Christina---<br> I am not sure you are posing the question the right way. Here is what<br>Chomsky has said to me: there are no completely empiricist theories<br>because everyone has to assume some kind of innate structure for<br>
the reception of data. The question is only how much and how far<br>it could be specifically for language. Recently Chomsky has <br>emphasized the notion of interfaces which means that the <br>relation is complex but specified. I enclose a recent paper of <br>
mine that distinguishes between interfaces and interactions that<br>might be helpful.<br><br>Tom Roeper<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Christina Behme <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:christina.behme@dal.ca">christina.behme@dal.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
Good day,<br>
<br>
as part of my dissertation I deal with the question if empiricist or rationalist<br>
theories of language acquisition are more plausible. In the literature I<br>
consulted I found little agreement about what a 'rationalist' (also<br>
?nativist?) or 'empiricist' is. Further, it was claimed that language<br>
acquisition researchers do not always agree on whether a particular statement<br>
is ?rationalist? or ?empiricist?. I was wondering if you could be so<br>
kind and take a moment of your time to help me finding out whether or not<br>
researchers who currently work in the field of language acquisition do indeed<br>
disagree on this issue. I have selected a few quotes and ask you if you could<br>
for each decide if it's from a rationalist or from an empiricist. This is not a<br>
'test', I merely want to find out if there is indeed wide ranging disagreement.<br>
Thus, any answer you give is a correct answer (this also includes: 'neither' or<br>
'I can't decide' or....). Second, could you please also indicate for each quote<br>
if you agree or disagree with it 'in principle'. If you disagree, can you<br>
please briefly state why you disagree.<br>
<br>
If you want to respond please do not post your answer to the list but send it<br>
directly to me: <a href="mailto:christina.behme@dal.ca">christina.behme@dal.ca</a>. You can also contact me at this address<br>
if you<br>
have any questions.<br>
<br>
Thank you very much for your help<br>
Christina Behme.<br>
<br>
Here are the quotes:<br>
<br>
1. "...knowledge which can be acquired without any process of reasoning, such<br>
as languages... and in general any subject which rests on experience alone"<br>
<br>
2. "... when we learn a language, we connect the letters or the pronunciation<br>
of certain words, which are material things, with their meaning, which are<br>
thoughts, so that when we later hear the same words, we conceive the same<br>
things, and when we conceive the same things, we remember the same words"<br>
<br>
3. "Among different languages, even where we suspect the least connexion or<br>
communication, it is found, that the words, expressive of ideas, the most<br>
compounded, do yet nearly correspond to each other: a certain proof that the<br>
simple ideas, comprehended in the compound ones were bound together by some<br>
universal principle, which had an equal influence on all mankind"<br>
<br>
4. "[t]here are only two things to learn in any language: the meaning of words<br>
and grammar"<br>
<br>
5. "...besides the vast number of different figures that do really exist, in<br>
the coherent masses of matter, the stock that the mind has in its power, by<br>
varying the idea of space, and thereby making still new compositions, by<br>
repeating its own ideas, and joining them as it pleases, is perfectly<br>
inexhaustible. And so it can multiply figures in infinitum."<br>
<br>
6. "When for example on hearing that the word ?K-I-N-G? signifies supreme<br>
power, I commit this to my memory and then subsequently recall the meaning by<br>
means of my memory, it must be intellectual memory that makes this possible For<br>
there is no relationship between the four letters (K-I-N-G), which would enable<br>
me to derive the meaning from the letters. It is intellectual memory that<br>
enables me to recall what the letters stand for"<br>
<br>
7. "... knowledge of things is not to be derived from [language]. No; they<br>
mustbe studied and investigated in themselves"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Tom Roeper<br>Dept of Lingiustics<br>UMass South College<br>Amherst, Mass. 01003 ISA<br>413 256 0390<br>
<br>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Info-CHILDES" group. <br> To post to this group, send email to info-childes@googlegroups.com <br> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to info-childes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <br> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/info-childes?hl=en<br>
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---<br>
<br>