This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
language acquisition device it is all about language
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Derekrodenbeck.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be under linguistics and not psychology? Paxuniv (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
These have been recently added and as interesting as they may be don't seem to be relevant to the subject of the article. The LAD is abstract, not literally a region of the brain, and so neurology doesn't seem relevant. I'm happy to be proved wrong on this but the contributor needs to give detail to explain how this is relavant. Also no references are cited.
Not2late (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently a nueroscientist discovered the source of all human language in the last line of the article. Considering this is, I dunno, kind of a breakthrough, don't you think a source would be in order?
It's kinda like saying that Dr. Steve McBeezle discovered a small brown dwarf star just outside of the oort cloud, which makes our solar system a bianary one, but then citing nothing. such a tease.Jimmyjones22 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The nativism called "universal grammar" actually predicts that adaptation to different languages should, by natural selection, have produced groups of humans genetically incapable of learning foreign languages. That racist prediction have been conclusively disproved in lots of studies. Avoiding falsifiability by avoiding extrapolation of theories to their logical extremes is not scientific at all. Furthermore, there is no way to explain why a vast range of redundant linguistic capacities obviously not needed to build a complex language (no language uses the whole worldwide range and some languages only use a very small fraction of it) should have evolved in the first place. This is explained in more detail on the pages "Brain" and "Origin of language" (and to some extent "Piraha"), all on Pure science Wiki, a wiki devoted to the pure scientific method unaffected by academic obsession with status and prestige. 95.209.8.118 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg
This page is an abomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.225.158 (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Saying children learn a language because they have a LAD is the same as saying that children learn a language
because children learn a language. It is unenlightening to claim that an imperceptible and un-disproveable "device" exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.175.206 (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not quite my field – I'm a linguist, but not a psycholinguist nor a neurolinguist – but I'm fairly certain that Chomsky et al. described the LAD as a component of the mind, not the brain. The only mention I find of "brain" in Aspects is in a quotation from Arnauld's Logic. Chomsky elsewhere described the mind as an abstract understanding of the brain. The link to Human brain in the first sentence is therefore misleading, as is the implication (from the second sentence) that scholars are searching for an LAD region of the brain. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ian7024 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Ian7024 (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)