Quote:
|
My objection to all of this is the implication that somehow, we don't have to learn any of this stuff. That is what is implied by the word "innate" -- the rules are already there when we are born.
|
In my opinion, an adult speaker's linguistic knowledge and how they acquire that linguistic knowledge are two separate issues. Transformational grammar explains a lot of data. This makes it useful. How much of our linguistic knowledge is innate is another issue.
The "want to - wanna" example is not mine, I think it was originally Chomsky's but you're denying its validity, and I have no more examples to hand.
Quote:
|
Finally, if I want to criticise a theory, I am under no obligation to advance an alternative theory. It is enough to show that a theory does not adequately explain observed phemonema.
|
Not everyone agrees with that. In any case, I don't think you've demonstrated that transformational grammar does not adequately explain observed phemonema; it would take a lot of work to do that.
I don't know if there's much more I can say. I've explained Chomsky's position on "between you and I" as well as I can, which was my intention.