Chomsky under fire
I never heard of Everett until now. Chomsky does have a bad habit of backpedaling to a vaguer form of UG whenever it's challenged, though. Believe it or not, I would put my money on Pinker's idea of a "language instinct," in some general form. I don't have the linguistic chops to evaluate Chomsky or Pinker's specific claims about language, but I think they got some of the basic ideas right from the psychological end of things. The evidence for poverty of the stimulus is compelling, along with the fact that Broca's area homologues have been observed in other primates. (, )
I think that was teh article you showed me. about language instinct, which i actually liked. It was similar, but different to/from universal Grammar. It wasn't by pinker, but someone discussing the two theories and brinking in a third.
You mean this one? Personally, I like to watch the linguistic types duke it out as a sort of spectator sport. My background is in memory and perception, where animal models are plentiful and definitions are much less fuzzy. Does it have eyes? Good enough! (While I'm linkspamming John Hawks, he has a great lecture on eyes and vision.)
I loved that article, yeah. I need to read teh book, but as it's harder to find online, i'll actually have to go out to a library. But it really seems worth it.