Earticle

초록

영어

Everett (2005) and Wolfe (2016a, b) claim, against Chomsky’s, that culture constrains language, and language is not innate, but a man- made artifact. Their claim is strikingly false in contrast with uniformity, rapidity, critical period, and degenerated data as proposed by Chomsky (1965; 1968; 1972) for explaining language acquisition (growth). However, Chomsky’s (1996; 2010; 2012) claim, which proposes that language faculty is a result of mutation(s), “a great leap forward,” also has many fallacies. First, it is against information theories like the one proposed by Gitt (1996; 2007) that information is a mental and not a material quantity. It is also observed by scientists like Yang (2010) and Gitt (1996; 2007) that mutation(s) do not add new, complex, and specified information. Chomsky’s assumption of language faculty by mutation(s) cannot account for this observation. Chomsky’s language faculty by arbitrary mutation(s) also cannot explain the working together of speech anatomy and the built-in brain for the framework of intelligence of language use and for language faculty itself. I propose that the innate language faculty claimed by Chomsky can be accounted for without difficulty by irreducible complexity and specified complexity claimed by Behe (1996) and Dembsky (1999), respectively.

목차

I. Introduction
 II. Fallacies of Chomsky and of Everett
  2.1. Fallacies of Everett (2005) and Wolfe (2016a, b)
  2.2. Chomsky’s Language Mutation and his Fallacies
  2.3. Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity
 III. Conclusion
 Works Cited
 Abstract

키워드

저자

• Shin, Sungkyun [ Kangwon National University ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  영어영문학연구 [The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  1598-3293

• 수록기간

  1968~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 840 DDC 810