tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post7739221056574857008..comments2023-10-23T11:13:35.712-04:00Comments on Games with Words: Universal meaningEdwardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04295927435118827266noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-59400935420263418182010-07-08T08:02:49.761-04:002010-07-08T08:02:49.761-04:00Their target really is UG, and I'd say there a...Their target really is UG, and I'd say there are a lot of people who doubt UG as a hypothesis. I should say that I'm assuming a broad (but common) definition of UG, where UG is whatever is common to all languages and what allows humans to acquire language. The split between UG and universal mentalese might in some places be unclear. <br /><br />The point of this post is that there are broad similarities in how people in all languages choose to describe things. Quine's gavagai paradox is one of the easier cases to describe, though I can see how that looks more like mentalese than grammar. The (very similar) Linking Problem is more clearly a linguistic issue.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-26699618859976809012010-07-07T21:27:14.893-04:002010-07-07T21:27:14.893-04:00I haven't read the paper yet -- I'll do so...I haven't read the paper yet -- I'll do so this week. But isn't the big thing they're questioning universal grammar? Universal "mentalese" is a much more radical, minority view whereas universal grammar is (to my mind) very well established.Michaelhttp://www.goodbadandbogus.comnoreply@blogger.com