Talk:Port-Royal Grammar

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sophie Wright.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Chomsky's claims

The entry reflected the Chomskyan view that the grammar was a reflection of Descartian rationalism. This has been heavily and convincingly disputed. I've removed claims that argue for the Chomskyan position, which I considered misleading, and removed an irrelevant link to a philosophical article. Before reverting or rewriting the article to what it was before, I suggest that potential editors should first read the two sources I've added. Both make very substantial and cogent arguments that Chomsky's views on Port Royal reflect his own particular biases and are not in accordance with the facts. Bathrobe (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, the article is now better. I was also going to make some changes but couldn't take the time. A further issue is that the Port-Royal Grammarians considered language as a human invention, while Chomsky claims it is innate, a gene. The dispute between innatism and rationalism is discussed in the French 1803 edition of Port-Royal Grammar. The innatist position actually comes from Rousseau (and not Descartes), and it is argued by the editor that Rousseau's claim does not represent linguistic rationalism. Weidorje (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so these edits are probably why the article now has a sentence which begins "However, while the Port Royal Grammarians owe a general debt to the philosophy of Descartes..." despite the fact that Descartes has not been mentioned up to that point. Could someone who understands the debate include a transition/explanation of why we would be talking about Descartes? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

souls

This natural conclusion of universal grammar is one Chomsky claims to be innately human, based on the notion that language is a by product of the soul. His accompanying argument for animals and their speech patterns is that they have no solid universal language and thus have no soul. -- What is this nonsense? Chomsky doesn't believe in souls, and the cited reference doesn't support this claim. -- Jibal (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly isn't a reasonable summary of Chomsky. AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)