innatist theory.doc

1) The theory of innate knowledge is excessive. Even geniusists believe that most of our knowledge can be learned through experience, but if we can spread it to all knowledge, we will learn colors through observation, so we will learn about the natural understanding of color The theory is not necessary. 2) There is no general way of thinking. Does all of us have the idea of ​​God? Do we all believe in justice and beauty? Does all of us understand the identity law? Otherwise, it may not be that we get these ideas through impression / experience / social interaction (this is a critique of children and idiots)

No am Chomsky is considered to be Innatist or Nativist theory. As seen in the discussion on factors of age, Chomsky said that children are used for other biological functions like walking and children are learning without being ordinarily learned to learn languages It is claimed to be biologically programmed to. The environment supplies people to talk with the children, but language acquisition is an unconscious process. Children activate natural abilities or blueprints that allow language development devices (LAD), children to develop speech from common grammar.

In contrast, Chomsky's original view is a direct challenge to behavioral theory, explaining human language ability. According to his theory, each child has a biological ability in biology and the language acquisition device - LAD - is responsible for the initial state of language development. He believes that child inputs are declining and the basis of language learning is inadequate. Universal Grammar Assumption Chomsky's language acquisition theory is based on assumptions of innate knowledge. UG is a system of principles and parameters that constrain grammar during the L1 acquisition process. I am confronted with the problem that the L2 learner is parallel with the L1 acquirer. In order to enable the learner to speak and understand the second language, it is necessary to find a language system for interpreting the L2 input