The French structuralists were attracted too, by Chomsky's distinction between 'deep structures' and 'surface structures'. That did for language, they supposed, what Freud had done for the mind and Marx for society.[...] For all that is so intimately associated with his name, by the time he came to write "Reflections on Language" Chomsky had nevertheless abandoned the terminology of 'deep structure' and 'surface structure' partly for technical reasons but also because – and this is more important for our purposes – he had been misunderstood, as the French structuralists had misunderstood him, by those who supposed that 'deep' structures were 'deep' in a metaphysical sense, that the properties of surface structures were, in contrast, 'superficial, unimportant, variable across languages and so on'. That was not his view; phonology, confining its attention to surface structures, could be quite as universal, he thinks, quite as 'revealing', quite as universable, as syntactical theory. Indeed, as he freely admits, phonology is the most fully worked-out branch of 'grammar

מעניין, שהסברים הכי טובים על פסיכולוגיה אני מוצא בבלשנות. ההסברים הכי טובים על בלשנות אני מוצא בפילוסופיה. והסברים הכי טובים על פילוסופיה אני מוצא בספרות. מוזר…

הנושא הפונולוגי מופיע אצל סוסיר, יעקובסון וגם אצל ממשיכי חומסקי.

האם כולם מגדירים פונולוגיה באותה צורה, והאם כולם נותנים לה אותו מקום בפיתוח כישורי השפה של ילדים.

תודה על האתר

לב הגנן