<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Peter,<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"><DIV> Fair question. Personally, I have found Chomsky's ideas sometimes right on and sometimes wildly implausible. I think that, in the final analysis, the field would have benefitted more if the ideas had been presented as just that -- as ideas, rather than as established scientific fact. Transformations, the cycle, rule-ordering, feeding, bleeding, the grammar gene, the sudden evolution of language, speech is special, the centrality of recursion, minimalism, mapping interfaces, principles and parameters, poverty of stimulus, modularity, early full competence, and the like. These are all fascinating ideas. But so are competition, cue validity, constructions, entrenchment, transfer, thematic structure, dependency relations, coevolution, sensorimotor bases, gesture-speech linkages, linguistic relativity, thinking for speaking, dynamic systems, learning to learn, resonance, and neural plasticity. What troubles me is that the first set of ideas was presented as a single take-it-or-leave-it package and contrasted with the second package, which was often dismissed as something that had "already been shown to be implausible."</DIV><DIV> My personal assessment of the developments of the last 50 years is that, the single-package approach largely outlived its usefulness by about 1980. By then, it was clear that the pieces of the overall package were not logically or empirically co-dependent. If we had been able to "get over" this barrier, I think we would now have made quicker progress on (1) linking L1 and L2 theory, (2) grounding acquisitional theory on data, including video recordings, of real interactions, (3) made more headway on understanding real-time processing of language by normal children and children with disabilities, (4) developed a more solid quantitative methodological base for ongoing work, and (5) been able to field full working simulations of the acquisition of language. In this regard, science is really often just a trade-off of time and manpower. If we, as a field, had devoted less energy to attempts to characterize systems for parameter setting, I think we would have made more progress on these five fundamental fronts, building a firmer basis for ongoing work. </DIV><DIV> In my mind, Chomsky's most important contribution is his initial one -- the emphasis on generativity. If our models of language learning are good at all, they should be able to model and depict the actual course of language development. In 1980, it was basically impossible to do this, because we did not have the relevant corpora. My own focus has been on solving this problem through the construction of CHILDES. Now, I believe, we are in a position to get back to the central task. We should be able to show how, using data available in real interactions with real children with real video and audio, children succeed in learning language.</DIV><DIV> I don't think that the issue here is about Chomsky's presence or absence. Some of his questions are good and cannot be forgotten. But it is time to move on.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>-- Brian MacWhinney</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Oct 12, 2007, at 2:47 AM, Gordon, Peter wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV id="idOWAReplyText69112" dir="ltr"> <DIV dir="ltr"><FONT face="Arial" color="#000000" size="2">I think it would be an interesting exercise if Robin (and other Anti-Chomskians) could give us a sense of how child language might have developed without Chomsky and why it would have benefited from his absence.</FONT></DIV> <DIV dir="ltr"><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir="ltr"><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Peter Gordon</FONT></DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>