![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sophie Wright.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The entry reflected the Chomskyan view that the grammar was a reflection of Descartian rationalism. This has been heavily and convincingly disputed. I've removed claims that argue for the Chomskyan position, which I considered misleading, and removed an irrelevant link to a philosophical article. Before reverting or rewriting the article to what it was before, I suggest that potential editors should first read the two sources I've added. Both make very substantial and cogent arguments that Chomsky's views on Port Royal reflect his own particular biases and are not in accordance with the facts. Bathrobe ( talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This natural conclusion of universal grammar is one Chomsky claims to be innately human, based on the notion that language is a by product of the soul. His accompanying argument for animals and their speech patterns is that they have no solid universal language and thus have no soul. -- What is this nonsense? Chomsky doesn't believe in souls, and the cited reference doesn't support this claim. -- Jibal ( talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sophie Wright.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The entry reflected the Chomskyan view that the grammar was a reflection of Descartian rationalism. This has been heavily and convincingly disputed. I've removed claims that argue for the Chomskyan position, which I considered misleading, and removed an irrelevant link to a philosophical article. Before reverting or rewriting the article to what it was before, I suggest that potential editors should first read the two sources I've added. Both make very substantial and cogent arguments that Chomsky's views on Port Royal reflect his own particular biases and are not in accordance with the facts. Bathrobe ( talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This natural conclusion of universal grammar is one Chomsky claims to be innately human, based on the notion that language is a by product of the soul. His accompanying argument for animals and their speech patterns is that they have no solid universal language and thus have no soul. -- What is this nonsense? Chomsky doesn't believe in souls, and the cited reference doesn't support this claim. -- Jibal ( talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)