition despite not being present at its inception. Correct me if I'm wrong, this is just coming from bits and pieces of classes/presentations I've heard and discussions I've had with various people.

this and pattern recognition might not necessarily be the same as stringing sequences together.

Are you retarded?

This.

>this is considered science
lol, "linguists" apparently didn't learn anything in 3rd grade English class

Clearly 3rd grade grammar deals with successive-cyclic raising.

>That raises the question why 21 is impossible
>21: they though in which Texas city JFK was assassinated
Kek. You don't need to know any linguistics jargon to know that doesn't make any sense

That's not the point. We know the sentence doesn't make sense, the question is why doesn't it make sense. Intuitions about grammaticality have no explanatory value. What is needed is a theoretical model of language through which all grammatical sentences can be derived while no ungrammatical languages can.

>we need a theoretical model to determine which sentences make sense
Really great and useful field you've got there. If a sentence doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense - it's just nonsense, there's nothing more to say about it. The on seven year to get for. When he ate eleven the. They thought in which Texas city JFK was assassinated. They all don't make sense because they're nonsense sentences.

Well the next time you shit your pants because SIRI doesn't understand your request to find a transgendered South American who's into scat, you can tell yourself that language processing is just magic and that there are no principles behind it.

Very clever, I saw the same rude comment the other week. SIRI can't understand stuff like that because she's a computer, she doesn't have a BRAIN, lol. You need to be able to think for yourself to understand human concepts. It doesn't get that complicated once you understand that it's just nouns verbs and adjectives. Even monkeys can do it. youtube.com/watch?v=s9shPouRWCs

>SIRI can't understand stuff like that because she's a computer, she doesn't have a BRAIN, lol.
This confirms that this is bait. Good job, you had me going.

You're supposed to look at the video which corroborates my views

>You're supposed to look at the video which corroborates my views
>Crash Course

Movement of eyes when reading

Are you going to postulate the concept of the soul next?

Linguistics is one of the better social sciences
Social Science tier list::
shit tier:
sociology
communication studies(lol)
low tier:
psychology
political science
economics
mid tier:
history
law
high tier:
linguistics
top tier:
[spoiler]Marxism[/spoiler]

Fluent in 4 languages feels fucking good senpai.

Linguistics ain't a social science f-a-m.

it's more part of literature/history

Not anymore. Linguistics is cognitive science. It's more about human psychology than anything else.

wheres the linguistics book meme list?

The what now?

Languages are not psychological. You can study how people use them psychologically, but the definition of "language" ("english," "chinese," "nupe" and things like that) is "the body of words and conventions for using them agreed upon by the speech community"...

let's have a discussion about syntax. what are the limits of minimalism? why are so many people so confused about how merge works?