Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


It's Been Said Before

By Orin Hargraves

It's Been Said Before "examines why certain phrases become clichés and why they should be avoided -- or why they still have life left in them."

New from Cambridge University Press!


Sounds Fascinating

By J. C. Wells

How do you pronounce biopic, synod, and Breughel? - and why? Do our cake and archaic sound the same? Where does the stress go in stalagmite? What's odd about the word epergne? As a finale, the author writes a letter to his 16-year-old self.

Academic Paper

Title: The Crippled Creativity - A Brief Theoretical Framework
Paper URL:
Author: Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
Email: click here TO access email
Institution: La Filológica por la Causa
Linguistic Field: Cognitive Science; Philosophy of Language; Psycholinguistics
Abstract: This paper mainly concentrates on the creative speaking / hearing subject’s body as it is found in Chomsky’s Psycholinguistics in relation to its social environment or social context. It tries to analyze the distinct relationship between Empty Linguistic Organism and human malleability, i.e., the main concern of this paper is how a “physical organ” (Chomsky, 1976: 18) for linguistic creativity or Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is crippled by the outside sociality (behavioral manipulation/threat/violence by the coercive institutions). This effort to correlate LAD and outside sociality would prove the Myth of “ideal speaker-Hearer.” In this way one could switch over to Orwell’s problem or Freud’s problem from Plato’s problem that is mainly concerned with the metanarrative of universal speaking subject. In solution to Orwell’s problem, “...we must discover institutional and other factors that block insight and understanding in crucial areas of our lives and ask why they are effective…” (Chomsky, 1987: xxvii) Now the ontological problem of speaking subjects begins: Problems of learning Theory (LT) for the organism O in the Cognitive domain (D) is LT (O, D) (Chomsky, 1976:18). This Theory can be regarded as function that has certain output (a cognitive structure of some sort). One may specifically reformulate LT (O, D) by considering O as Humans (H) and D as Language (L). Thus one may investigate LT (H, L) as L is strikingly different from non-humans. However, LT shows certain discrepancies as there is no place for outside sociality in LT and its Influence to the biological body of H. Therefore we need to reformulate LT by putting Social Constraints S within this theory. Thus, natural organism H is to be reinterpreted as SH, which is a natural H bound by social constraints. This reformulation, thus, is now represented as LT (SH, L). The output then is not infinite sentences, but finite sentences with repetitions, clichés, stereotypes and phatic communes. This hypothesis (crippling of linguistic creativity) was approved by Noam Chomsky himself (personal correspondence, 1994).
Type: Individual Paper
Status: Completed
Publication Info: International Journal of Communications (1198), 8(1-2); pp. 93-103.
Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page