<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 8pt">As someone who, like Dan, cut my
teeth on the Chomsky doctrine in the 1960s, my own work evolved subsequently in
a different direction altogether in frustrated response to the persistent
isolation of language within the GTG framework.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It’s worth pointing out, in
response to Katie’s comment about undergraduates “thinking that Chomsky and
Skinner are the only two people ever to have written anything about language
acquisition” that, indeed, neither Chomsky nor Skinner actually studied real
live children acquiring a real live language.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In a letter to me (dated November 2,
1987 regarding discussion at a BU conference), Noam referred to “many of the
people [there] well-known in child language acquisition studies (about which I
know next to nothing).”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The MIT
enterprise is about acquisition in only the most abstract, theoretical sense
admitting neither the rest of cognition nor a child’s social and emotional
life.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>One might well wonder why, in
the world according to MIT, <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>these
things were, at best, ignored or, at worst, denigrated.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Perhaps fitting them into the theory is
just too hard. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 8pt"><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lois
Bloom</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 8pt"> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=slobin@berkeley.edu href="mailto:slobin@berkeley.edu">Dan I.
Slobin</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=info-childes@mail.talkbank.org
href="mailto:info-childes@mail.talkbank.org">info-childes@mail.talkbank.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:00
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Chomsky: Obsolete?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I agree. Note, that I made no claims about
"relevance." Clearly, linguists like Chomsky and Halliday are relevant
in many ways, and their thinking<BR>still seriously influences much current
work in various fields. In my case, I took courses from Chomsky in the
early sixties, when he was my hero;<BR>he definitely refocused the field and
phrased new and fruitful questions. And I learned much from Halliday
when he lectured at Berkeley, decades<BR>ago. With regard to Chomsky,
the question is whether his current approach is useful for the fields that I
listed in my last email.<BR><BR>Dan<BR><BR><BR>At 10:01 AM 10/11/2007, Jeff
MacSwan wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica"
color=#000080 size=2>I would agree with these remarks. But I think it would
be insensitive, not to mention empirically incorrect, to say, for instance,
that Halliday is not relevant today. The question is, relevant to whom?
While many linguists find relevance in Halliday’s work, others don’t. The
same can be said of Chomsky. I think it would be a mistake to say of either
example that the figure is “not relevant” to linguistics (or to anything)
since the field includes functionalists and formalists alike.
Right?<BR> <BR>
<DIV align=center><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2><B>From:</B> Dan I. Slobin
[<A href="mailto:slobin@berkeley.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:slobin@berkeley.edu</A>] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 11, 2007
9:52 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Jeff MacSwan<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Chomsky:
Obsolete?<BR></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times"> <BR>It depends
on what you consider "the current linguistics literature."<BR>I enjoy the
rich literature on functional, conceptual, typological,
diachronic,<BR>developmental, anthropological, psychological, sociological,
pedagogical<BR>linguistic literature--all of which quite happily make great
progress with little<BR>or no reference to generativist work. There
was hardly a mention of Chomsky,<BR>for example, in last month's five-day
international conference in Paris of<BR>the Association for Linguistic
Typology, as well as four more days of<BR>associated workshops on many
topics. Like many ideologies in our world,<BR>things look different
depending on which camp you live in.<BR><BR>Dan<BR><BR>At 09:23 AM
10/11/2007, you wrote:<BR><BR>It's not a surprise that those who are
committed to frameworks which<BR>disavow generativist work would gleefully
await the day when the most<BR>influential figure, who also created the
field, is no longer "relevant."<BR><BR>But Chomsky's work actually continues
to grow in significance and<BR>influence, precisely due to its relevance not
only to linguistics<BR>generally, but also to the social sciences, the
cognitive sciences,<BR>computer science and mathematics, and
philosophy.<BR><BR>While one can do interesting and important linguistic
research that does<BR>not heavily rely on Chomsky's own specific
contributions to linguistic<BR>theory, the idea that his work has generally
lost relevance or<BR>significance reflects a lack of acquaintance with the
current<BR>linguistics literature.<BR><BR>Jeff MacSwan<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: info-childes@mail.talkbank.org<BR>[ <A
href="mailto:info-childes@mail.talkbank.org"
eudora="autourl">mailto:info-childes@mail.talkbank.org</A>] On Behalf Of
Anat Ninio<BR>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:56 AM<BR>To:
r.n.campbell<BR>Cc: info-childes@mail.talkbank.org<BR>Subject: Re: Chomsky:
Obsolete?<BR><BR>Hi Robin,<BR><BR>Chomsky actually changed his mind about
what syntax is, so maybe he's <BR>now a more relevant figure than
before?<BR><BR>Anat Ninio<BR><BR><BR><BR>r.n.campbell wrote:<BR>>>
*Competence vs. Performance: A False Distinction?*<BR>><BR>> A broader
topic (which includes this one and is equally worth <BR>> discussing) is
that Noam Chomsky and all his works are also obsolete. <BR>> For me, it
will be a happy day when this is so.<BR>> -- <BR>>
<BR>> Dr Robin N Campbell<BR>> Dept of Psychology<BR>> University
of Stirling<BR>> STIRLING FK9 4LA<BR>> Scotland, UK<BR>><BR>>
telephone: 01786-467649 facsimile: 01786-467641<BR>> email:
r.n.campbell@stir.ac.uk<BR>> Website: <A
href="http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/rcampbell/index.php"
eudora="autourl">http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/rcampbell/index.php</A><BR>><BR>>
-- <BR>><BR>> The University of Stirling is a university established
in Scotland by <BR>> charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.
Privileged/Confidential Information may <BR>> be contained in this
message. If you are not the addressee indicated <BR>> in this message (or
responsible for delivery of the message to such <BR>> person), you may
not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone <BR>> and any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is <BR>> prohibited and
may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this <BR>> message and
kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise <BR>> immediately
if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email <BR>> for
messages of this kind.<BR>><BR></FONT><BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times"
size=1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>Dan
I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School<BR>Professor Emeritus of
Psychology and Linguistics<BR><BR>Department of
Psychology email:
slobin@berkeley.edu<BR>3210 Tolman
#1650
phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292<BR>University of
California
phone (home): 1-510-848-1769<BR>Berkeley, CA
94720-1650 fax:
1-510-642-5293<BR>USA
<A href="http://ihd.berkeley.edu/slobin.htm"
eudora="autourl">http://ihd.berkeley.edu/slobin.htm</A><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>Dan
I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School<BR>Professor Emeritus of
Psychology and Linguistics<BR><BR>Department of
Psychology email:
slobin@berkeley.edu<BR>3210 Tolman
#1650
phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292<BR>University of
California
phone (home): 1-510-848-1769<BR>Berkeley, CA
94720-1650 fax:
1-510-642-5293<BR>USA
<A href="http://ihd.berkeley.edu/slobin.htm"
eudora="autourl">http://ihd.berkeley.edu/slobin.htm<BR></A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>
<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>